The Death of Simulation

[marune]

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.

Two links for technical definitions :

RPG glossary

The Forge glossary

 

[gizmo33]

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.

There seem to be three example play styles in the paragraph above, but the last two seem to be "simulationist" examples, in spite of my suspicion that you intended the last one to be narrative. Or at least it's "sim" based on what other folks are saying because the "reasoning" of the imaginary character is part of the raw material for the simulation.

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).

It seems to me then it's the *motive* then rather than the actions that really determine where it all falls. I suppose that's why various play styles could exist in harmony. A power gamer would get along with a sim person if the sim person wanted to a play a crafty, powerful, and inventive fighter type that was always looking for the most effective kill. And if the narr person could somehow explore this as a theme, then he basically be doing the same thing that the other three were doing.

Hope this helps...

Me too, thanks. My basic agenda here was probably (among maybe some other minor points) to understand what in the world the OP was ranting about. DnD seemed to be sufficient for all of the playstyles as I understood them, but then I saw things posted that I didn't understand and I thought maybe somewhere in my lack of comprehension was an explanation for the some of the strange things I've seen on this subject in this and other threads.

 

[gizmo33]

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).

Well I guess that stands to reason because as best as I can understand this I'm a simulationist. Now I understand the goals of a power-gamer, even if I'm not particularly entertained by playing that way. But the narrativist thing on the other hand I just don't get. I can't image why an RPG would appeal to someone who wants to do what you're saying. I can see why and how you'd do this sort of thing with a novel/poem/etc. But I'm so locked into the "DM says 'here's what you see'" and "Player says 'here's what I do'" - that how this basic structure does what more tightly controlled creative expressions (like novel writing) escapes me.

But I have some reasons for understanding this. One is that, from time to time, I look over the shoulders to gamers playing at a convention or some place and think "what the heck are you guys doing?" Maybe I'll have an idea of what to pay attention for next time. The other thing is that the idea that RPGs need to change, or address this particular aspect of playing makes me feel that I ought to figure out what this is about. Both so that I can enjoy it, and so that I can be a better DM for people who like playing this way. Or at the very least so I can identify it and let the player know that our styles are different.

I'll read up on the links you've posted. Thanks.
(edit: oops, that was Skeptic that posted the links.)

 

[marune]

But I'm so locked into the "DM says 'here's what you see'" and "Player says 'here's what I do'" - that how this basic structure does what more tightly controlled creative expressions (like novel writing) escapes me.

Could you please rephrase this part of your post, I want to be sure to understand where lie your problem.

 

[pemerton]

Nice post!

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

No worries. I'm glad some people are finding it interesting! This thread, plus some of the other recent threads like Reynard's DM-proofing one and Hussar's Gamism one, have taken the discussion of 4e in a direction that I'm finding a lot more illuminating, really trying to get to the bottom of some of the basic design questions.

 

[pemerton]

There seem to be three example play styles in the paragraph above, but the last two seem to be "simulationist" examples, in spite of my suspicion that you intended the last one to be narrative. Or at least it's "sim" based on what other folks are saying because the "reasoning" of the imaginary character is part of the raw material for the simulation.

Now what you've said here makes sense to me - if the reasoning is the reasoning of the imaginary character, then we seem to have primarily sim play. Whereas in narrativist play the key reasoning is that of the player.

I understand the goals of a power-gamer, even if I'm not particularly entertained by playing that way.

Your remark about power-gaming is important, because it offers a way in to thinking about narrativist play. Power-gamers like to metagame (in a way that some sim-oriented players find objectionable) because they don't purely "live the character" but rather treat the character as a gamepiece whose performance has to be optimised.

For narrativist play, the PCs (and the rest of the gameworld) are also play pieces, so narrativism is often very metagamy compared to sim-style play. But the point of the pieces is to use them to make the thematic statement, not to use them to win a game.

That's why in some of my posts I've identified a mechanical (but not playstyle) affinity between gamism and narrativism - both sorts of play can be facilitated by mechanics that give players a degree of metagame control (in D&D powergaming, this traditionally has mostly been in character building, as I try to optimise my AC so I don't get hosed by the GM's die rolls, but in 4e it will also include action resolution mechanics as I try to deploy my suite of abilities in order to make sure the GM has no chance to roll genuinely threatening dice against me).

