The Death of Simulation

[gizmo33]

Gizmo, I'm not sure how to respond to your post because I'm unsure whether it's sincere or not.

Well, obviously I was trying to be funny/light at the beginning but at the root of the humor was a serious statement about the stuff I don't get. My point was basically this - keeping track of what happened in the past, assuming that NPCs react to you according to some sort of world logic and not according to some sort of story needs, basing character power on past accomplishments etc. Those are all things I think of with regards to "simulation", and they're at the core of the basic RPG that I'm familiar with. Suggesting that adding story elements to the game is somehow in conflict with simulation is, so far as I've followed this, unconvincing. In fact, at the risk of being too blunt, a story that doesn't take seriously the versimiltude of the environment, IMO is lame. That doesn't mean that you play out any details you don't want though.

In fact, it seems to me that every single aspect of the published rules are based on simulation. Take orcs for example - you don't just pick whatever HD and damage, etc. you want for them based on how "scary" you want them to be in the particular story. Or rather, you could, but "basic" stats are given, which IMO heavily implies that there is some sort of "average" orc out there, a very simulationist concept. Random tables for treasure, assigned damage dice for weapons, etc. - all of these are suggestions of a model for some sort of reality. I hope what I'm saying is not controversial, so I must be missing the point.

Seems to me that "narrative" RPGing at first is just overlaying story elements on top of the game. For example I might extend the background of an adventure a little, and predesign some elements so that, in spite of the dice-rolling in the game, I'm 90% certain that certain events will occur that will continue to develop my "plot". At that level, I don't see how any of this is in conflict with simulation.

So take it to the next level. I'm only "90%" certain, as I said above, that a certain event will occur. For example, during a fight with some mooks, the PCs all get killed, and never reach the bad guy. This happens because sometimes the dice come up all 1s. At this point, the "narrativist" DM says "you know, at the this point I'm so commited to my set of events occuring for my campaign that I'm going to dispense with the rules. I'll say the PCs all live because of deus ex machina. Game on."

This STILL doesn't break simulation - because it's not against the logic of the fantasy world for an angel to come down and raise everyone from the dead (or whatever other explanation is given.) All that happens here, all that's really broken, are the rules used to adjucate the situation.

Now I've never understood why a TPK from some mooks is any less of a story than the PCs surviving and listening to the BBEGs speech at the end. The only difference I see is that the PCs/DM had their heart set on one outcome, while the dice dictated another one. In fact (and I've seen others state this on this board), my "narrative" style is to really find the story in what events occur rather than engineer it. I wouldn't say I'm any less interested in the story than another, just less inclined to want to pre-engineer the story, because I would just choose another format of creative expression (ex. writing a book).

So I don't find using dice to be more sim than narr. The issue seems rather what kind of control you want over what you're doing. People who want a story to develop from the game, I suppose, are more eager to dispense with the dice rolling and have a system where events are determined more from the decisions of the group. AFAICT that's a different mechanism for determining the outcome of events, but it doesn't make things less of a simulation.

 

[gizmo33]

What did you think about my example?

You mean about not helping the cleric with his orphanage? That example was an example of simulation or narrative? It seemed to be simulating the effects of poverty striking a community. Granted, the DM made a lot of decisions about how things were going to be without using dice. For example, he decided to not have someone else with money step in and help out. It wouldn't be plausible in a town that was known to have a bunch of rich people. Or it would be plausible, but then the theme would include a bunch of uncaring rich people in addition to the PC. Ultimately, other than the lack of mechanics/dice rolling used to set up the situation, I don't see the basic difference between sim and narr here.

It's like an author saying something about life through the theme of his story.

So the DM talks about how he feels about stuff? Or do the NPCs act in such a way that rather be perceived as thinking individuals, they are all perceived as originating from the common opinion/culture of the DM. Say I don't like cheese-wiz, so all my NPCs express a dislike for cheese-wiz because I'm trying to communicate that to the players?

 

[gizmo33]

At this point, you could say that the torture thing can happen too in Sim play. The difference is that in Sim play, the answer is found in the character's definition and that in Nar play it is found in the player's feelings.

I find the bulk of what you're saying to be somewhat hard to follow. You're speaking English but the words that you're using seem to assume some definitions that I don't know. So if I seem dense, that's my best guess as to why. It's like me saying "the bagel is orange". I know what bagel means, and "orange" has several possible definitions but none of them quite fit. Nor could I hazard a guess as to the overall meaning.

