You said it’s more typical of non-narrativist play for the characters to already be developed than it is of narrativist play. Since it is not typical of my own play agenda for characters to already be developed, it doesn’t seem like this description matches up with what I prioritize in play. So while I thought I “got” it, it seems I was mistaken, and now I’m back to where I was before, staring at a me-shaped hole in GNS and not wanting to go near it cause I know how that manga ends.
Having fully fleshed out character conceptions is almost never a hinderance in 5e. The odds of having that conception challenged are slim, so long as I don't put my conception in direct conflict with the GM's ideas (if the GM is gonna run a scoundrel campaign, and I bring in a goody-goody paladin, then we have issues that are likely to arise). Doing it doesn't harm anything, and actually helps if I really like play-acting because a fleshed out character helps with good characterizations. It also doesn't really help, because the GM is unlikely to be pulling in what you've done and making it the point of play. So, in that sense, it's a wash. But, it's also a place where players actually have free reign to create and author in 5e, so that's a distinct draw. Hence why I say it's very typically to have more developed characters in 5e than in narrativist games. This isn't normative, though, it's a tendency.
You can most certainly not develop anything to start, and wait to see what the GM provides, and then invent your character in response. This isn't engaging in narrativism, though. Play isn't about challenging who your character is; instead your character is reflecting the GM's offerings.
From my perspective 5e is so popular in part because it so thoroughly embraces GM storytelling and setting exploration. I consider it one of the most coherent designs the game has ever seen and is becoming more so with every new release. The only edition I would say is more coherent in terms of matching mechanics to intended play to module design is B/X. Then B/X is one of the most coherent game texts ever created. 5e is what 2e wanted to be but couldn't even come close to realizing.
So as well as "what would make sense for the character" we have expedience: meeting goals, getting out of a pickle; and also sociality/cooperation: best for the party.
This rests on certain premise: that there are goals to be met, that there are pickles to be got out of, that there is cooperation to be secured. Those are establishing parameters within which you're choosing.
Right. And, for me, the goals and pickles arise from mechanics that challenge the player, which I’m given to understand is what gamism is supposed to mean, hence my perception that it seems like the things that for me work together to create the experience I want are being presented in GNS as mutually exclusive. I’m ~apparently~ using gamist mechanics to serve an agenda of character exploration (which is simulationist I guess), and I’m doing it out of an interest in learning what the character would do when put into a tough spot, which at least sounds a lot like how people keep trying to describe Narrativism to me. Which should be the height of incoherence, but it sure feels coherent as F to me.
I think one way to see the contrast with narrativist play is to imagine dropping those parameters.
First worry: mightn't my PC be hosed if I don't consider goals and pickles?! Answer: narrativist RPGing needs to adopt a different approach to consequence narration from what might be considered "normal" or "mainstream", especially in D&D.
Second worry: won't the group bust up, or fail in its mission?! Answer: in "story now" RPGing generally there is no mission. Group cohesion can be useful in the sense that it allows framing scenes in which multiple PCs are present; and it might make it easier to interweave the fates of multiple PCs. But it doesn't have the same salience as in some more "mainstream" play.
(A caveat: I'm talking about character-focused "story now". There are other approaches, but they're more boutique, or at least less commonly discussed, even among the "story now" gang.)
Yeah, I think I do get it. The way I’m explaining it doesn’t seem to be sticking with the folks on the GNS side of this discussion, but then, the way they’re explaining simulationism isn’t sticking with me, so maybe there’s something to that. Almost like, I don’t know, trying to frame someone else’s values in terms of your own values makes it seem to them like you’re misunderstanding them or something
No, it has one in the opposite of the way a game like D&D does. The scenario is being invented on the fly, adapting to the needs of the characters instead of the other way around.
Here is the way one RPG designer/theorist set out the basic process for narrativist play. Hopefully you'll see that it fits with the direction of your thought. (I've sblocked it for length and non-jargonistic courtesy.)
1. One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments (defined in narrativistic theory as moments of in-character action that carry weight as commentary on the game’s premise) by introducing complications.
