The Death of Simulation

Aus_Snow · Jan 28, 2008

Charwoman Gene said:
But its done, if you want to protest, speak with your wallet and voices

Done and done.

pemerton · Jan 28, 2008

apoptosis said:
Your analysis..way better explanation thine mine

Our posts crossed in the aether - but I think yours captures the gist, of it being about facilitating group story-telling (and not just by the GM).

ainatan said:
[Storytelling/narrativism: The exact time of travel is irrelevant, none of the players care and the DM will decide the how much time is good for the story with a minimum of good sense.

<snip>

Narrativism: The power ends when the scene ends.

<snip>

Narrativism: I think tapping the dark side of the force is a nice choice for my character, based on his personality and recent story, so I'll buy the Power of the dark side talent. (SWSE style)

<snip>

Narrativism: Different types of characters may use the same rules to be created, but PCs are the protagonist and heroes so they'll have special benefits that will assure that status in the game, as extra HD, access to action points, more powerful classes. (SWSE style)

<snip>

Narrativism: It works this way because it's good for the narrative and creates a nice and memorable story.

With respect, your examples do not capture what Ron Edwards and other Forge-ites mean by "narrativism", and don't capture what I, and (if I may speak for them) Apoptosis and Third Wizard are trying to get at with that term.

Your first example is one of GM authorship - absent more information it looks like low-detail simulationism. What narrativist play cares about is that (if the passage of time matters) the players can affect it, or conversely if the passage of time is not under the players' control then it doesn't matter to the game. 4e does a bit of both: per-encounter powers mean that the GM's control over the passage of in-game time doesn't affect the PC's utility as vehicles for play; PoL as safehavens means that the players can allow time to pass in the gameworld without the GM interrupting this by suddenly triggering an encounter.

Your second is underdeveloped, but I don't see the difference between "scene" and "encounter". In 4e, at least, it seems that the encounter is the scene. I agree that simulationism would tend not to like this approach to the duration of powers.

Your third example seems backwards: in narrativist play I don't buy powers because they reflect what I've done. I buy them because of what they promise for future play. Thus, I would buy a Dark Side power because I want, in the immediate future, to roleplay out some thematic issue to which that choice will give rise in the course of the game. (Thus, narrativist play is inevitably and inherently metagaming.)

Choosing powers to reflect what has happened to my character in fact looks like a type of simulationist play that has to accomodate itself to a non-simulationist ruleset. This is very commonly seen in a certain type of D&D play (eg one frequently sees posts deriding the idea that a player whose PC is a Fighter could suddenly pick up Wizard as a class). In pure simulationist games like RQ or classic Traveller it doesn't come up, because players do not get to make these sorts of power choices (and thus can't be tempted to metagame).

Your fourth example is also a little odd. Most narrativist games will use different rules for PC build as NPC build, I think, simply because NPCs don't need rules associated with them that open the door to narrative control - the GM has other devices for exercising that control independent of the NPCs under his or her control. Access to APs (and also, in D&D, hit points, which are the default currency of protagonism) does support narrativist play, however - Chris Sims discusses this in the recent Healing thread.

Your last example also I would quibble with. Narrativist mechanics aren't designed to create memorable stories, they're designed to empower players to play a creative role in the game.

Afterall, if you wanted good stories the best mechanic would be something like: all of your group go to the bookshop and buy a copy of The Power and The Glory, then start reading at page 1. But that wouldn't be a game, narrativist or otherwise.

apoptosis · Jan 28, 2008

pemerton said:
Your last example also I would quibble with. Narrativist mechanics aren't designed to create memorable stories, they're designed to empower players to play a creative role in the game.

That is a good point.

There might be (maybe there are) narrativist mechanics to aid the story, but most all of the ones I know generally are about enhancing the story by enhancing the characters role in the story (which involves giving the players the ability to enhance the characters role in the story)

I think maybe some of the mechanics for "story now" but that is really about focusing the game on things that matter to the character, so that probably is subsumed in what you said.

Because the story is about the characters, I think the entanglement of characters (as an extension of the player) ability to impact the narrative cannot be extracted from the narrative itself. This is probably why "story" and "character/players narrative control" tend to be used interchangeably when they probably shouldnt be.

pemerton · Jan 28, 2008

ThirdWizard said:
Interesting. By most of these definitions I fall mostly into a Narrativist mindset, as it seems Narrativist fits best with a DMing style that puts creating an entertaining game above all other factors.

Without knowing more, this could equally be simulationist, or even gamist (depending on what your players find entertaining).

To link the idea of entertainment to the idea of narrativism, consider the reward mechanism for The Dying Earth RPG. Each player, at the start of a session, is given three taglines (witty and/or biting Vancisms, like "Before you speak, know that I am a powerful wizard!"). The player earns from 0 to 3 XPs every time his or her PC speaks one of those taglines in play - the amount being determined by the GM based on an estimate of the amount of cleverness and wit displayed (how funny and impressed the fellow players are is an important measure of this).

What this does is give each player an incentive to drive the game in a direction in which s/he will be able to have his or her PC speak those taglines to great mirthful and dramatic effect. The action-resolution mechanics of the game (effectively, opposed rolls with very sophisticated re-roll options) give the player a reasonable degree of control over whether or not to try to win a conflict, or to go with the flow of what the GM has set up - depending on what s/he thinks will optimise tagline delivery. The setting - a lightly-sketched PoL approach - allows the GM to follow his or her players' whims without having to call a halt because they've come to the edge of the detailed gameworld.