So for quoted example above, my first reaction is "answer to what?" "The answer is found in the character's definition" means what? It means that in narrative play the player plays a character whose basic personality is his own? In the case where character's definition = player's feelings then narr really just seems to be a subset of sim. Given that the DM couldn't read the player's mind, and still would be relying on the player having their character do things, I don't see where there is a fundemental difference in the way you'd conduct the game. If I have my character torture a monster, how do you conduct the game differently based on whether you believe that action is a simulation of a character concept or an decision based on my own personality?

 

[marune]

In fact, at the risk of being too blunt, a story that doesn't take seriously the versimiltude of the environment, IMO is lame. That doesn't mean that you play out any details you don't want though.

I agree.

In Simulationist play the goal of the game is to explore the verisimilitude of the environement. That doesn't mean that in Gam/Nar play that such thing is irrelevant.

In fact, it seems to me that every single aspect of the published rules are based on simulation. Take orcs for example - you don't just pick whatever HD and damage, etc. you want for them based on how "scary" you want them to be in the particular story. Or rather, you could, but "basic" stats are given, which IMO heavily implies that there is some sort of "average" orc out there, a very simulationist concept.

In Gam play, the orcs are used as challenges, DM throw them at the players when their CR is within the good range.

In Sim play, orcs are orcs, players will meet them when they are in a place where you can meet orcs.

In Nar play, a fight with orcs is a context to address the premise.

Seems to me that "narrative" RPGing at first is just overlaying story elements on top of the game. For example I might extend the background of an adventure a little, and predesign some elements so that, in spite of the dice-rolling in the game, I'm 90% certain that certain events will occur that will continue to develop my "plot". At that level, I don't see how any of this is in conflict with simulation.

Of course, because what you describe here is "high-concept" simulationist, not narrativist.

Hint, when the plot is setup/written before hand, that is not narrativist, but "high-concept" simulationist, where the goal is to explore an established genre/theme.

 

[marune]

I find the bulk of what you're saying to be somewhat hard to follow. You're speaking English but the words that you're using seem to assume some definitions that I don't know. So if I seem dense, that's my best guess as to why. It's like me saying "the bagel is orange". I know what bagel means, and "orange" has several possible definitions but none of them quite fit. Nor could I hazard a guess as to the overall meaning.

Well, first thing is my first language is not English but French, maybe my English isn't always clear

Second, if you don't understand something from what I said, that's not a problem, just ask it.

So for quoted example above, my first reaction is "answer to what?" "The answer is found in the character's definition" means what? It means that in narrative play the player plays a character whose basic personality is his own? In the case where character's definition = player's feelings then narr really just seems to be a subset of sim. Given that the DM couldn't read the player's mind, and still would be relying on the player having their character do things, I don't see where there is a fundemental difference in the way you'd conduct the game. If I have my character torture a monster, how do you conduct the game differently based on whether you believe that action is a simulation of a character concept or an decision based on my own personality?

In Sim play when the torture idea is tossed out, the goal for the players is to find the most coherent way for their characters to act.

In Nar play, the goal of the players is to choose to do it or not, based on what they feel would give a more interesting story. Afterward, the player can find a way to explain why the character has accepted or refused to torture the captured foe.

 

[LostSoul]

You mean about not helping the cleric with his orphanage? That example was an example of simulation or narrative?

I'm having trouble communicating in this thread! That example was to show what narrativist play could look like, that it's not something totally different that wouldn't be recognized as "playing D&D."

It seemed to be simulating the effects of poverty striking a community.

Could be. But in nar play, the point of those encounters would be to allow the player a chance to use his authorial power in order to make some kind of thematic statement. (His "authorial power" is something like, "I attack the kid who tried to cut my purse. I hit AC 18, 12 damage.")

Then you play off of his decision: the cleric approaches the PC and asks him what the hell he's doing. "That kid was a thief. He got what he deserved." "But it's not his fault!" "That's life. You gotta make your own way, no one is going to help you." "I helped you!" "That's because you're a sucker."

In other words, the gameworld exists in order to give context to the theme.

Granted, the DM made a lot of decisions about how things were going to be without using dice. For example, he decided to not have someone else with money step in and help out. It wouldn't be plausible in a town that was known to have a bunch of rich people. Or it would be plausible, but then the theme would include a bunch of uncaring rich people in addition to the PC. Ultimately, other than the lack of mechanics/dice rolling used to set up the situation, I don't see the basic difference between sim and narr here.