2. The rest of the players each have their own characters to play. They play their characters according to the advocacy role: the important part is that they naturally allow the character’s interests to come through based on what they imagine of the character’s nature and background. Then they let the other players know in certain terms what the character thinks and wants.
3. The actual procedure of play is very simple: once the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character (or wherever the premise comes from, depends on the game). The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end.
4. The player’s task in these games is simple advocacy, which is not difficult once you have a firm character. (Chargen is a key consideration in these games, compare them to see how different approaches work.) The GM might have more difficulty, as he needs to be able to reference the backstory, determine complications to introduce into the game, and figure out consequences. Much of the rules systems in these games address these challenges, and in addition the GM might have methodical tools outside the rules, such as pre-prepared relationship maps (helps with backstory), bangs (helps with provoking thematic choice) and pure experience (helps with determining consequences).
Framing scenes according to dramatic needs = your "scenario invented on the fly, adapted to the needs of the characters".
The advocacy role is letting go of those other parameters I mentioned in my post not far upthread: inhabiting the character and making a call for the character as the character. ("Inhabitation" is my own bit of jargon. I coined it to avoid a lot of the baggage that comes with "immersion". I intend it to have a more "active" and also much more emotional component than I normally find is conveyed by "immersion", which tends to be about "being in the imagined environment" rather than "feeling what the character feels".)
My further gloss on this would be that, because it's all imaginary, "advocating"/"inhabiting" is really a particular approach to authoring.
Consequences, in this framework, is closely related to "fallout" as used by @Campbell in one of these recent threads. It has to feed back into the dramatic needs of the PCs, or else the game loop will grind to a halt. The flip side is that if there are no more consequences, then the game is done and the characters have come to their well-deserved rest! (Which sometimes is, but my no means need be, their final rest!)
the NPCs attached to the character will tend to be fairly high in resolution with defined motivations, plans and personalities that the GM will consider when resolving actions. I have brief writeups for a few of the NPCs that the GM will flesh out. When providing these writeups I'm primarily trying to leave room for the GM to expand them and build scenarios around them.
For example this is what I provided the GM with for my character's lord:
From my perspective 5e is so popular in part because it so thoroughly embraces GM storytelling and setting exploration. I consider it one of the most coherent designs the game has ever seen and is becoming more so with every new release.
Having fully fleshed out character conceptions is almost never a hinderance in 5e. The odds of having that conception challenged are slim, so long as I don't put my conception in direct conflict with the GM's ideas (if the GM is gonna run a scoundrel campaign, and I bring in a goody-goody paladin, then we have issues that are likely to arise). Doing it doesn't harm anything, and actually helps if I really like play-acting because a fleshed out character helps with good characterizations. It also doesn't really help, because the GM is unlikely to be pulling in what you've done and making it the point of play. So, in that sense, it's a wash. But, it's also a place where players actually have free reign to create and author in 5e, so that's a distinct draw. Hence why I say it's very typically to have more developed characters in 5e than in narrativist games. This isn't normative, though, it's a tendency.
You can most certainly not develop anything to start, and wait to see what the GM provides, and then invent your character in response. This isn't engaging in narrativism, though. Play isn't about challenging who your character is; instead your character is reflecting the GM's offerings.
Who gives a toot about 5e? I’m trying to understand a baroque theoretical framework about what motivates people to play games, not discuss the finer points of one particular game system or another. Also, I don’t know if you’re doing this intentionally, but the way you talk about the game like the GM owns it is dripping with venom.
And, for me, the goals and pickles arise from mechanics that challenge the player, which I’m given to understand is what gamism is supposed to mean, hence my perception that it seems like the things that for me work together to create the experience I want are being presented in GNS as mutually exclusive. I’m ~apparently~ using gamist mechanics to serve an agenda of character exploration (which is simulationist I guess), and I’m doing it out of an interest in learning what the character would do when put into a tough spot, which at least sounds a lot like how people keep trying to describe Narrativism to me. Which should be the height of incoherence, but it sure feels coherent as F to me.
I think talking about "gamist" mechanics or "simulationist" mechanics isn't helpful for coming to Edwards' ideas, because he is using those labels to describe (what he calls) "creative agendas" - roughly, what's your central pleasure in RPGing? - rather than particular techniques. Of course we don't need to stick to his usage, but we'll then have to come up with our own meanings; and his conclusions based on his meanings may no longer follow.