And certain mechanics can also hinder both gamist and narrativist play, For example, alignment mechanics have a well-established tendency to leap out and catch powergamers unaware - some people even use them as a deliberate device to try and beat such players into submission. And as my other posts on this thread have argued, alignment mechanics also hinder narrativist play, or at least such play aimed at addressing some fairly standard moral issues.

To return to the original example - a narrativist might well care about the reasoning of their PC (the imaginary person), but not for the simulationist reason of wanting to explore an internally coherent gameworld but rather because patterns of human reasoning might be part of the theme that the player is addressing. Maybe the game is one in which the players want to address the question of whether irrationality is more conducive to happiness than reason - the sort of theme that Lovecraft's stories address, perhaps.

And to have another go at illustrating by distinguishing - in Call of Cthulhu, played according to the rules as written, a player's capacity to address this theme is hindered because the roll of the San dice tell you whether or not rationality and happiness are at odds. The player is very much just along for the ride, rather than determining the outcome. So playing CoC is in many ways more like being very immersed in a novel or a film, than it is like actually creating one.

It seems to me then it's the *motive* then rather than the actions that really determine where it all falls.

Pretty much - but actions can matter to.

I suppose that's why various play styles could exist in harmony.

Sometimes, but it can be tricky.

For example, look at a game like TRoS, in which combat power improves if the combat is one which touches the goals or destiny of the PC (as specified by the player, and mechanically instantiated via the mechanic of Spiritual Attributes). This mechanic facilitates narrativist play, because it allows the player to use the PC to express thematic points in game - the player gets to make a statement about what is worth killing for, by setting the parameters for those goals that will make his or her PC a killing machine.

But it is likely to irritate simulationists, because they will (rightly) complain that there is no ingame logic to the relationship between pursuing one's destiny and fighting better. Now some simulationist somewhere might start to argue about adrenalin and the power of positive thinking and whatnot, but this wouldn't work - because it is always going to be possible for the player to set a destiny of which the PC is ignorant (and thus part of the thematic point might be made by the PC only recognising, in hindsight, what had been worth killing for - a type of Macbeth thematic idea) and thus thwart that simulationist explanation.

The conflict between gamists and simulationists is well-known - just look at any "anti-munchkin" thread. 3E, with so many gamist friendly features, especially in character build options, produces this conflict all the time, and 4e will increase it because the full-blooded gamism will migrate into action resolution also.

Gamists and narrativists can also come into conflict, mostly in the following way: for gamists, the point of the game is to win (at its crudest, "If your numbers are getting bigger you're having more fun") - and thus, they treat play as a means to earn rewards (XP for overcoming challenges, in D&D). For narrativists, on the other hand, the point of the game is to make a statement in play, and thus narrativists tend to treat the rewards in the game system as a tool for shaping play (eg if my PC pursues his or her goal I earn points which I use to increase my PC's capacity to pursue that goal, thereyb earning points, thereby increasing my narrative control, ...). There is quite a potential for these two different approaches to bump into one another - the gamist treating play as a means to the end of rewards, whereas the narrativist seeing rewards as a means to the end of play.

This is why Skeptic is skeptical about my theory that 4e might be narrativist-friendly: it's reward system (if it is similar to 3E) isn't quite set up in the right way to facilitate narrativist play, whereas it is very well adapted to gamist play. The thought then goes that the 4e mechanics will push play in a direction where the easy gamism squashes any incipient narrativism that might try to emerge but has to do so in spite of the reward mechanics.

I can't image why an RPG would appeal to someone who wants to do what you're saying. I can see why and how you'd do this sort of thing with a novel/poem/etc. But I'm so locked into the "DM says 'here's what you see'" and "Player says 'here's what I do'" - that how this basic structure does what more tightly controlled creative expressions (like novel writing) escapes me.

Most mainstream narrativist roleplaying has the basic structure you're describing - see Lost Soul's orphanage example above, for instance. The difference is that when the group is playing narrativist, the GM has something different in mind in saying "Here's what you see" (namely, establishing a set-up in which the thematic premise can be addressed) and the player has a different reason for the way in which s/he responds to the GM (ie s/he will call actions for his or her PC which, for the people at the table - not the imaginary people in the gameworld - constitute an addressing of the premise).