The DM made those decisions, in nar play, in order to give the player a chance to make a thematic statement. In sim play, he might have done the same thing just because it was what naturally is supposed to happen in the gameworld.

It's hard to show the difference when you're posing hypothetical examples over teh intrawebs. What I think is really important is when you get the "awesome" moments in play: When do those moments happen? Why? Whose choice led to that moment? Do you always cheer those moments, or just once every couple of sessions? Those sorts of things will help clarify the difference between simulationist, narrativist, and gamist play more than anything else.

So the DM talks about how he feels about stuff? Or do the NPCs act in such a way that rather be perceived as thinking individuals, they are all perceived as originating from the common opinion/culture of the DM. Say I don't like cheese-wiz, so all my NPCs express a dislike for cheese-wiz because I'm trying to communicate that to the players?

The DM doesn't need to talk about how he feels about stuff. (Don't forget that the players are also making the same sort of thematic statements.) He could, but he doesn't need to, just like the author of a novel doesn't need to talk about the theme in order to get it across. What everyone does need to do is to react to those choices. Usually what I see is attention, engagement, and "That's cool!" when someone is going to address theme; and less of: "So you, personally, feel that people need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, and no one has any responsibility to help their fellow man?"

 

[Bastoche]

I see a lot a confusion between instances of play (and the reason in the eyes of the players as to why they happen) vs GNS emphasis.

In all "3" styles of play, you can see elements of the others happen IMO.

However. In gamist play, the players want to get challenges vs rewards the most. In sim play, they want to get exploration the most and in nar play, they want premise adressing the most.

IMO what confuses the issue is the compromises needed in all styles of play vs the other style to acheive versimilitude.

I'll try to explain how I understand RPGs and we'll see if it helps any. If not, ignore me

Rules are to RPGs what laws are to society. They are written in order to encourage players/people to observe certain behaviors around the table/in the community. The rules themselves aren't GNS per se just like laws aren't morals per se. However, the rules/laws are written to "force" the players/citizen to act in a certain way that emphasise a style of play/that is moral.

Why rules? The first reason is that not all players agree on what should happen in the imagined universe, why should it happen and how. If it was that easy, you wouldn't roll dice and have rules and you would have a bunch of people telling a story togheter.

Why play? people play for a reason and "fun" is WAY to broad a word. WHAT is fun? For some, it's bashing tougher and tougher monsters and seeing is character evolve (in terms of "kewl pawa" acquisition). For others, it's to experience an alternate life/universe "as if they were there". And for others, it's to play with the idea that imagined characters acts for a reason. That's in very rough lines.

Now *what* rules? It's is paramount to fun that the players around the table agree beforehand what kind of gaming behavior they want to see at the table.

In gamist play, the game is a bit at the metagaming level where people are expected to know the rules, in terms of tactics, in order to make efficient characters within the team. Think of the typical fighter + cleric + rogue + wizard party. If you imagine 3 "gamist" players with one "whatever else" player, you could end up with a power attacking cleaving fighter with a great sword and full plate low dex high str and con, a buffing cleric and a dual wielding rogue where the fighter tries to flank with him as much as possible. Now if the wizard player spends feats on 2-w fighting, exotic weapon (bastard sword) and spends all his cash on magic weapon. Or worst yet get armor pro and wear full plate and never casts any spells for whatever reasons, he will be frown upon.

In sim play, IMO, the idea is to ideally get 0 metagaming. Everything is tied to the inner logic of the rules/characters/imagined universe. For example, a thief named bobba fet in a high concept high exploration of a historical setting set in medieval europe, he'll be shown the door. Or ninjas

In nar play, once again, everything is at the metagaming level. Characters acts the way they do either because the player thinks it's cool despite any attention to in-game logic or because it is directly tied to a theme they want to emphasize.

Now can you see a tactic savy guy in sim play? sure. Can you see a challenge savy guy in nar play? Certainly! What makes the disctinction between these "local" instances of play is the level of importance the players around the table give to specific "behaviors" (in terms of challenges, inner-logic and theme adressing)

For example, having a long term plot in sim play either clashes with inner logic or requires some form of rail roading. Why? because in sim play, the players WANT to play their characters according to and only to some inner logic. If that inner logic goes against the intended plot, you crash the plot. If the GM "forces" the player to follow the plot, then that GM is denying that player to ability to explore the inner logic of the game/character. Now one could say "why not making characters that are made so that the inner logic follows the plot?" To which I would say "then you aren't siming anymore, you got metagaming in to make *something* happen during to game solely on the base of player priority -> illegal meta gaming in pure sim play!"

