Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist

[pemerton]

None of the examples you mention are in any conflict with any rules

I'm not sure that this is true. For example, you can't run a narrativist game while using AD&D mechanical alignment, because those rules give the GM the authority to hose players' PCs for the choices that they make.

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.

Yes. I didn't mention sandboxing because Johnny3D3D didn't bring it up in the posts I was responding to. The discussion seemed to be about who determines story/thematic meaning.

I think a lot of sandboxes are designed to support gamist play - the players prove their ability by having their PCs prosper in the sandbox - but some are probably aimed at pure exploration of setting and system. And you could run a narrativist sandbox too, I think, although there might be potential problems in players both posing the challenge (by choosing what it is that their PCs confront) and resolving it. The most standard narrativism relies upon the GM to frame the PCs into conflicts, so that players don't have to choose between keeping their PCs safe, or putting them at risk (a type of conflict of interest that can blunt the drama).

From a DM's perspective <snip> I like to world build, and I enjoy building worlds which feel real -even in spite of elements such as dragons, orcs, and etc.

This strike me as orthogonal to the sim/narrativism question.

There is no per se tension between a rich backstory and narrativist play - provided that the players are allowed to do stuff with that backstory. If the GM is controlling all the revelations and developments, that suggests a lack of player protagonism, and therefore sim rather than narrativism.

All I can really say is that I value both equally.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

I also like that characters can have built in reasons to care about the world which are a little more specific than alignment.

That sounds a bit like the way in which I used to run Rolemaster - the "physics engine" mechanics and the rich PC builds provide the "arena" and context for the players to do their thing.

Here are some passage from Edwards' "Right to Dream" essay:

Champions, especially second and third editions, presented a fascinating case of . . . a game design that could functionally Drift in any of the three directions (in all cases requiring severe rules-interpretation and "fixing"). Thus Champions play could be observed in all three modes, all of which were emphatically incompatible and socially segregated. Champions fourth edition represents a "takeover," if you will, by the Simulationist interpretatation, mainly due to the editor of the line at the time. . .

In Simulationist play, morality cannot be imposed by the player or, except as the representative of the imagined world, by the GM. Theme is already part of the cosmos; it's not produced by metagame decisions. . .

The point is that one can care about and enjoy complex issues, changing protagonists, and themes in both sorts of play, Narrativism and Simulationism. The difference lies in the point and contributions of literal instances of play; its operation and social feedback. . .

Consider the behavioral parameters of a samurai player-character in Sorcerer and in GURPS. On paper the sheets look pretty similar: bushido all over the place, honorable, blah blah. But what does this mean in terms of player decisions and events during play? I suggest that in Sorcerer (Narrativist), the expectation is that the character will encounter functional limits of his or her behavioral profile, and eventually, will necessarily break one or more of the formal tenets as an expression of who he or she "is," or suffer for failing to do so. No one knows how, or which one, or in relation to which other characters; that's what play is for. I suggest that in GURPS (Simulationist), the expectation is that the behavioral profile sets the parameters within which the character reliably acts, especially in the crunch - in other words, it formalizes the role the character will play in the upcoming events. Breaking that role in a Sorcerer-esque fashion would, in this case, constitute something very like a breach of contract.​

Edwards is assuming, here, that the GURPS will be played in a simulationist fashion. But as per his comments about Champions, GURPS can be drifted in a narrativist direction, in which case the behavioural stuff might be there to do the same work as in Sorcerer.

Imagine a Star Wars game. Do the rules and procedures of play assume that from fear comes hate, and have a series of mechanics for "dark side" points (cf the honour rules in games like Bushido or AD&D Oriental Adventure)? Then we're probably talking sim - the morality is "built in", and the players explore it.

But imagine a different Star Wars game - the GM sets up situations in which there might be fear, and fear might lead to hate, and by playing the game the table collectively find out what happens - then we're probably talking narrativism.

Bottom line, for me: does the GM/system drive the game/story, by imposing the "correct" answers to moral dilemmas, thematic issues, questions of loyalty, etc? Then sim. Do the players determine these answers, in and by playing, and the GM follows their lead, keeping piling on the pressure? Then narrativism.

