Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist

[JonWake]

I find myself somewhat curious what you'd consider that the RTO of an infantry platoon is doing when he's capable of shooting, maneuvering, and communicating (sometimes using multiple radios and frequencies while doing so) all at the same time. This isn't meant as snarky or anything like that; I'm genuinely curious -especially since that was at one time my day-to-day job.



On the topic of GNS, I'm also genuinely curious how my playstyle would be defined. I think understanding myself would go a long way toward helping to identify my likes and dislikes and being able to relate those views to other members of the community. The main issue I have with being able to decide between N & S is that -from my understanding- N seems to value internal character motivation and the potential for character change; S seems to value consistency of the external game world and the character consistently acting within the expectations of the game and genre and character's role in the story. I find both equally important, and do not believe one is at odds with the other. I value balance in a lot of the areas where N & S are at odds and take opposing positions.

With thousands of hours of training, many tasks become unconscious. And even then, performance, as a rule, falls when multitasking. There's been a few papers published about multitasking, and a few about elite athletes. While not about soldiers, it's pretty close.

And narrativism isn't just about character motivations, it's more about themes in the lit 101 sense. So in Game of Thrones Eddard Stark's character motivation would be something like: protect my children and my honor, but a player who was into Narrativism might say "There's no room for honor in the game of thrones."

One's personal, the other is about the work as a whole. Does that make sense?

 

[Argyle King]

And narrativism isn't just about character motivations, it's more about themes in the lit 101 sense. So in Game of Thrones Eddard Stark's character motivation would be something like: protect my children and my honor, but a player who was into Narrativism might say "There's no room for honor in the game of thrones."

One's personal, the other is about the work as a whole. Does that make sense?

Yes and no; my apologies for being a little dense here, but I've often struggled with how the theory is presented. It makes sense in that my initial impression was that the difference between Narrativism and Simulationism was one of macro scale versus micro scale; looking at the whole picture or looking at just one part; internal motivation versus external motivation. Where it doesn't make sense is that I don't feel looking at one makes it impossible to see the other; likewise, I feel both are equally important.

I would say that perhaps where I'm sitting at the table changes which of the two I hold (slightly) closer though. If I'm a player, I like getting into character and seeing things through the eyes of my character. I like exploring the personality and motivations of that character. Likewise, I enjoy observing the story and narrative the other players create with their characters. If I'm the GM, I'm more concerned with the world as a whole -when looking at everything all at once- seems to make sense; that is something which some of the articles I've read say is a Simulationist trait.

I never stop seeing the other scale though; in games where the world itself (as a whole) doesn't make sense, I can have a lot of trouble putting myself into the perspective of the character and/or enjoying the narrative of my character and the other characters. The inconsistency of the world has the potential to jar me out of it. While I do enjoy D&D, this is one area where I sometimes find myself at odds with the current edition*.

When GMing, I suppose it's most accurate to say I'm two separate entities which I keep separated. There is the GM who I view as the arbiter of the game, it's rules, and the (for a lack of better words) physics of the world. That is a mostly out-of-game entity. The other entity is whomever I happen to be when I'm playing the part of a NPC or thinking for a group of monsters; I don't control them using knowledge they would not have. They act on what they do (or do not) know, their natures, motivations, and ambitions -just like I'd have my own character do if I were a player.

Occasionally I've even had people who were not involved in the game (sometimes even people who weren't even gamers) play the part of a NPC. I did so because -as GM- part of my fun is not knowing what will happen. I may have knowledge of things the players don't, but that does not mean there is a preset idea of how the moving pieces will interact. On those occasions, it's been interesting to give somebody else's mind a chance to act upon the story. It was fun to sit back and enjoy how the narrative and the story unfolded as an observer who had no knowledge of what would happen.

*For what it's worth, I also currently feel the same when I look back at past 3rd Edition campaigns. However, I didn't see it as much while playing in those campaigns because I barely knew anything beyond how D&D 3rd Edition handled playing a rpg. Still, it would sometimes bug me that the level X king and his level X town guards would need the PCs of level X-5 to deal with some monsters. If I thought about it too much, it made it difficult for me to enjoy the story.

