Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5815574" data-attributes="member: 42582">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.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).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.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 <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/" target="_blank">Edwards' "Right to Dream" essay</a>: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.</blockquote>

Verification