Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="apoptosis" data-source="post: 4023196" data-attributes="member: 3226">Hey Peryton,Sorry had to finish an article on the neurobiology of depression, which has paradoxically been depressing me as I hadn't finished it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> As i mentioned before I really am interested in your theory but it was kind of breaking down for me when I looked at individual example that you were using to support your model. I definitely feel you some real foundation to your theory but I have to admit I am finding it lacking some explanatory or discriminatory power.Where I have been caught up is that I keep running into PC options equating to narrativistic control (in terms of GNS narrativism) and I think this might be the issue for me.Instaed of critiqiuing your supporting examples as that was not sufficiently allowing me to come to a good resolution on the issue, i wanted to look at it a different way and assume your theory is true and then use it to test games that are "known" to be Gam/Sim/Nar by design to see how your ideasl works for them.I choose monopoly, champions and Burning Wheel.In monopoly (basically the simplist of gamist ideas) the theme we are exploring is that "with risk we can have great reward or catastrophic failure". We are playing crazy real estate barrons (which happen to look like ships, thimbles and an iron). The game is basically about using chance (risks) to your advantage. Do you buy or not buy the property. Do you build or not build house/hotels, try to get out of jail by chance or pay $50.  There is not much game choices except ones based off of chance.  If we increase player options that are tied in with the theme of and reward risks, say the player can choose to draw 3 chance cards instead of 1, or they can choose to pay double the rent or no rent. Does this increase narrative play of the game. My thoughts would be no. They player while being rewarded possibly for thematic choices and having greater options would not by many considered to be a more narrativistic game even if the players have greater options (and in this case it is taking power from the system and not a GM as there is not GM)The next one is Champions. this is the mother of simulationst games in many ways (simulation  a comic book genre). Characters have multitudes of choices during character creation, during combat and post combat. They can buy off their disadvantages, buy new powers etc. You could say the characters are exploring the theme of fighting evil without becoming evil. They can make choices of killing attacks vs non-killing attacks. They can buy dependent NPCs and enemies as disadvantages that tie into this theme. All these options though dont really give a narrativist spin to the game as their is not really a strong set of rules that tie exploring the theme to rewarding players for exploring these themes or giving them real narrative control over the themes (IMO). Now this game has way way more PC options than 4E does (far more than 4E would compared to earlier versions of D&D) but I wouldnt say it is any more narrativist than 4E is or more than 4E is compared to earlier D&D versions.The last is BW. It is a narrativist game. One area where PCs have lots of options is in the Fight mechanics (parry, disarm, etc.) Most would say that this area of the game is where it is not narrativist and really falls into strict gamism (maybe simulationism). If we swithc to just the bloody fight rules do we become more or less narrativist. I would say neither, no effect on narrativism though we have removed a lot of PC options.So my general thoughts is that correlating PC options with narrativistic control (using classic GNS) ends up losing coherency and discriminatory prowess for the the term narrativism which puts us back to issues with the word losing its meaning possibly.Many simulationist type of games tend ot have LOTS of PC options to help simulate more realistic outcomes (parry, dodge, duck and roll vs abstracting the combat) but that to me doesnt add any narrativistic feel as it doesnt help them explore character themes and goals in a meaningful way.I enjoy this discussion (i hope readers are not too bored) and please feel free to shoot holes in my counter-theories and choice of model systems. I wrote this quickly so hope it makes some sense.Skeptic, LostSoul (and anyone else who has interst in this) also feel free to tear these thoughts to shreds.Apoptosis</blockquote>

Verification