# The Death of Simulation



## Charwoman Gene (Jan 27, 2008)

Simulation has been eliminated as a design goal in 4e.

This is a fact.

D&D 4e is not ideally suited to sandbox play or rules-emergent world building.

We don't need 40 Threads that amount to whining about this fact.  Butt-kicking and story building, it's got them covered although details there can be argued, but the only way to salvage simulation is to SCRAP 4e as it exists.  That's not happening.  I am really tired of people slagging on every detail that is run over by the non-simulation train.

I feel bad for simulation players and DMs, it reflects the sandbox experience I wish I could find others to enjoy with me.  3e was kind of a heyday for you.  But its done, if you want to protest, speak with your wallet and voices, but let the criticism focus on what can be fixed.


----------



## marune (Jan 27, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Simulation has been eliminated as a design goal in 4e.
> 
> This is a fact.
> 
> ...




D&D was always more gamist than simulationist.

4E design rightly seems to be clearly/explicitly gamist, however I won't be sure until I read the DMG.

IMHO, that's a good thing because the gamist/sim mix in D&D was often incoherent.

Also, I don't like gamism called Butt-kicking, because solving mysteries for instance can  be as much gamist as dungeon crawl. 

Also, for story building, sorry but D&D never supported it and 4E won't change that.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 27, 2008)

Hit points and levels never made the game very "simulationist" in my opinion. The abstraction is just too far away from anything concrete in the real world as to be counted for simulating something.


----------



## Anthtriel (Jan 27, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> D&D was always more gamist than simulationist.
> 
> 4E design rightly seems to be clearly/explicitly gamist, however I won't be sure until I read the DMG.
> 
> IMHO, that's a good thing because the gamist/sim mix in D&D was often incoherent.



The argument is that people should accept it and move on. But given that they are a couple of people around here that openly state they have no interest in 4E (other than to complain about it), that appeal likely won't bear fruit.

Also, I don't believe any one is pure gamist, or pure simulationist. We don't know all the details yet, and 4E could still be interesting even for those leaning on the simulationist side, or be too gamist for the others.


----------



## Khur (Jan 27, 2008)

The only way to have raw simulation in any version of D&D was to scrap big chunks of it and rebuild. 

I find it kind of strange that anyone thinks 3e was a heyday of D&D simulation, other than in very liberal comparison to earlier editions. D&D has _never_ been a simulationist game, and 3e was no exception. Sure, you had rules that let a character die of exposure or from drowning, and neither subsystem felt very heroic or fun. As many others have pointed out on these very boards, such 3e rules were, at the very least, inconsistent. When they dealt with hp, they strayed from simulation as quickly as anything else that dealt with hp.

Take _Sidewinder, Grim Tales,_ and _Forbidden Kingdoms_ as public examples, and a version of the rules I did for a gritty _Eberron_ campaign as an experiential one for me. Lots of changes were required to make the d20 system even approach a lower cinematic norm. Much more would be required to make it seem anything like realistic, or simulationist if you prefer.

I might take exception to the idea that the D&D game never supported story building, and the idea that 4e won't change that, but I'm not sure what that assertion really means. We'd need to start from a commonly defined "story building" and commonly defined "support."


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 27, 2008)

Simulationism is notoriously difficult to kill. 

I say nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 27, 2008)

D&D was never all that simulationist.


----------



## Belorin (Jan 27, 2008)

Chainmail was about as simulationist as D&D got, it went downhill from there.

Bel


----------



## Wolfspider (Jan 27, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Simulationism is notoriously difficult to kill.
> 
> I say nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.




That idea is Alien to me....


----------



## WyzardWhately (Jan 27, 2008)

A game being "simulationist" has _nothing to do with realism._ 

The two concepts are largely unrelated.  Simulationist arguments essentially mean that the rules are the game-world's laws of physics, and vice versa.  So, essentially, what they are saying is that the rules should reflect the way things are supposed to work IC.  You can run an absolutely simulationist game where a guy with a hundred hit points can fall a hundred feet onto a stone floor, take his 10d6, get back up, dust himself off, and be merely bruised.  It doesn't have to reflect the real world at all.  The simulationist, however, needs to have an explanation of why the game-world's physics feel like that, and the characters who live therein will be aware of it and know that that's how the world works.  So, if someone who is known to be an all-star badass dies from falling off a horse, they're going to be rightly shocked and expect some deeper conspiracy, unlike in the real world where, to be frank,  happens.