More fancy narrativist play (ie non-vanilla narrativism) gives the players mechanics so they can have some say over aspects of the gameworld other than their PCs - thus they can help set the stage for premise-addressing, if you like (very metagamy by simulationsist standards). But that's not essential.

I should add, that all this theoretical language can make narrativist play look more esoteric than it is. And I suspect that a lot of mainstream narrativist play has plenty of simulation going on as a supporting chassis. In particular, the player's exploration of the gameworld, and their degree of identification with their PCs, may be part of the "artistic medium" whereby statements about theme are able to be produced - the statements presupose a degree of emotional identification with certain elements of the gameworld, which the sim play helps establish (to use two narrativist games as examples, this will probably be more typical of HeroQuest than of The Dying Earth). So the metagaminess, in play, doesn't necessarily have to be quite as stark as the theorising can make it seem - the theorising is just trying to hone in on the key distinguishing features of this style of play.

And you don't have to self-consciously sit down with your gaming group and ask "What premise shall we address in today's RPG session?" Often the thematic issue will be implicitly settled by the choice of game (eg The Dying Earth and HeroQuest both come with their premises more-or-less built in) or the way the players specify their characters. With reference to my own RM game, two of the PCs have as their background being part of a once-great but now-dimnished noble family, another is a former heavenly spirit who has been stripped of power and memory and cast to earth as punishment, and a fourth has turned his back on his merchant family's trade to seek a different path to glory. So straight away thematic content of loyalty, personal identity and so on is put into play. And it's not very hard to GM a fantasy RPG that allows the players, through the way they play their PCs and resolve the conflicts I (as GM) set up for them, to make thematic statements about those things.

Again, it's not going to win anyone a Nobel prize for literature, but it's a kind of fun way to spend a Sunday afternoon.

 

[marune]

This is why Skeptic is skeptical about my theory that 4e might be narrativist-friendly: it's reward system (if it is similar to 3E) isn't quite set up in the right way to facilitate narrativist play, whereas it is very well adapted to gamist play. The thought then goes that the 4e mechanics will push play in a direction where the easy gamism squashes any incipient narrativism that might try to emerge but has to do so in spite of the reward mechanics.

I didn't say it's impossible to have a vanilla narrativist agenda in D&D 4E, I only rejected the "tell me how you fight, I'm gonna tell you who you are" premise.

I rejected it mainly because it means that the nar and gamist elements would be clashing each others during combat.

In fact, I could agree that 4E may facilitate a vanilla narrativist play vs 3.x because of 4 changes : 1) The basic gamist system has clear boundaries : the character starts as heroes, becomes paragons and retire at the end of their epic destinies. 2) Removal of alignments. 3) Easier to create challenges on the fly, 4) A much less emphasis on Sim mechanical elements.

 

[Bastoche]

There seem to be three example play styles in the paragraph above, but the last two seem to be "simulationist" examples, in spite of my suspicion that you intended the last one to be narrative. Or at least it's "sim" based on what other folks are saying because the "reasoning" of the imaginary character is part of the raw material for the simulation.

The "reason" in nar play is NOT from the character, it's from the PLAYER. That's where the difference lay. Although I admit my previous wording was confusing.

It seems to me then it's the *motive* then rather than the actions that really determine where it all falls. I suppose that's why various play styles could exist in harmony. A power gamer would get along with a sim person if the sim person wanted to a play a crafty, powerful, and inventive fighter type that was always looking for the most effective kill. And if the narr person could somehow explore this as a theme, then he basically be doing the same thing that the other three were doing.

Yes and no. Yes on the first sentence, absolutly. But no for the rest in the following sense:

you could indeed imagine players using all 3 styles of play. HOWEVER, it may not be one sim, one nar and one gam (for example) in a GIVEN instance of play. It would either lead to each saying of the others that they do "bad roleplaying" or would lead to both incoherent and unfun play.

What makes more than one style works is when ALL players act gamist in a given situation, sim in another given situation and then nar in some other. For example you could imagine a game with a heavy nar social system rules with a strong gamist combat rules. Typical "traditionnal" "mainstream" D&D is sorta like that. Probably moreso in 2E. In fights, you are full blast gamist. With proficiencies, you are sim and you could have players approach the alignment issue in a nar way.

