The Death of Simulation

[pemerton]

PC classes and NPC classes = narrativism

Again, I have to disagree. NPC class rules are really a simulationsit device, an attempt to reconcile PC heroism with an assumption that the PC build rules actually model an in-game process. What NPC classes do is articulate what that process is for the rest of the world.

4e is adopting a more clearly narrativist (or gamist) approach to NPC build, by dropping the assumption that NPCs use the PC build rules at all. A consequence of this is that the PC build rules cannot be understood as modelling any in-game process. Hence, the death of simulation (TM).

Narrativism rules, IMO, try to secure the PCs status as heroes and protagonists.

Narrativism: Cause: PCs are heroes. Consequence: They act heroically and have more power than common people that allow them to be heroes.

But you leave out the most important point: narrativism secures the right of the players to make choices that affect the gameworld. A game in which the GM explains to the players how their PCs are heroes and protagonists is not narrativist, it is simulationist (in the extreme, simulationist rail-roading).

It is a sign of the entrenched status of simulationist thinging that many people have difficulty drawing this sort of distinction between the player and the PC.

I have SW Saga and I'd say it's firmly simulationist.

I don't have SWSE, but what you say fits with my understanding of its rules and approach.

This is what I mean by believeing (in my opinion falsely) that if you're doing one of GNS, you must be 'sacrificing' the other.

I think that the same set of rules can (at least tolerably) support both gamism and narrativism (4e, I'm looking at you!).

Supporting gamism and simulationism is also possible, if the rules are intricate enough in their simulationist mechanics to allow meaningful player choices, or if the gamism happens in a part of the game that is not mechanically regulated. RM is an example of the first. AD&D, espcially 1st ed, is an example of the second. RQ or classic Traveller are both games which are highly simulationist, and which I would think it is very hard to play in a gamist fashion (as the rules simply don't have the complexity to facilitate "winning" or "losing" choices).

I think it's hard to have a set of mechanics that are both simulationist and narrativist, because any action resolution mechanics that give the players narrative control will almost certainly jar with the simulationist goal. One way to get around this is to locate the narrativist mechanics purely in the character build rules, where even serious simulationists tend to be more tolerant of purely metagame devices (RQ and classic Traveller are the only mainstream RPGs I can think of which completely eschew metagame character build). For idiosynchratic reasons I have GMed RM in this fashion for a long time - but it has only worked in an environment with a lot of player trust that if they send a signal to the GM via character build, the GM will pick up on it in the course of play.

Based on my reading of the first edition DMG, I think D&D was explicitly simulationist from the offset.

Maybe. But it also (like wargaming) had gamist goals as well - in particular, exploiting the physics of the world in order to be a better player is an evident goal of play. As per my response to Lanefan, and also my observation earlier in this post, I think AD&D is somewhat peculiar in locating its gamist elements primarily outside of, rather than within, its mechanics.

Clearly D&D wasn't purely "real-world"-style simulationist like GURPS, but nor was it purely gamist (indeed, it's hard to think of an RPG pre-1994 which was).

Following Ron Edwards, can I nominate Tunnels and Trolls? Interestingly, 4e seems to be developing at least on T&T-ism: you build an encounter just by bundling together the right number of XP (just as in T&T you build an encounter just by bundling together the right number of monster dice).

I'm a serious immersionist, but the existence of a sword that makes someone hit his opponent every time not matter how poor his skill (which is effectively what the proposed +40 sword would be, assuming we're talking a D20-ish game) totally destroys my sense of immersion.

You need to rewarch Crouching Tiger - it's the Jade Destiny!

Narrativists do need rules, they just don't care overmuch if it is 3.0, 3.5e, 4e or some WoD ruleset, as long it meets some minimum standards. I think 4e will meet enough of those standards to be fun for the strictly narrativist gamer.

As Apoptosis said, narrativists tend to need a rather definite set of rules - or, at least, need there NOT to be de-protagonising rules (such as Alignment, Force Points, Personality Disadvantages, etc). Thus, no earlier edition of D&D has helped them (due to alignment) and nor does WoD, I don't think (as it has de-protagonising Humanity rules).

As I noted above, a particular sort of simulationist ruleset can be used, especially if it allows metagaming in character build. But (from long experience) I know that it is much easier to achieve narrativist goals if the players actually have metagame action-resolution mechanics that they can use.

We definitely seem to be on the same page it seems

Agreed.

 

[apoptosis]

Welcome to the truly heroic world of simulationist.

"We don't need special metagame rules to make our characters heroes, cheats are for cheaters. Just give me the same tools that everyone else gets, let me perfect them using my own effort and I'll show what heroism is all about. We don't need "Destiny" points to artificially create memorable moments, or even to save our skin. If we die, we die. Life is cruel and sht happens, but when we manage to achieve something truly important, something that really makes a difference to the world, it's gonna be memorable because it was "real", not fabricated by cinematic rules.
In Simulationist gaming, heroism does not dictate actions. Actions dictate heroism. Heroes are made with choices, hard work, bravery and a bit of luck. We forge our destiny instead of being carried by it. Our characters make history instead of being made by the story."