Simulationism only requires that the game follow some kind of internal logic, and that the characters be able to determine what that is.  What breaks sim is when gamist or other elements violate that internal logic, not when it violates real-world principles and experience.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Jan 27, 2008)

I'll just say this, if in 4e a level 1 wizard can beat two house-cats then it is closer to real-life then 3e ever was


----------



## Voss (Jan 27, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Simulation has been eliminated as a design goal in 4e.
> 
> This is a fact.
> 
> D&D 4e is not ideally suited to sandbox play or rules-emergent world building.




You can do it with any game.  You can do it with D&D minis, or warhammer or even risk or axis and allies if you really want it to.  It helps if the rules aren't jumping out at the player, kicking them in the head and shouting "You're playing a game, stupid", but it can be done.



> We don't need 40 Threads that amount to whining about this fact.  Butt-kicking and story building, it's got them covered although details there can be argued, but the only way to salvage simulation is to SCRAP 4e as it exists.  That's not happening.  I am really tired of people slagging on every detail that is run over by the non-simulation train.




So, essentially, don't post here if you have a different opinion?  Nice.



> I feel bad for simulation players and DMs, it reflects the sandbox experience I wish I could find others to enjoy with me.  3e was kind of a heyday for you.  But its done, if you want to protest, speak with your wallet and voices, but let the criticism focus on what can be fixed.




Nurr.  3e?  No.  3e was almost solely about number crunching and having the biggest pile of bonuses possible.  Roleplaying of any sort was something you did on your own time, actively struggling against a rules set that didn't really care about it at all.  Which, of course, is always possible, but its a far cry from a heyday. 4e actually looks to me like its trying to support both, but in different areas.  And when it fails, its very, very gamist, to the point of kicking the player in the head.  When it suceeds, it looks more promising than any edition of D&D since BXCMI.


----------



## IceFractal (Jan 27, 2008)

Simulationist doesn't have to mean realistic, in any way relating to the real world.  A system with giant space hamsters where gravity fluctuated based on the day of the week could be highly simulationist, if it had internal logic and stuck to it.  

It just means that the system has internal "laws of physics" (metaphorically speaking), and it sticks to them whether or not that's balanced, whether or not it makes a good story.  You can get several benefits from this, of which approximating reality more closely is only one possbility.  


Another is emergent gameplay/properties.  It's ironic that while many people are trying to put emergent gameplay _into_ electronic games (see Spore, for example), it no longer seems welcome in "modern" tabletop RPGs.  Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about:

A while ago, in a thread not that far away, there was a discussion on how to visit other planets in a D&D setting, using existing material.  Teleport requiring familiarity, a ship to actually fly around looking for them was needed.  One of the proposals was, once the ship was in space, to use a large array of "Mage Hand" magical traps to propel the ship forward at high speed.  This was made possible by the fact that once in space, the ship's lack of weight put it within Mage Hand's limit.  

Not only was this an interesting idea, but it had emergent properties.  Just like many hypothetical space propulsion systems in science fiction, it didn't work within a gravity well, and thus required the ship to stay in space and send down shuttles to explore planets.  This wasn't something added to the rules, it naturally occured from the interaction of existing components.

Now this couldn't have occured in a purely gamist system - it relies entirely on the kind of loopholes and secondary effects 4E is trying to stamp out.  And it would only occur by pure chance in a storytelling system - if having a starship is part of the story, you don't need to figure out the cheapest way to construct it. 


That kind of creativity - not just thinking of an interesting thing, but figuring out how to construct it _within the game system_; and emergent gameplay, where unexpected things that neither the players, DM, or game designer expected can turn up - that's what I'm looking for in simulationism.

