Right. But this confusion is because Edwards’ definition of simulation is bonkers and lumps conflicting priorities in the same category.
It defines the priorities at a level of abstraction -
exploration of system, in purist-for-system simulationism;
exploration of character, setting or situation, in high concept simulationism. The object of exploration is different, but the priority is exploration in both cases.
The same is true in the account of narrativism - the focus in all cases is on
addressing premise (that's Edward's phrase - "raising and resolving theme" might do just as well), but the premise can be located in character (eg Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel), in setting (eg 4e D&D as I experienced it, or Gloranthan HeroWars/Quest), or in situation (eg Prince Valiant, The Dying Earth, Cthulhu Dark as I've played it).
Likewise for gamism, where two dimensions of variation are identified - the degree of competition among players at the table (eg do they strive to earn the most XP, vs do they advance together as a group) and the degree of competition among the characters in the fiction. A well-oiled team of tournament dungeon-beaters - who enjoy beating other teams by skilled play of their PCs - is low competition in both dimensions, and its members may not enjoy playing a game in which players are pitted against one another in the fiction. They're still all gamist, though, in the sense that what they have in common is that
the players must show their mettle by playing
their PCs confronting a challenge in the fiction.
Pathfinder is gamist (because it cares a lot about challenge) and narrativist (because it cares a lot about telling a story). It does not do this the same way as, say, Apocalypse World, but the mountain of APs tell you that the game prioritizes story.
The focus of APs is telling a story. Setting building and challenge exploration are secondary to presenting that story.
From
here:
Long ago, I concluded that "story" as a role-playing term was standing in for several different processes and goals, some of which were incompatible. Here's the terms-breakdown I'll be using from now on.
All role-playing necessarily produces a sequence of imaginary events. Go ahead and role-play, and write down what happened to the characters, where they went, and what they did. I'll call that event-summary the "transcript." But some transcripts have, as Pooh might put it, a "little something," specifically a theme: a judgmental point, perceivable as a certain charge they generate for the listener or reader. If a transcript has one (or rather, if it does that), I'll call it a story.
Let's say that the following transcript, which also happens to be a story, arose from one or more sessions of role-playing.
Lord Gyrax rules over a realm in which a big dragon has begun to ravage the countryside. The lord prepares himself to deal with it, perhaps trying to settle some internal strife among his followers or allies. He also meets this beautiful, mysterious woman named Javenne who aids him at times, and they develop a romance. Then he learns that she and the dragon are one and the same, as she's been cursed to become a dragon periodically in a kind of Ladyhawke situation, and he must decide whether to kill her. Meanwhile, she struggles to control the curse, using her dragon-powers to quell an uprising in the realm led by a traitorous ally. Eventually he goes to the Underworld instead and confronts the god who cursed her, and trades his youth to the god to lift the curse. He returns, and the curse is detached from her, but still rampaging around as a dragon. So they slay the dragon together, and return as a couple, still united although he's now all old, to his home.
The real question: after reading the transcript and recognizing it as a story, what can be said about the Creative Agenda that was involved during the role-playing? The answer is, absolutely nothing. We don't know whether people played it Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist, or any combination of the three. A story can be produced through any Creative Agenda. The mere presence of story as the product of role-playing is not a GNS-based issue.
Just to add: in AP play, the theme and significant elements of its resolution are established
before play, by the author of the AP. To the extent that a group plays the AP faithfully, the theme is delivered to them. DL is the primordial example of this. (Notice how it has "a little something" in a way that G1 to G3, and even A1 to A4, do not.) In the jargon of The Forge, playing the DL modules as they are presented would be simulationist play that foregrounds character and situation. The players - and perhaps to some lesser extent the GM - work through in detail the thematic content that Hickman has authored, that is focused around these characters confronting these problems.
"Story Now" (narrativist) play - of the sort that Apocalypse World is aimed at - is completely different in how it approaches GM and player roles, prep, expectations about where
theme will come from, etc.