Now i want to play Rolemaster

 

[apoptosis]

As Apoptosis said, narrativists tend to need a rather definite set of rules - or, at least, need there NOT to be de-protagonising rules (such as Alignment, Force Points, Personality Disadvantages, etc). Thus, no earlier edition of D&D has helped them (due to alignment) and nor does WoD, I don't think (as it has de-protagonising Humanity rules).

I always thought that the Humanity rules were going to be an attempt at narrativist style of play.

That they would allow the exploration of the theme of that as your character gains power you lose your humanity. And that vamps are infatuated with humanity at the same time. So that meaningful players choices could occur of power vs humanity.

The problem with the humanity rules is that it was not a good tool for allowing players to make meaningful choices on this theme.

it never did happen, though Ron's 'Sorcerer' took up the challenge and made a great game out of it.

 

[takasi]

4e is adopting a more clearly narrativist (or gamist) approach to NPC build, by dropping the assumption that NPCs use the PC build rules at all. A consequence of this is that the PC build rules cannot be understood as modelling any in-game process. Hence, the death of simulation (TM).

I fail to see how providing a streamlined system for statting NPCs prevents a more simulationist favoring DM from creating NPCs using the PC build rules. It just isn't the default assumption anymore. It has been said you can add class levels to monsters and NPCs.

On the other hand, I do see how not providing a streamlined method forces a more gamist or narrativist leaning DM into a certain style.

At this point we have very little to base these assumptions on, correct? If there are specifics I would like to see them.

Finally, I would also like to add that most of the NPCs in 3.5 (monsters primarily, but occasionally a few humans in modules) had supernatural, extraordinary and spell-like abilities. There were no rules on assigning them, and it was also a system distinct from PC generation. If this is the qualification for simulationists 'extinction' (which it isn't) then it would already be dead (and it's not).

 

[HeinorNY]

Again, I have to disagree. NPC class rules are really a simulationsit device, an attempt to reconcile PC heroism with an assumption that the PC build rules actually model an in-game process. What NPC classes do is articulate what that process is for the rest of the world.

To me the distinction between "protagonists" classes and "extras" classes, considering the protagonists classes are much more powerful, to be a narrativistic mechanic, or even a gamist, but clearly not simulationist. My assumption is based on a simple question (followed by lots of questions : Why is that? Is there any in-game explanation for the X% of the population that have access to a better set of class powers? Do they have better genes? (Yes, but that's the reason they have better abilities.) Why don't the town guards get fighter levels instead of warrior levels? Wouldn't they be more efficient town guards?
If the answer for all these question is found outside the gameworld, using any metagame, metastory, point, it's clearly not a simulationist mechanic.
If all PC characters in the gameworld come from a special monastery where they teach the eleven ways of adventuring, and only those trained in that monastery have access to PC classes, then it could be considered a simulationist mechanic.

4e is adopting a more clearly narrativist (or gamist) approach to NPC build, by dropping the assumption that NPCs use the PC build rules at all. A consequence of this is that the PC build rules cannot be understood as modelling any in-game process. Hence, the death of simulation (TM).

I agree, and SWSE is a preview of that philosophy, unfortunately for the simulationist gamers.

But you leave out the most important point: narrativism secures the right of the players to make choices that affect the gameworld. A game in which the GM explains to the players how their PCs are heroes and protagonists is not narrativist, it is simulationist (in the extreme, simulationist rail-roading).

It is a sign of the entrenched status of simulationist thinging that many people have difficulty drawing this sort of distinction between the player and the PC.

In narrativistic gaming, the PC do have the right to affect the gameworld, they are supposed to have that right because they are the "protagonists", the world is made around their existence. In simulationist gaming, PCs also may have the right to affect the gameworld with their actions, but they have to earn that right.
A game where the DM and players mutually agree their characters are the protagonists of the story is a narrativistic game by the simple fact that in simulationist there is no such thing as protagonists, characters are just part of the world, they have to crave that heroic status.
Also, there is no such thing as railroading in simulationism, It wouldn't make any sense at all. In simulationism, things in the gameworld happen that way because they are supposed to happen that way. It's all about "status quo" DMing, and status quo DMing and railroading are mutually exclusive. The simulationist DM let the characters create the story as they act in the gameworld, if they're 1st lvl and go to the red dragon cave, they just made the story about the unlucky adventurers.
A simulationist DM does not create a story/adventure for the PCs. He creates an independent sequence of events, that may or may not be triggered by the PCs, and the PCs are dragged into it, by story hooks for example, and decide to take part on the events to alter it, stop it or whataver the best option is, but if they do nothing, the sequence of events take place anyway. That's simulationism. When PCs leave the inn, the innkeeper is still there doing his stuff.