And while 3E certainly isn't pure simulation, and 4E doesn't discard it entirely, the amount of it does seem noticably reduced, from what I've seen.


----------



## Reynard (Jan 27, 2008)

WyzardWhately said:
			
		

> Simulationism only requires that the game follow some kind of internal logic, and that the characters be able to determine what that is.  What breaks sim is when gamist or other elements violate that internal logic, not when it violates real-world principles and experience.




Thanks.  You saved me a whole bunch of typing.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Jan 27, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> Simulationist doesn't have to mean realistic, in any way relating to the real world.  A system with giant space hamsters where gravity fluctuated based on the day of the week could be highly simulationist, if it had internal logic and stuck to it.
> 
> It just means that the system has internal "laws of physics" (metaphorically speaking), and it sticks to them whether or not that's balanced, whether or not it makes a good story.  You can get several benefits from this, of which approximating reality more closely is only one possbility.
> 
> ...



What he said.  I actually ran a short campaign in which spelljammerish space travel was important.  And was surprised to find the favored method of getting down to the surface past about 10th level was Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, it made a perfect re-entry "capsule".  I don't think these sort of things are going to be possible with the new magic system.


----------



## marune (Jan 27, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> Simulationist doesn't have to mean realistic, in any way relating to the real world.  A system with giant space hamsters where gravity fluctuated based on the day of the week could be highly simulationist, if it had internal logic and stuck to it.
> 
> It just means that the system has internal "laws of physics" (metaphorically speaking), and it sticks to them whether or not that's balanced, whether or not it makes a good story.




Yup, and there is a even more subtle variation called "high-concept simulationism" where the goal is to re-create a particuliar genre/theme. 

Dread is a good example of this kind of game (nice use of a Jenga tower btw)


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 27, 2008)

::golfclap::

Thank you for saying what must be said, CWG!

D&D has NEVER been about simulationism. It cannot be. It never tried to be. Oh, it had a brief, torrid affair with it in that dark time we call second edition, but like all bad marriages it ended and D&D and simulationism have gone their separate ways. 

And really, how can you expect it to have? Wizards "memorize" spells during the day only to "forget" them later as they are cast, but to do that you first have to "learn" them. Right...

Oh, and defeating the dragon yielded a horde of magic, gold and treasure that could buy a small kingdom, but never seems to upset the local economy, let alone throw the aristocracy into turmoil.

Speaking of treasure, just where DID that weretiger keep those 12 gold pieces?

And lets not forget the grand-daddy of them all: a 10th level fighter puts on bulky metal full-plate armor to make him harder to hit in combat, can survive roughly x10 the amount of sword strokes a first level fighter with the same armor will, and fights perfectly fine until the final sword stroke kills him (0 or lower hp). 

Oh, and a swashbuckler, a druid, a ninja and a warlock not only CAN adventure together, they make a balanced team.

So simulationism be damned. I welcome any changes to D&D that make the game more fun and easier to run.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 27, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> A while ago, in a thread not that far away, there was a discussion on how to visit other planets in a D&D setting, using existing material.  Teleport requiring familiarity, a ship to actually fly around looking for them was needed.  One of the proposals was, once the ship was in space, to use a large array of "Mage Hand" magical traps to propel the ship forward at high speed.  This was made possible by the fact that once in space, the ship's lack of weight put it within Mage Hand's limit.




not to do nitpicking, but there´s a difference between "mass" and "weight" and you are mixing them: mage hand limitation is measured in [lbs] this is a mass unit. weight is measured in newton (kg*m/s^2) so the loss of gravity doesn´t put anything into the mage hand's limit.

on topic: I hope there are rules for drowning. And I hope those rules are not using hp damage. (Con checks vs DC seems appropriate)


----------



## FourthBear (Jan 27, 2008)

If simulationism has as its central conceit using the game rules strictly to model the worlds "physics", then I think that computer aided systems will be increasingly the way to go, where the calculations can be offloaded onto a system that never gets tired, judges constantly and won't allow cheating.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 27, 2008)

WyzardWhately said:
			
		

