*The setting* as the focus of "simulationist" play

[aramis erak]

I forgot to mention: just because a setting is established doesn't mean play has to be GM centric. Especially in sandboxy settings, GM-less play can make use of established setting and player consensus/objections to retain setting focus while not having a directed plot from a GM.

That does, however, require everyone knows the setting and restricts themselves to it.

Setting driven is much easier GM'd than not...

 

[pemerton]

I forgot to mention: just because a setting is established doesn't mean play has to be GM centric.

<snip>

That does, however, require everyone knows the setting and restricts themselves to it.

HeroWars/Quest is an example (with Glorantha as the setting). I think default 4e D&D is another example (not using all the Nentir Vale stuff from the DM-facing books, but the core ideas and tropes in the PHB and MM).

But the setting-sim the OP is talking about is GM-centric. The GM is the one who establishes, presents, and manages the setting.

 

[AnotherGuy]

In pretty standard terms - the desire or motivation that drives a character into action.

(1) In play that follows the first dot point of my post, the players provide the dynamism, by establishing characters with strong, clear dramatic needs.

(2) In play that is setting-sim, as I have outlined it in the OP, the GM establishes factions, NPCs, and the like with dramatic needs - these are what produce the "living world", as setting-sim is often described. Players make headway in the game by identifying these dramatic needs (eg working out what motivates the various faction, or NPCs) and then engaging with them.

Bold Emphasis mine.
I think it is also fair to say dramatic needs in (2) can be adopted by the characters and then they evolve back into (1).
I'm imagining my long sandbox campaign as an example.

 

[pemerton]

Bold Emphasis mine.
I think it is also fair to say dramatic needs in (2) can be adopted by the characters and then they evolve back into (1).
I'm imagining my long sandbox campaign as an example.

I think this is right. Although (I say this from my own experience) the process can be a bit unstable, as the (2) is always hanging around ready to overwhelm the (1).

 

[CreamCloud0]

Bold Emphasis mine.
I think it is also fair to say dramatic needs in (2) can be adopted by the characters and then they evolve back into (1).
I'm imagining my long sandbox campaign as an example.

so basically. this is something NPC need (2) that my character becomes invested in, for secondary reasons (money, favours, exp, which help towards my primary motivations) which therefore brings it back around to being (1) by proxy (i'm motivated to do this thing i'm not really connected to because doing this contributes to achieving something i am more personally invested in)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Some sorts of scenarios actually depend on trading on this risk of confusion (eg mysteries where the players miss an early clue or cue, but in retrospect can see how it was one), but I think in true setting-sim play which really aims to eschew railroading then the GM probably wants it to be clear which is which ("hook" or mere colour). But won't want to just say so, as that is too pushy/proactive. Thus it will probably take a group a little bit of time to develop a stable group "culture" or set of shared expectations about which is which.

So, I think in most real-world play there's a sort of push/pull thing that happens here. So the GM sets up a bunch of details, some of which either are deliberate hooks or can easily function as such (IE your courier might not have been conceived by the GM as a hook per se, but the players might propose actions which logically advance the story, and the GM can then supply added details). The players may express, in or out of character, some theories and ideas about the world, and the GM may adopt them. In the other direction its pretty easy for GMs to basically say "this is a hook" or to simply make certain things blatantly obvious (IE the Duke's messenger shows up at the inn looking for adventurers, you obviously are expected to raise your hand).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I forgot to mention: just because a setting is established doesn't mean play has to be GM centric. Especially in sandboxy settings, GM-less play can make use of established setting and player consensus/objections to retain setting focus while not having a directed plot from a GM.

That does, however, require everyone knows the setting and restricts themselves to it.

Setting driven is much easier GM'd than not...

That might be true. Certainly hidden backstory will not figure heavily in a game that has no GM input at all. I would say that most non-GM-centered games that have heavy setting are probably Narrativist, not Sim, but I'm not wedded to that statement, there may be counter examples. Another option here would be a GM-less game where players have some mechanisms for creating and revealing secret backstory themselves. I'm not sure how that would work either, but it sounds plausible...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

so basically. this is something NPC need (2) that my character becomes invested in, for secondary reasons (money, favours, exp, which help towards my primary motivations) which therefore brings it back around to being (1) by proxy (i'm motivated to do this thing i'm not really connected to because doing this contributes to achieving something i am more personally invested in)

That's another way you are likely to have somewhat of a mix in most play IME where the GM and her setting are central, but where (often but not always in the form of a sandbox) the players can express their own agenda with a lot of freedom.