Anyway, here is how Edwards contrasts gamist play with character-exploration-play. First, he looks at different ways that competition can figure in gamist play: between the PCs - think of, say, arena-battle oriented RPGing; and between the players - think of, say, dicing to get first choice of magic items in a classic D&D game. Then he describes a particular style of gamism in which competition is at a low level in both respects:
Quite a bit of D&D based on story-heavy published scenarios plays this way. It shares some features with "characters face problem" Simulationist play, with the addition of a performance metric of some kind.
In other words, the difference between low-competition gamism (like cooperative D&D party play - Edward's "story-heavy published scenarios" is contrasting with more classic dungeoncrawling) and character-exploration where it is problems/challenges/missions/pickles that bring out the characters, is is there are a performance metric?
If there is - if you're "accountable" for your performance (you can win or lose, you can earn more or fewer XP, you miss out on magic items if you let the team down, whatever it might be in a D&D context) - then that's gamism, because you have to own your win or loss. If not - if we're all just finding out how these characters respond to these challenges/probems/pickles - then its simulationist, by which Edwards means we're imagining because it's fun! But not because we're out to show that we can score better than someone else.
Here is the way one RPG designer/theorist set out the basic process for narrativist play. Hopefully you'll see that it fits with the direction of your thought. (I've sblocked it for length and non-jargonistic courtesy.)
1. One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments (defined in narrativistic theory as moments of in-character action that carry weight as commentary on the game’s premise) by introducing complications.
2. The rest of the players each have their own characters to play. They play their characters according to the advocacy role: the important part is that they naturally allow the character’s interests to come through based on what they imagine of the character’s nature and background. Then they let the other players know in certain terms what the character thinks and wants.
3. The actual procedure of play is very simple: once the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character (or wherever the premise comes from, depends on the game). The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end.
4. The player’s task in these games is simple advocacy, which is not difficult once you have a firm character. (Chargen is a key consideration in these games, compare them to see how different approaches work.) The GM might have more difficulty, as he needs to be able to reference the backstory, determine complications to introduce into the game, and figure out consequences. Much of the rules systems in these games address these challenges, and in addition the GM might have methodical tools outside the rules, such as pre-prepared relationship maps (helps with backstory), bangs (helps with provoking thematic choice) and pure experience (helps with determining consequences).
Framing scenes according to dramatic needs = your "scenario invented on the fly, adapted to the needs of the characters".
The advocacy role is letting go of those other parameters I mentioned in my post not far upthread: inhabiting the character and making a call for the character as the character. ("Inhabitation" is my own bit of jargon. I coined it to avoid a lot of the baggage that comes with "immersion". I intend it to have a more "active" and also much more emotional component than I normally find is conveyed by "immersion", which tends to be about "being in the imagined environment" rather than "feeling what the character feels".)
My further gloss on this would be that, because it's all imaginary, "advocating"/"inhabiting" is really a particular approach to authoring.
Consequences, in this framework, is closely related to "fallout" as used by @Campbell in one of these recent threads. It has to feed back into the dramatic needs of the PCs, or else the game loop will grind to a halt. The flip side is that if there are no more consequences, then the game is done and the characters have come to their well-deserved rest! (Which sometimes is, but my no means need be, their final rest!)
Yeah, that totally tracks with how I’m grokking the difference.
Now I feel like I have a pretty firm grasp on narrativism, but gamism and simulationism still don’t seem like they have coherent definitions to me (see what I did there? )
Who gives a toot about 5e? I’m trying to understand a baroque theoretical framework about what motivates people to play games, not discuss the finer points of one particular game system or another. Also, I don’t know if you’re doing this intentionally, but the way you talk about the game like the GM owns it is dripping with venom.
It's not at all! I totally embrace this when I run. It's the GM's job in these games! It's what they're supposed to be doing! And it's a very popular and enjoyable pasttime for lots of people when this is exactly what happens. If you feel putting it frankly is venomous, I'm not sure how to have anything resembling an honest discussion about how games work.
)