This is a fairly light-hearted example of a narrativist game. The mechanics empower the players to pursue a fun (if fairly low-brow) creative agenda. The GM sets the stage, but (due to the reroll mechanics) is not the sole determinant of how adversity is resolved, and is far from the sole judge of what counts as fun in the game.

pemerton · Jan 28, 2008

ThirdWizard said:
Simulationists want to know how the Pit Fiend survives in the Nine Hells, how they weave their intrigue, how they can set up their fortifications, and all that good stuff. Because it isn't in the description/stat block, by their play style, the stat block is a definition for the creature. I think this is yet another clash between the Simulationist approach and, in this case according to definitions in this thread, a Narritivist approach.

I agree that it is a certain type of simulationism (what Ron Edwards calls "purist for system") that wants the stat block to be a total specification of the creature's abilities in the gameworld: nothing should be outside the mechanics.

ThirdWizard said:
Actually, I think a whole lot of these arguments could break down into this very topic itself.

Agreed. I've been pushing that line since about the time we got our first glimpses of 4e mechanics.

pemerton · Jan 28, 2008

apoptosis said:
There might be (maybe there are) narrativist mechanics to aid the story, but most all of the ones I know generally are about enhancing the story by enhancing the characters role in the story (which involves giving the players the ability to enhance the characters role in the story)

I think maybe some of the mechanics for "story now" but that is really about focusing the game on things that matter to the character, so that probably is subsumed in what you said.

I think so - at least, they are about focusing the game on things that matter to the player.

In D&D I think the character build mechanics play an important role in this respect. The player, by choosing powers, gets to choose how s/he interacts with the gameworld (3E had this to an extent with feats and PrC, but 4e seems to be ramping it up). Given the importance of mechanics to the D&D play experience, this is a non-trivial choice (and like in a superhero comic, different combat mechanics can be understood as having, or used to explore, different thematic notions).

Other signals can be sent as well (eg a group who build an all-Dwarf party presumably want to do a bit of Orc- or Giant-bashing) but in the absence of rules players are relying on GM common-sense to deliver the desired gameworld elements.

apoptosis said:
Because the story is about the characters, I think the entanglement of characters (as an extension of the player) ability to impact the narrative cannot be extracted from the narrative itself.

In D&D I think it will always be the case that it is via the PC that a player gets to affect the gameworld. Other RPGs might have mechanics that allow non-PC mediated control of the gameworld by non-GM players.

apoptosis said:
This is probably why "story" and "character/players narrative control" tend to be used interchangeably when they probably shouldnt be.

Agreed. "Story" tends to be used to describe a type of simulationist game in which traditional (dice-based) mechanics are frequently ignored or overruled by GM decision-making about the direction of the adventure (ie loosely-structure "drama" mechanics, to use the Forge's terminology). It is one of my least-favourite sorts of roleplaying, to which (IME) 2nd ed AD&D was especially prone.

apoptosis · Jan 28, 2008

pemerton said:
I think so - at least, they are about focusing the game on things that matter to the player.

In D&D I think the character build mechanics play an important role in this respect. The player, by choosing powers, gets to choose how s/he interacts with the gameworld (3E had this to an extent with feats and PrC, but 4e seems to be ramping it up). Given the importance of mechanics to the D&D play experience, this is a non-trivial choice (and like in a superhero comic, different combat mechanics can be understood as having, or used to explore, different thematic notions).

.

Unfortunately it seems most all the powers that can be chosen are combat based and balanced around combat making the choice more trivial than I hoped it would be. Now I have seen the rules so maybe that might not be the case and I could be very wrong.

It is probably my dislike of roles, as it pretty much put everything into the context of combat.

Of course that has some advantages in that you can sculpt a story that will be based on a series of combats and not worried about PC balance.

I would hope they redo some of the old modules like White Plume Mountain and Against the Giants as 4E would be perfect for them.

I am pretty rocked on Shadow of Yesterday right now if i do a fantasy campaign. It has a really interesting way to deal with conflict and it allows you to integrate social, mental and physical damage and they can play off of each other. It borrowed the feats ideas from 3E.

LostSoul · Jan 28, 2008

Here's a post I made on the whole GNS thing some time ago:

I see Creative Agenda (one of GNS) as whatever you get high-fives for over some length of play time. I'm not sure how long that time is, though. Anyway.

Situation: The party comes to this dragon, the guardian of Dragon Pass, the only thing standing between the peaceful valleys below and the waiting Orc Horde. The guy who just acted is a wizard, a Knight of the Scale (an in-game organization dedicated to eliminating draconic threats), has just unleashed some killer spell combo on a dragon and totally kicked its ass. This wizard became a Knight of the Scale because his family was killed by the dragon.

Gamist: Dude, you totally kicked that dragon's ass using that wicked spell combo! You rock! High-five!

Showing off your ability to kick ass, as you would in Chess or something like that, and having the other people take notice and respect it.

Narrativist: Dude, you decided to kill that dragon even though you know that it was the only thing protecting Dragon Pass from the Orc Horde! I guess the lives of all the people in Dragon Pass mean less to you than your desire for revenge! You are hard-core, man. Sweet, high-five!

Showing other people how you made a moral choice in some murky situation, and having other people pick up on it and learn something about you.

Simulationist: Sweet man, that's totally what the Knights of the Scale would do - they would totally kick that dragon's ass, even knowing that the Orc Horde would invade Dragon Pass! High-five!

Showing other people that you get the source material and can add and build to it without destroying it, and having other people recognize that you can do that ("You can do Tolkein better than Tolkein!", "That's totally what an Italian peasant from the 14th century would do!", "Your guy is more James Bond than James Bond!", etc.).