Railroading and story imposing exists when the story precedes the characters' action. In simulationism, characters' actions always precede the story.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Welcome to the truly heroic world of simulationist.

"We don't need special metagame rules to make our characters heroes, cheats are for cheaters. Just give me the same tools that everyone else gets, let me perfect them using my own effort and I'll show what heroism is all about. We don't need "Destiny" points to artificially create memorable moments, or even to save our skin. If we die, we die. Life is cruel and sht happens, but when we manage to achieve something truly important, something that really makes a difference to the world, it's gonna be memorable because it was "real", not fabricated by cinematic rules.
In Simulationist gaming, heroism does not dictate actions. Actions dictate heroism. Heroes are made with choices, hard work, bravery and a bit of luck. We forge our destiny instead of being carried by it. Our characters make history instead of being made by the story."

Gods YES!!!!!

I've been running D&D games for years from this perspective and interestingly enough my campaign was never considered unfun. I now run True20 and am learning Runequest and may or may not run 4e depending on the final rules. No doubt there will be 3rd party support for of a simulationist/narrativist style of play....time will tell.



Wyrmshadows

 

[LostSoul]

In narrativistic gaming, the PC do have the right to affect the gameworld, they are supposed to have that right because they are the "protagonists", the world is made around their existence.

Well... the game world is there in order to support making moral choices, yeah; but it depends on the game as to how much control over the environment the players actually have.

In Burning Wheel, a player can say, "The bishop is a thief." If I, the DM, have already decided that he's not a thief, he's not a thief, and the player can't make it so. I believe Sorcerer also gives the GM that level of "content authority."

Also, there is no such thing as railroading in simulationism, It wouldn't make any sense at all.

Railroading never makes sense. It depends on your definition of railroading, but I like to say that it is when your ability to make meaningful choices has been taken away.

 

[Henry]

I've been running D&D games for years from this perspective and interestingly enough my campaign was never considered unfun.

I come from that school of gaming, myself, a bunch of old-schoolers from the 70's and 80's who used all kinds of dirty tricks, etc. to maximize their chances, instead of just going it cinematic-style. Nowadays, my current gaming friends and I are a little more cinematic in approach, but I still do have a soft spot for the whole "never cut a sucker an even break" game design of the older versions.

 

[apoptosis]

Well... the game world is there in order to support making moral choices, yeah; but it depends on the game as to how much control over the environment the players actually have.

In Burning Wheel, a player can say, "The bishop is a thief." If I, the DM, have already decided that he's not a thief, he's not a thief, and the player can't make it so. I believe Sorcerer also gives the GM that level of "content authority."



Railroading never makes sense. It depends on your definition of railroading, but I like to say that it is when your ability to make meaningful choices has been taken away.

I thought there might be some components of BW that allow you to rewrite NPCs (grab content authority), but honestly haven't looked at the books in a while.

I know that if you want to bring in an NPC, you could make a circle roll and say the Bishop is a thief if the bishop had not already been planned out by the GM, but this might not be what you mean. You are probably more up to date on BW than I am.

It has been awhile since i read BW. The Narrativist very very crunchy game. I love the game, but it really requires your entire group to know the rules and for them to be able to hit many components of the game to really fully enjoy it.

I never could really get into scripting combat, I tended to not script it and just do it in a more traditional sense, which probably loses some appeal of the fight mechanics.

I really like your definition of railroading.

 

[HeinorNY]

Railroading never makes sense. It depends on your definition of railroading, but I like to say that it is when your ability to make meaningful choices has been taken away.

Pretty much that.

When I started playing AD&D, I had a DM that we consider to be a tyrannical Evil DM, but today I understand he was a narrativism aficionado.
He was the kind of DM that used to give xp bonus and penalty regarding roleplaying. When sessions ended, he decided if it was a productive session not by the overall fun and good time, but by how well the story was developed and how far we went into his plots.
Once we are debating about gaming styles and I proposed a "fictional" gaming situation to better understand his style. I said: "The PCs manage to create a brilliant plan to steal a very powerful magic item from a blacksmith. The plan is flawless and there is nothing in the rules or in the gameworld (and in the blacksmith's house) preventing that plan to work. Would you allow them to steal the item?"
He answered: "No. The story is more important, if PCs get that item, the story and the plot is gonna change too much, or will be ruined. I'll just create some metagame situation, anything, but they will never put their hands on that item. No matter how good their plan is."

When character's achievements may be limited for the sakes of the story, you are playing a narrativistic game.
When they are limited by the sakes of game balance, it's a gamist game.
Simulationist games are limited only by in-game circunstances, never by metagame or metastory intrusion. And DMing is much more complicated

That's negative railroading.
Positive railroading is simpler, the story is there, character will have to go there so the game may continue; If in-game factors are not enough, metagame circunstances arise to accomplish that.