 

[Kynn]

Oh yeah OK. I know what you mean by light gamism. I still want to call it drifting because it seems like it should interact with the XP system (as reward), but it doesn't. I'm also struggling to picture an entire D&D campaign where that literally is the dominant thing. Unless the convention for "light" narrativism/gamism is really like a "one drop" rule-- one drop of metagame agenda and you're out of sim.

There's minor support for the "light gamism" talked about in some of the spin-off organized play programs, such as Lair Assault and D&D Encounters.

 

[JonWake]

Yes and no; my apologies for being a little dense here, but I've often struggled with how the theory is presented. It makes sense in that my initial impression was that the difference between Narrativism and Simulationism was one of macro scale versus micro scale; looking at the whole picture or looking at just one part; internal motivation versus external motivation. Where it doesn't make sense is that I don't feel looking at one makes it impossible to see the other; likewise, I feel both are equally important.

Okay, so let me put it this way: Narrativism and Simulationism (or Gamism or what have you) will live quite happily together until the needs of the theme conflict with the needs of the character.

So for instance look at Vampire. A GM says to the players, "This is a game about your slow descent into depravity, and how you find excuses and distractions to keep going on."

The Narrativist thinks, "Okay, my character is going to be about the corrupting nature of power. To facilitate this, I'll be asking the question: can you ever use power without abusing it at some point?"
The GM realizes that this means he'll find way to make the player make hard choices where to do good he must harm others. Okay, they're on the same boat. Prepare the angst.

Simulation player says, "Okay, I wonder what it's like to be a vampire trapped in a byzantine power structure. I suppose I'd be somewhat accustomed to that world, but it would be shocking to see how far these bloodsuckers would go."

The Gamist player says, "Gee, it looks like I'm going to have to balance my dwindling Humanity resource with climbing the political ladder. I figure if I get other people to do my dirty work, I won't lose Humanity that fast."

The thing is, I just described the same character from the perspective of three different agendas. And honestly, most players will switch between the three stances while favoring one or two.

So here is why GNS works for what it does: there comes a point in the game where the GM and the other players have put forth a scenario where our imaginary Trinity player has to pick one agenda.

Lets say that another player has committed some horrible act and needs our player to cover it up. This is a pivotal moment, as there is little benefit to the main character and much risk. However, the players get along in character quite well.

So the Sim player says, "My character will help cover up the crime, hoping that it doesn't come around to bite me in the ass."

Nar player: "This is the moment where I show just how corrupt this system is. I'll extort influence from my character's friend and never cover the crime up, letting him think I have."

Gam player: "What is the best way to get my buddy out of trouble and keep me out of the limelight as well? "*proceeds to hatch plot about pinning it on a rival*.

See how at that moment of decision, any stance can keep with the milieu, but none of them can coexist with the same person and the same choice?

 

[Argyle King]

That helped me to further realize I don't identify with the Gamist mindset. (I think so anyway; the beginning didn't sound like how I'd view it, but the end part potentially is.)

However, I can honestly see myself asking either of the questions for the other two; quite possibly considering both in my head at the same time. In the situation you presented about covering up the crime, which way I'd look at it would heavily depend upon the character I'm playing.

The funny thing is that I once played a D&D character who would have "covered up the crime," but done so in a way that -in the event it did get discovered- somebody else would take the fall for it. The same character BSed his way into an authority position in a kingdom of the game I was playing in. There were a lot of situations in which he committed crimes, but made no effort to cover them up, yet he didn't openly profess to having done them either. Instead, I allowed other players and NPCs to draw their own conclusions and played both ends against the middle so as to distract themselves from my character not being a rightful ruler. By your definitions and how you presented them, that sounds like the viewpoint of Gamism, but I feel it was a product of the mind of the character; not a motivation for me as a player.

