Since you kept referring to Eero Tuovinen's Standard Narrativistic Model, that's what I searched. His article was not talking about railroading. I'll certainly be happy to read the Forge article.
So the Forge stuff is initially pretty interesting. But then it's kind of reiterating a sort of problem I'm seeing in the threads altogether. We (and I'll include myself in "we" although it's not really my intent) seem to get stuck in our own little world of RPGs instead of looking at them as a whole.
Yes, the entire group of articles is supposed to be about RPGs as a whole, but then in each subsection of his GNS theory, he basically says every play style is incompatible with the rest. I don't think that's true.
I would place myself largely in the simulationst description he provides. But, I disagree that it's not compatible with a narrative approach, as least as he's defining it.
I don't see anything resembling Eero's model. But he states that what differentiates the narrative model from simulations is "premise."
In the section on "pastiche" he has the following statement:
"Jesse: Now we come to a point of personal confusion. Pastiche. I still don't get it, in any medium. If the Situation involves "...class conflict, people being trapped by their social position, repressed romance..." and the GM lets the players resolve it anyway they like, then how is that not Narrativist?
Me: It is Narrativist. What you're describing is not pastiche, or more clearly, it typically does not produce pastiche. The key is the "resolve it any way they like" part."
I don't know if this is what we do, but here's the sort of advice that's in my (modified) PHB:
Wealth
Look around your home. Think about your parents or friend’s homes. Most people’s wealth is tied up in material things. Now imagine you live in a fantasy/pseudo-medieval world with no banks. No stock market or investments.
Again, most of your wealth is tied up in material things. But they are also tied up in specific material things. What you choose to spend your money on is different than your parents, friends, and other acquaintances. What we spend our money on is actually a big part of who we are. We value it, protect it, want to increase it.
Wealth appears in D&D in the same ways. Yes, creatures such as dragons hoard coins, but many treasures are the mundane items, often decorated, or imported from far-away lands, deeds for property, art, furniture, and such. Bartering is also a common method of trade.
Adventuring Day
People are creatures of habit. A typical adventuring day will start with awakening and mornfeast at dawn, a slake at the end of harbright, a break for highsunfeast (also to rest horses or animals, a highthar at tharsun, and evenfeast near the end of eventide. Most will sleep from shortly after nightfall until godswake.
When traveling, animals are generally expected to work from sunrise to sunset, or thereabouts, with a rest at highsun, meaning that they are relieved of their burdens, fed and watered. Regular breaks are given throughout the day to avoid overexerting them.
Long Rest
In addition to resting about every 4 hours, it’s most common for people to stop a bit longer, perhaps an hour for lunch, and sometime before twilight to set up camp, prepare dinner, and settle down for the night, unless there’s a compelling reason not to.
Stopping for the night generally includes such things as maintaining equipment, and minor repairs on armor, sharpening weapons, sparring and practicing, learning new skills, storytelling and songs, food and drink, and preparing sleeping accommodations. Animals are relieved of their burdens, fed and watered, and often groomed.
Storytelling and songs are a long-held tradition by travelers, as they are the primary source of news between towns and cities. Although a fire and such boisterous noise might seem to be a danger in the wild, it’s helpful to keep most of the wildlife away, and a good watch is essential either way.
I don't have that much descriptive text in it, most of it is updated rules and such. I won't pretend it's great writing, but it's there to help set the stage and expectation that their characters are people.
When helping to develop their characters and backstories (which is now a table process - we roll characters at the table, and anybody can help give input and such into the initial creation), I, and we, are looking for ways to instill personality. What do they like, dislike, etc. Yes, but also what really drives them? What did they want to be when they grow up? Where do they stand on the local politics? How religious are they (bearing in mind it's a fairly religious world)? We're looking to start defining real principles - what would they never do? What would they almost never do, and what would it take to cross that line? What would they kill for? What would they die for?
We know from experience that regardless of what we cover at this point, it will change over the course of the campaign, especially the first few sessions as they start to flesh out their personality and character. We're OK with that. What's on the paper isn't as important as what happens in the campaign (the same as what might be in the DM notes). As things continue, the characters become more concrete. Outside of the group creation, each player and I will expand on the known backstory as we wish before, and usually we're going back and forth on this during the first couple of weeks.