In other words, it's pointless to say that "you can do that in X or you can't do that in Y etc". What matters is what YOU (and your fellow players) want the game to be about (in terms of behaviors). At that point, you could probably imagine any "hybrids" of play as long as there aren't opposing expected behavior (when you pick a part of gamism, you leave that part in other styles etc).

That being said, the first paragraph above says that rules are to game what laws are to society. Some rules better encourage some specific behaviors than others. At which point one can coin a G or a N or a S to a given system. Hope this helps...

 

[pemerton]

Seems to me that "narrative" RPGing at first is just overlaying story elements on top of the game. For example I might extend the background of an adventure a little, and predesign some elements so that, in spite of the dice-rolling in the game, I'm 90% certain that certain events will occur that will continue to develop my "plot". At that level, I don't see how any of this is in conflict with simulation.

So take it to the next level. I'm only "90%" certain, as I said above, that a certain event will occur. For example, during a fight with some mooks, the PCs all get killed, and never reach the bad guy. This happens because sometimes the dice come up all 1s. At this point, the "narrativist" DM says "you know, at the this point I'm so commited to my set of events occuring for my campaign that I'm going to dispense with the rules. I'll say the PCs all live because of deus ex machina. Game on."

What you describe here has nothing to do with narrativist play. Again, it is an example of the GM using force to make the game take a certain direction, and (as I noted previously, and Skeptic also has noted) is high concept simulationism.

You mean about not helping the cleric with his orphanage? That example was an example of simulation or narrative? It seemed to be simulating the effects of poverty striking a community.

In the same way that A Tale of Two Cities is a simulation of the effects of the French Revolution. But nevertheless Dickens was writing a novel, not a history, and its purpose is different. When we look at an RPG, we can ask - what's the point of the GM introducing those particular game elements, and what are the players expected to do with them (notice I say players, not PCs)? Different points and expectations produce different sorts of play - simultionist, gamist or narrativist.

Lost Soul has elaborated on this above. So has Skeptic.

So the DM talks about how he feels about stuff? Or do the NPCs act in such a way that rather be perceived as thinking individuals, they are all perceived as originating from the common opinion/culture of the DM. Say I don't like cheese-wiz, so all my NPCs express a dislike for cheese-wiz because I'm trying to communicate that to the players?

I don't really follow your continuing focus on the GM.

So for quoted example above, my first reaction is "answer to what?"

Answer to the question that is implicit in the premise. For example (drawing again on literature, which is a more familiar and better developed art form than narrativist RPGing), The End of the Affair gives one answer to the question "How does God speak to humanity?"

It means that in narrative play the player plays a character whose basic personality is his own?

Maybe, maybe not - that's completely orthoganal.

The point of narrativist play is for the play itself, that is, the unfolding of events in the gameworld (as determined by the player, not just the GM), itself to constitute an answer to a question in the sense identified above.

The novelist offers answers to such questions by writing a novel, the poet by writing a poem, the singer-songwriter by composing and performing a song. The narrativist RPGer does it, collaboratively with others, by playing an RPG. Notice that it is the act of play which is the creative act - whereas all your examples involve the GM having already made a creative decision and trying to have the players act that out. That is why your examples are not of narrativist play, but of simulationist play (where the parameters for simulation are set by the story the GM has written prior to play).

(Most narrativist play is, of course, not on a par with Dickens or Graham Greene as an artistic endeavour. But, for a participant in such a game, it does have the virtue of being their own creative and expressive endeavour. As Lanefan noted, there's also all the fun social stuff of playing an RPG.)

 

[tomBitonti]

I'll have another go, starting with the RM combat rules.

Nice post!

Edit: I wrote too fast. This entire thread has become (IMO) a really great discussion. Thx!

 

[gizmo33]

Second, if you don't understand something from what I said, that's not a problem, just ask it.

No problem, I did asked the most coherent questions I could think of. It's hard to ask a good question when you don't understand what's going on. I don't think there's a problem with your English at all, I just think the words and phrases that people are using have a 'technical" definition that I don't understand well at this point, though there are several posts here that I'm going to have to read twice to try to figure out.