This is how my last '90s 2e campaign evolved. It started with a very elaborately established meta-plot which included a LOT of contingencies for various courses of PC action. In play though the PCs simply weren't predictable, and their own internal interests (I had very strong and extremely experienced players who knew how to develop their characters even though D&D doesn't really help much with that) simply took over. New plots and courses of development took over, and much of the original meta-plot simply became useful background or even entirely irrelevant.

It worked out well, but that was the game that sort of set up my understanding of player-driven possibilities. I blame @pemerton for really introducing me to the more completely articulated theoretical side of that.

 

[aramis erak]

That might be true. Certainly hidden backstory will not figure heavily in a game that has no GM input at all. I would say that most non-GM-centered games that have heavy setting are probably Narrativist, not Sim, but I'm not wedded to that statement, there may be counter examples. Another option here would be a GM-less game where players have some mechanisms for creating and revealing secret backstory themselves. I'm not sure how that would work either, but it sounds plausible...

There are three that pop to mind...
And one of them is mixed sim/narrativist: Ars Magica. Technically rotating GMing, but that's borderline on GM-centrism. Each adventure is GM-led, but they are often created based upon a player's lab/season actions, especially if the declarations are done at close of session. And different players running them over time

Also coming to mind: Cosmic Patrol. Again, rotating GM... but one scene per each. It's incredibly odd... adventures are a series of scenes, with a single goal. Prewritten, presuming a success in the prior, at least in the released ones. It's not play to win, pure play to find out how we win. There's very little GM authority - they are, as in several boardgames, just running the NPCs, most of whom are preset as adversaries. Only way to not advance the plot? Everyone becomes incapacitated.... It's also somewhat gamist, as some elements are purely as a game contrivance. Fun with uninhibited players familiar with 50's pulp sci-fi, especially Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon.

the third is Crimson Cutlass... which is extremely procedural, with tons of random, all triggering problems to be resolved by skill checks... It's by Red Rahm and Conrad Hilmer, the same demented minds as brought us Battle Born, GSol, and Barony. Very much sim. In GM-less mode, which is intended for solo play, it can be just as easily be used multi-player...

 

[Clint_L]

How would you define "dramatic need" ?

It's a theatre term, and it describes the internal motivation that drives characters to want what they want. Significant character change usually comes from the character being forced to confront their dramatic need, typically in a moment of crisis.

Here's a well-known example: Peter Parker in Spiderman: Homecoming. What he wants is made clear right away: he wants to become an Avenger. But why? This is not as immediately obvious, but various clues in the film reveal that he is driven by a sense of failure, that he feels a responsibility to use his power to help others and has a dramatic need to prove himself worthy. From his backstory, we know the reason for this - in a moment of selfishness he failed to use his powers responsibly in a way that led to the death of his Uncle Ben, but this is barely alluded to in the film (actually, I think it is only alluded to in Civil War). So now Peter is desperate to prove himself to a surrogate father figure, Tony Stark, and sees becoming an Avenger as validation. This is his dramatic need; it's what drives his decisions right up until the film's crisis.

This allows for character growth that makes the film a lot more interesting than just a bunch of CGI fights. Because Peter's dramatic need, validation, is not what he really needs, it causes him to behave recklessly and undermines him achieving what he wants. Tony recognizes that Peter is not ready and takes the suit away. Peter, ever more desperate to prove himself to his father figure, throws himself into even greater danger and is utterly beaten, left being crushed to death after a failed battle against Vulture. This is the crisis, where Peter has to reckon with his dramatic need and see that it not his real need. His real need is faith in himself, not external validation. This gives him the strength he needs to get out of danger and and defeat Vulture. Tony recognizes that Peter is now ready and prepares to give him what he wanted, membership in the Avengers, but Peter realizes that it's not what he really needs right now and declines. Character growth (change) - by giving up his original want, Peter shows the audience that he has started to understand what he really needs to become fully self-actualized.

So dramatic need is essential to having characters that aren't just stereotypes, that feel like real people whose stories having meaning rather than just plot. It isn't necessary - you can have lots of fun killing monsters and solving mysteries without it - but I think it is essential if you want stories that have depth.