 

[Argyle King]

Again, I'd have to say both. I suppose the best way to describe my view is that the story of the game is a collaboration between the Gm and the Players. The GM might very well be the person who builds the world and places things where they are, but that doesn't mean that the GM as an out-of-game entity decides what the pieces of the world do once the game is set in motion. Those pieces have their own motivations; those motivations might interact with the players or they might not.

The game world (and I suppose by extention the GM) might determine that certain paths of action are more correct than others in a situation. Say the PCs want to get an audience with the king. Hacking through the king's guards and taking him hostage is an option, but -under typical circumstances- that's probably a poor way to handle it. As GM, I would never tell players that is the wrong way to handle it; I'd simply present the world in such a way that seems real and consistent enough that players -when looking through the eyes of their players- they will (ideally) be capable of making a decision which seems best suited to them and the outlook of their character.

I'm having difficulty expressing what I'm trying to say...


"There is no per se tension between a rich backstory and narrativist play - provided that the players are allowed to do stuff with that backstory. If the GM is controlling all the revelations and developments, that suggests a lack of player protagonism, and therefore sim rather than narrativism."

In response to that, I'd have to say it's a little of both. The game world does have things going on independent of the players. Simultaneously, the players are also allowed to explore things on their own and choose what they do or don't interact with. Choose is a poor word though; since the world (and the pieces/characters in it) has its own motivations, those motivations may at times cross paths with a PC simply due to how things play out and organically grow from the seeds planted in the game. The players are free to make their own story, but that story may (or may not) cross paths with or come into conflict with a separate but simultaneously existing story generated by a game world event and/or NPC.

I'm not sure if this analogy helps, but I suppose I view it like trying to sew a garment. As the GM, I choose some of the styles and colors of material to include by placing those elements in the game world. The players also have styles and colors they each choose by virtue of making a character (and possibly a background.) How those threads end up weaving together is something I prefer to leave up to natural progression of story, stories, and the game world. I might end up with a pair of pants; I might end up with a hat; I might end up with a blanket, but I don't know which it will be ahead of time.

 

[pemerton]

I suppose the best way to describe my view is that the story of the game is a collaboration between the Gm and the Players. The GM might very well be the person who builds the world and places things where they are, but that doesn't mean that the GM as an out-of-game entity decides what the pieces of the world do once the game is set in motion. Those pieces have their own motivations; those motivations might interact with the players or they might not.

The game world (and I suppose by extention the GM) might determine that certain paths of action are more correct than others in a situation. Say the PCs want to get an audience with the king. Hacking through the king's guards and taking him hostage is an option, but -under typical circumstances- that's probably a poor way to handle it. As GM, I would never tell players that is the wrong way to handle it; I'd simply present the world in such a way that seems real and consistent enough that players -when looking through the eyes of their players- they will (ideally) be capable of making a decision which seems best suited to them and the outlook of their character.

<snip>

The game world does have things going on independent of the players. Simultaneously, the players are also allowed to explore things on their own and choose what they do or don't interact with. Choose is a poor word though; since the world (and the pieces/characters in it) has its own motivations, those motivations may at times cross paths with a PC simply due to how things play out and organically grow from the seeds planted in the game. The players are free to make their own story, but that story may (or may not) cross paths with or come into conflict with a separate but simultaneously existing story generated by a game world event and/or NPC.

To me, that sounds like a fairly strong sim inclination, but of course these things are very hard to judge in the abstract.

And just to explain - what I'm picking up on is things like "the world having things going on independent of the players", "organically growing from the seeds planted in the game", "best suited . . . to the outlook of their character", "those motivations might interact with the players or they might not".

With nothing else to go on, I read these phrases and get a vibe of a setting and of PCs who are quite richly defined (and using GURPS will help with this, I imagine), and in play both the GM and the players get to find out how they all interact and unfold.

Some further D&D-related speculation: I would expect some of the 4e mechanics to grate with you, because they don't work as a "physics-engine". I would also expect some of the more gonzo aspects of 3E - eg jumping over cliffs and surviving because full hp is greater than the maximum of 20d6 - to grate for similar reasons.

 

[Mokona]

Bump...

Take all four polls:

Butt-Kicker-Casual Gamer-Method Actor-Power Gamer-Specialist-Storyteller-Tactician poll
Timmy-Johnny-Spike-Vorthos poll
Character Actor-Power Gamer-Storyteller-Thinker poll
Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist poll (above)