The character was a selfish (actually stopping once in the middle of a battle to get loot) and conniving jerk with a huge ego. To give an example, I'll say that he was also a Charisma based Warlord, and his version of 'inspiring word' was to verbally berate the party fighter by saying things like "that's the worst fake death cough I've ever heard; get back up and do something." My point being -as already said- that all three of the ways of handling the crime scenario would be valid to me depending on the personality of the character I'm playing.

 

[pemerton]

On the topic of GNS, I'm also genuinely curious how my playstyle would be defined.

<snip>

The main issue I have with being able to decide between N & S is that -from my understanding- N seems to value internal character motivation and the potential for character change; S seems to value consistency of the external game world and the character consistently acting within the expectations of the game and genre and character's role in the story.

YIt makes sense in that my initial impression was that the difference between Narrativism and Simulationism was one of macro scale versus micro scale; looking at the whole picture or looking at just one part; internal motivation versus external motivation. Where it doesn't make sense is that I don't feel looking at one makes it impossible to see the other; likewise, I feel both are equally important.

Johnny3D3D, while I've read quite a few of your posts on these boards, I don't know that I've got a very good sense of your gaming experience and tastes, which means that what I say in this post mightn't make much sense to you.

Sim is about inhabiting the game's fiction as if it were real. "The right to dream".

Narrativism is about generating a fiction that is worthwhile. "Story now".

The main technique to get story-oriented sim (as opposed to the process/system oriented sim of a game like Traveller or Rolemaster) is for the GM to exercise a very firm hand in directing play. The role of the players is mostly to go along with it, contributing characerisation by playing their PCs. That might sound really railroady, but in a game like Call of Cthulhu it can be pretty fun - as the GM explains to you how your PC is degenarting into insanity, you get to play the details of it.

The main technique in narrativism is for the players to build a lot of potential conflict into their PCs (stuff that is thematically singificnat but unresolved). The GM's job is to frame encounters so that they have story elements that engage those conficts (GM to player of paladin: "You see the vampire you've been hunting - it's your long-lost brother!" - and now the player has to choose how his/her PC responds).

If you see the challenge in playing a paladin as being one of sticking to your code - and the GM's job is to help remind the player to keep in character - then (everything else being equal) you're playing sim.

If you see the point of playing your paladin as being to "say" something (we won't know what, exactly, until the game is played - if we knew in advance then it wouldn't be "story now") about the challenges, the importance, the limits, of living by a code - then (everything ese being equal) you're playing narrativist.

If, as a GM, the player who decides to have his/her PC join the other side, and stand by while the cultists sacrifice another PC to dark gods, is wrecking the story, that's sim. If, as a GM, this is the most dramatic moment of play so far, that's narrativist. (There is an interplayer issue here - is one of the players happy to have his/he PC sacrificed? - but that's a separate issue from the one of who has control over the plot, players or GM.)

All the above is rough and ready, and is presented from one point of view (ie mine) but maybe might get some of the key ideas across.

 

[Argyle King]

Johnny3D3D, while I've read quite a few of your posts on these boards, I don't know that I've got a very good sense of your gaming experience and tastes, which means that what I say in this post mightn't make much sense to you.

Sim is about inhabiting the game's fiction as if it were real. "The right to dream".

Narrativism is about generating a fiction that is worthwhile. "Story now".



All the above is rough and ready, and is presented from one point of view (ie mine) but maybe might get some of the key ideas across.

I get the idea, and that's how I understand the terms from what I've read. All I can really say is that I value both equally.

I know this is a D&D related thread, but I suppose the best example for me to give is to explain why I enjoy GURPS as one of the games I play.

As far as Sim goes, the 'physics engine' of the game is capable of providing an experience for me which feels real, and that helps me to experience the game's fiction as if it were real.

On the Nar front, I like that I can use things such as allies, patrons, enemies, social stigmas, and various other advatages/disadvantages to build plot hooks into my character.

From a DM's perspective, I like those things even more for the same reasons. I like to world build, and I enjoy building worlds which feel real -even in spite of elements such as dragons, orcs, and etc. I also like that characters can have built in reasons to care about the world which are a little more specific than alignment.

 

[Hassassin]

All the above is rough and ready, and is presented from one point of view (ie mine) but maybe might get some of the key ideas across.

