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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7101553" data-attributes="member: 6778044">OK, so here's a new question, and I've been reading through the various forum posts on the Forge but I'm not satisfied with the answers.Ron's assertion is that Narrativism and Simulationalism can't be part of the same game. The discussion that I'm seeing on Forge implies that Narrativism (<a href="http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=1072.0" target="_blank">http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=1072.0</a>) really seems to be arguing about shared-authoring - and while it's not spelled out there, they seem to be objecting to what Eero did - shared authoring of backstory and setting during the game. The implication being it's an inherent part of narrativism.Does narrativism require (extensive) shared-authoring of backstory and setting during the game? Eero certainly seems to argue against that very thing. If that's the case, why would a simulationist approach be incompatible with a narrativist approach? Because it seems to be that's what my game tends to be, a combination of the two. The only place I can see that is drastically different is that I don't regularly challenge the character's motivations or premise during conflict resolution. But is it really necessary for every die roll, every scene or every conflict to relate directly to the motivations and premise of the characters? At the very least, if there are multiple characters, it's probably very difficult for every conflict/scene to relate directly to the motivations of all of them.If narrativism is concerned with the quality of the story, that it relate to the character's motives, etc. why does every scene, or even every action have to relate to that? Isn't that just a preference of story style rather than content? What if every session does? Is that enough? Does that make it a hybrid?On the other hand, in order for actions, events, etc. to relate to the character's motives, then the DM has to introduce story elements. I do, and I think they should, but there are some simulationist sandbox purists that feel that any DM input in regards to setting and story once the game has begun to be off-limits and infringing on player/character agency. If it's not in place on the map before the session, or determined randomly, it's not acceptable. I won't get into the paradox that the DM can still exert as much control as they'd like via preparation (or lack of preparation) of material. I disagree with this anyway, but it highlights once again how any time that the DM takes control of the story via framing, preparation, or spur of the moment whim, that it takes away agency from the players, if for a brief moment. Again, I agree this is true, but I don't agree it's a bad thing.It seems to me that there is a pretty wide middle ground where simulationists can utilize tools and techniques of narrativism to provide the quality of story that narrativism is supposed to provide. And likewise, a narrative game can utilize rules that maintain the integrity and consistency of the setting while still focusing heavily on the characters and their motivations. That's certainly where I like to live. Perhaps my real objection to narrative rules is that they are hyper-focused on ensuring that every moment relate to the motivations and premise of the characters, instead of allowing a bit of a wider view of the action?</blockquote>

Verification