This is not "in theory". I've witnessed games with sim and gam and nar players mixed together and it's always a disaster. About 90% of "player problems" thread on ENworld should rather be read as "we're a bunch of gamist players, give us ideas to trick the sim guy into playing gam". Or "we're a bunch of sim players tell us how to leash the gamist" (which usually words as "how do deal with a munchkin/powergamer". (BTW IMO "munchkin" is a type of dysfunctionnal gamist play where the player cheats to beat the game, often also to beat the other players).

Hope it clarifies.

Me too, thanks. My basic agenda here was probably (among maybe some other minor points) to understand what in the world the OP was ranting about. DnD seemed to be sufficient for all of the playstyles as I understood them, but then I saw things posted that I didn't understand and I thought maybe somewhere in my lack of comprehension was an explanation for the some of the strange things I've seen on this subject in this and other threads.

Well what I can say from experience is that there exists some fairly "easy" fix to (say) 3E to make it more sim. Think damage reduction, removal of hit points, and all the other "D20 3E fix" you can find on the web. Still as long as you keep levels and magic items and most spells, it still bears a strong gamist part. However, I VERY strongly think that no nar play could ever be achieve with D&D except with 2E because that system did not support any style at all and required. no. Demanded heavy house ruling to make it playable (which is probably why is was so bad after all lol).

In all three cases, to stick with my rules/law analogy, the reward system acts like "fines" in real world or prison time but "the other way around". (the former "rewards" proper behavior while the later "punish" unsuited behavior).

In all cases, the principle behind rewards is that they make you better at earning rewards.

For example for a gamist game like D&D 3E, you gain XP and treasures when you beat "challenges" (AKA monster or traps in this context) which grants levels which in turn makes you better at bashing monster, therefore earning more rewards.

So to get back to your point, in 3E, nothing encourage the players to act "in a nar way" since it doesn't grant XP. Group of players in which the DMs grants XP for "good roleplay" could both fit the nar or sim agenda depending of when, why and how such XP is granted. You could, for example, imagine a group of players who earns XP when they follow the plot that the GM wrote. Assuming the players have a way to "figure it out". In other words, without tweaking, D&D cannot address any other styles than gamist play. and IMO the amount of tweaking to make it somewhat nar isn't worth the trouble... or it means rewrite to whole thing in which case it's not D&D anymore

As a side point: Now read in a new light people who'd like to see a classless D&D. They are either sim or nar but they pretty sure as heck ain't gamist and should've dumped the game a while ago.

 

[Bastoche]

I also want to add another grain of salt here.

Most mainstream RPG states somewhere in the rules. Or at least it's one of the dumbed down definition of "Role Playing Games" given to a neophyte.

A Role Playing Game is a game in which the DM sets the stages and the players states their character's action.

Gamist game won't allow the player to do whatever he wants because he must gamble to succeed or fail trying. Example:

DM: So you guys are in front of the trolls and the princess is bound behind
Steve: I skewer the trolls save the princess and mary her!
DM: okay everyone, roll initiative
(an hour later)
DM: Ok so the last troll is dead, you saved the princess but Steve is dead. Will you raise him?

Steve could not actually have his character do whatever he wanted.

Simulationist play allow the characters to do what is internally coherent. And "good roleplaying" is having the player correctly make judgements about what could/should do his character in a given circumstance. A caricatural ideal would be that a supercomputer could run a simulation of the game world and the character, run a few hours and give a printout of what actually happened. Well in practice, the player tries to be that supercomputer and fun emerges when he makes successful calculations. The succes of the characters themselves should be irrelevant.

IMO, nar play is the approch that says "what if the player could actually have his character do *whatever* he wants?" At that point, people figure out what works in this context and what doesn't and that, IMO, is where narativist play is born. What makes it "somewhat" more complicated than that is the fact that there is more than one player around the table and then the rules come into play to suggest to player where their narative power starts and where it ends!

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I wonder if some people are roughly equating narrativist with plot-based railroading; that the outcome is pre-determined by the DM (or the players, for that matter) before the encounter/adventure/entire campaign even takes place.

Lanefan