None of the examples you mention are in any conflict with any rules, so I'm not sure it's productive to bicker about your definitions...

That said, I don't think the firmness of the DM's hand has anything to do with the distinction. You can simulate a movie and have a somewhat railroaded plot, or you can simulate the world and have essentially just a sandbox. Assuming the agenda is to be the character interacting with the environment, both would fall under simulation, as I understand.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I find myself somewhat curious what you'd consider that the RTO of an infantry platoon is doing when he's capable of shooting, maneuvering, and communicating (sometimes using multiple radios and frequencies while doing so) all at the same time. This isn't meant as snarky or anything like that; I'm genuinely curious -especially since that was at one time my day-to-day job.

Task switching is a learned skill, and switching between things you know well is also a learned skill. That is, you can learn to get better at task switching under pressure in general, and you can also learn how to ramp up and ramp down focus on a particular skill. Or rather, you can with many things. Some things are inherently more difficult than others to switch in and out of. In fact, one of the reasons that the RTO can do that is because the army has studied how to set up the processes to make that kind of task switch efficient. Compare to how difficult it was for a WWII era radio man to handle the radio while doing something else.

If this sounds confusing in the scheme of GNS, keep in mind that I'm both supporting parts of GNS while disagreeing with other parts--namely, that I think it is technically correct as far as it goes, but the dogma of the "no overlap in creative agendas at any one time" is holding it back from exploring some of the useful, practical avenues opened up by its insights.

 

[LostSoul]

What should we call XP systems where XP doesn't just arrive on a treadmill, but the players feel a good amount of investment and autonomy in how quickly their characters advance?

i.e. XP isn't rewarding any particular behavior ("show up, do encounters"); it's rewarding the accomplishment of a goal ("get the treasure without dying"). With it being the player's job to figure out which behavior best accomplishes the goal.

I'd call those reward systems (or cycles) as well. It's the same basic premise: do what you find fun (get the treasure without dying), get XP, level up, go out and do more of what you find fun.

I think the way that the setting changes (that is, character + situation) based on the reward system is one of the most important parts of the game. It's not enough that you get XP, or even that you level up; the changes made to your character need to be reflected in what you do when you play.

I've been playing the original version of X-COM lately, and this is how that game does it: the "fun stuff" is the combat against the alien menace. When you do that, two things change: your soldiers get better (or die trying) and you gain access to alien tech. Better soldiers + better alien tech means that you can do things you couldn't before: you can fly around the battlefield, use mind-control, defeat more dangerous aliens, etc. This makes the "fun stuff" even more fun.

Of course, since it's a challenging game, you need to get to that fun stuff sooner rather than later, since the aliens will eventually win. In response to the fun stuff, you get things like alien bases (more fun), alien attacks on your bases (fun stuff), and eventually going to Mars (fun).

(It occurs to me that this is similar to the reward system for WotC-D&D, except for the "eventually the aliens win" part.)

In my 4E hack this is what I tried to do: Get the players to set goals for themselves, see if they can achieve those goals, and how the setting changes in response.

This is how it works: PCs get XP for accomplishing goals. Accomplishing goals requires adventure. Adventure means that the PCs will gain GP, but lose other resources. In order to replenish those resources, the PCs have to head back to town for a day and spend GP. How they interact with the town while replenishing lost resources changes how the town reacts to the PCs.

This leads to a bigger cycle: When the PCs get enough XP to level up, they have to go back to town to "train". This requires more GP and more time. GP spent in town will increase the size of the town, kind of like XP for towns. Bigger towns have more resources that the PCs can access (as long as they aren't hated and have some influence). Bigger towns also require more connections to other parts of the map.

While all this is going on, NPC organizations with goals of their own are growing and expanding. These organizations are the biggest threat to the PCs, as their growth will make it harder for PCs to achieve their goals.

In other words: Fun stuff = player-driven adventures. Do fun stuff, characters change + situation changes = setting changes. Choices made on player-driven adventures - fun stuff - carry more and more weight; the changes made to the setting are bigger.