I want them to look at the game from the character's perspective, not - oh, I'm out of spells, time for a long rest. My rules changes include things like separating recovery of abilities from rests to support the fiction and the world better. They should have a good idea of what motivates their character, although they aren't required to share that with the rest of the group at that time. It can be revealed during the course of the game if they wish.
The world I present is a combination of the setting, the people, news, rumors and gossip that the PCs know, although that doesn't preclude them from knowing more later, and things that occur over time. Some I predetermine, at least in very rough outline, but a lot during the course of play. Nothing is really finalized until it comes out in play.
I listen to the players, and know their backstories, and over time some of the events and encounters might relate directly to those motivations, desires, fears, whatever. Of course, if they choose to pursue some of their motivations directly, then a lot more of what's going on relates directly to that.
Much of the drama comes from fairly standard moral dilemmas. Although the general outlook in the world is more permissive, or perhaps more accepting of death and killing, it is still something that I point out from the beginning is something that usually gives people pause. Particularly their first killing. On the other hand, hunting, killing animals like wolves and predators, along with monsters (including orcs, etc.) is not something that is generally questioned at all. On the other hand, during the course of adventuring, they very well may come across individuals or creatures (like the owlbear) that cause them to question that. They wouldn't question an owlbear that's a threat to a village necessarily, but one that is far from civilization they see as no longer a monster or threat.
So as far as I can tell, it's a hybrid of the Forge theories, and as I pointed out in my assessment of Eero's model that's it's pretty close to what he describes, with a few differences. And of those differences, some of them sometimes apply, such as when I introduce scenes that do relate to the characters more directly, although not normally to a specific goal or story "theme."
In other words, the story or the game doesn't have a "premise" as defined by Ron Edwards. But each character has premises, and those are addressed within the game, usually in the course of the player playing the character, but also at times directly by the story.
I don't specifically focus on challenging those premises, although I don't necessarily avoid it either. But I also don't build encounters like so many seem to describe in their D&D games either. I don't build things to balance for character composition or level. I don't design "interesting" combats encounters, nor do I build "non-combat" encounters. They have encounters, scenes, scenarios, with monsters and other creatures, NPCs, locations, etc. Sometimes there's an intention behind the design - bandits are robbing travelers, for example. Sometimes it's more specific, a group of Zhentarim are hunting for the PCs to steal the sword they are bragging about. Sometimes it's more directly connected to the PCs, a longtime rival has framed one of the PCs for a crime. Often it's just an encounter. Randomly determined, prepared, whatever.
Our focus is on the story. The story of the characters. The players have multiple characters, so it's also the story of a village to some degree, although some groups travel far, never to return. Sometimes it's a bigger story arc, a somewhat powerful villain, a dragon, a lich, or some other larger enemy that threatens a family, a village, or a region. It's about the growth of those characters. The lives of those characters. Past characters remain in the campaign, marry, have kids, grandkids (sometimes they are the living or dead ancestors of new characters), they grow old.
But the thrust and direction of the story is up to the players. They decide how they fit into the world and how they react to it. Of the many characters, some become great heroes, some villains, some just folks that have a few adventures and settle down.
Is this what he means when he says "The key is the "resolve it any way they like" part"?
Are we simulationists? Narrativists? I've had a few power-gamers, rules-lawyers and munchkinizers over the years too. Some left, others shifted from trying to maximize/break the rules to finding clever solutions to the challenges that the characters meet. Are they gamists? What's our campaign?
I find that as I look back at my games, some things I don't think I do too much (hand over backstory/setting) I probably do more than I think. Other things I think I do all the time, I don't.
All of this interesting to think about, debate and discuss, because I find a little something to bring back to my game and make it better. Obviously that doesn't mean I'll agree with everything at the same time. But as I think I've said before, it's often as important to figure out what you don't want, as it is to figure out what you do.
His concept of "bangs" perhaps is one that I can look at leveraging more specifically. I like things to have dynamics, so it's not something I'd like to use every encounter or scene, and maybe not every session. The concept is not new obviously, and I've heard other terms. And despite the fact that I'm not sure I like the terminology, I understand why he used it and what he's getting at.
The thing I probably liked the most in his essays, though, was his concept that RPGs are about exploration. Perhaps that's the key - sometimes we're simply exploring the setting, exploring the place the PCs have within it. And sometimes we're exploring the specific story of one or more PCs. So perhaps we primarily shift between simulation and narratavism? That a game doesn't have to be one or the other at all times?
