To be fair there are probably alot of simulation elements in those games. I don’t dispute that. What I say is that if this kind of runes-like procedure is common then that part devalues the rest of the simulative elements. It’s basically the elephant in the room at that point. If it’s not common I’m probably fine if something like that rarely happens, but to my understanding it’s fundamental to narrativism, which is where I see the conflict with sim as a whole.
As I posted not very far upthread:
You (
@Enrahim) talk about "how a simulation should behave". Oxford Languages, via Google, gives me:
simulation = imitation of a situation or process.
"simulation of blood flowing through arteries and veins"
The situation or process in this episode of play is
a character who stands out for being a Solitary Traveller and a Cunning Expert (given that these descriptors are there on the PC sheet) comes upon Strange Runes while Lost in a Dungeon, and tries to read them based on a conjecture that they might reveal a way out.
And that is what has been imitated, in building the pool of dice with the intention of using a successful effect die to reduce or eliminate the complication.
If someone wants to insist that, because the player is not reasoning and discovering there is no
simulation of the character reasoning and discovering, then they are using the word "simulation" in some non-standard sense that needs explanation. I don't see how the role of the GM in authoring backstory is not going to be part of that explanation.
You only get a "conflict with sim" if you insist that the player is not allowed to introduce or prompt, but rather must only discover (from the GM) backstory elements.
Now I would ask the resident experts on narrativism if any such narrativist game that doesn’t do this or commonly do this exists, but given their take that there is no difference with runes-like examples and d&d then they aren’t really in a position to answer such a question for me.
If you are asking "Is there an example of typical narrativist play which mostly consists in the players declaring actions for their PCs that will prompt the GM to narrate backstory elements, so that the players can then manipulate those elements to overcome challenges so as to achieve goals", I think the answer is "no". Because that is, by definition, not going to be narrativist play.
Way upthread there was some discussion of
this from John Harper about Apocalypse World. You will see that it illustrates that's games use of "asking questions":
In Apocalypse World, the players are in charge of their characters. What they say, what they do; what they feel, think, and believe; what they did in their past. The MC is in charge of the world: the environment, the NPCs, the weather, the psychic maelstrom.
Sometimes, the players say things that get very close to the line. Usually this happens when the MC asks a leading question.
MC: "Nero, what do the slave traders use for barter?"
Player: "Oh man, those [freaks]? They use human ears."
That's a case of the player authoring part of the world outside their character, however -- and this is critical -- they do it from within their character's experience and frame of reference. When Nero answers that question, he's telling something he knows about the world.
Compare that exchange with this one, which is crossing the line:
MC: "Okay, Nero, so you get the box of barter away from the slave traders and haul into the back of the truck."
Player: "Cool. I open it up."
MC: "Okay. What do you see when you open it?"
Player: "Um... uh, a bunch of severed fingers?"
See the difference? In the first case, the MC is addressing the character and asking about some knowledge he has. In the second case, the MC is fully turning over authorship of the world in-the-moment to the player, which is not part of the player role in AW.
The rules for authority over backstory/setting in that game are pretty clear (from p 109):
Apocalypse World divvies the conversation up in a strict and pretty traditional way. The players’ job is to say what their characters say and undertake to do, first and exclusively; to say what their characters think, feel and remember, also exclusively; and to answer your questions about their characters’ lives and surroundings. Your job as MC is to say everything else: everything about the world, and what everyone in the whole damned world says and does except the players’ characters.
I assume, though, that you will say that a simulationist and immersive approach to play requires the players to ask the GM what their PCs know and remember and think is a plausible conjecture relative to setting and backstory.