> A game being "simulationist" has _nothing to do with realism._
> 
> The two concepts are largely unrelated.  Simulationist arguments essentially mean that the rules are the game-world's laws of physics, and vice versa.  So, essentially, what they are saying is that the rules should reflect the way things are supposed to work IC.  You can run an absolutely simulationist game where a guy with a hundred hit points can fall a hundred feet onto a stone floor, take his 10d6, get back up, dust himself off, and be merely bruised.  It doesn't have to reflect the real world at all.  The simulationist, however, needs to have an explanation of why the game-world's physics feel like that, and the characters who live therein will be aware of it and know that that's how the world works.  So, if someone who is known to be an all-star badass dies from falling off a horse, they're going to be rightly shocked and expect some deeper conspiracy, unlike in the real world where, to be frank,  happens.
> 
> Simulationism only requires that the game follow some kind of internal logic, and that the characters be able to determine what that is.  What breaks sim is when gamist or other elements violate that internal logic, not when it violates real-world principles and experience.




Sounds good.

Simulation is about simulating some genre (even if the game makes up its own genre). Things happen that would happen logically even the world played-out based on its rules.

It has always been a style that is hard to define in terms of mechanics quite often but people know it when they see it.

HP have always had sim issues because what they represent are gamist mechanics but what they try to represent is how hard you are to kill based off of toughness, luck etc.

I used to love games the more simulationist they were (loved old rolemaster which could be very sim if you used enough optional rules...boy i got too dumb to keep doing that, senility and all).


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 27, 2008)

FourthBear said:
			
		

> If simulationism has as its central conceit using the game rules strictly to model the worlds "physics", then I think that computer aided systems will be increasingly the way to go, where the calculations can be offloaded onto a system that never gets tired, judges constantly and won't allow cheating.




Except for most cRPGs are really gamist, because that is what people like in cRPGs. They are not trying to simulate a world at all but are pretty much trying to make a game where the players overcome challenges.

I just reread what you wrote and you didnt really talk about cRPGs so i pretty much discussed a non-existent statement.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jan 27, 2008)

*Straw!*

I'm gonna have to disagree with much of the presentation in this thread.  I'm finding the arguments to be strawmen.  They are trivializing a point of view which has merit.  I don't think that narrow "simulationism" or "realism" are the issues that folks who want these features in their game are really talking about.

Roleplaying, generally speaking, is <b>all</b> about conveying a scenario based on real-world mechanics.  The details vary, but the basic mechanics say that you can stick someone with a sword, they'll get hurt.  The rules still convey that basic mechanic, and if it failed to do so players would not buy into the game.  D&D, as a role playing game, still tries to describe scenarios which, vaguely, make sense from a real-world point of view.

There are issues where the mechanics stretch far from what is possible using known physics.  100' falls should be fatal in nearly 100% cases for a human doing the falling.  Falling 30' and not breaking any bones is not very realistic.  So the game takes away those details.  But the underlying idea of "causing harm" is still there, and is still generally realistic.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 27, 2008)

I still play old rolemaster. Its a terrible system. It may be more realistic, but after one solid blow from a goblin with a club, you are out of combat. And 2 weeks later you can go on with your adventure, if you want to fight again.
And a fight takes forever. I rather have a simple combat system with most obvious hazards like drowning and suffocation supported by the rules, so that i actually have time to roleplay. That said: if no rules for suffocation and getting drunk etc are in, i am very displeased... although making some up is not that difficult.
BTW: rules for drowning and marching more than eight hours are bad in 3.5... i prefered to ignore them and made up my own... atually I would be glad if there were just one rule: DM should make const checks as he seems fit... written somewhere in the Players handbook...


----------



## Reynard (Jan 27, 2008)

FourthBear said:
			
		

> If simulationism has as its central conceit using the game rules strictly to model the worlds "physics", then I think that computer aided systems will be increasingly the way to go, where the calculations can be offloaded onto a system that never gets tired, judges constantly and won't allow cheating.




Simulation doesn't necessarily imply complexity -- it implies consistency and an attempt model some other thing.  I think most people who are suggesting that D&D has never supprted sim play don't actually know what the term means.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 27, 2008)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> There are issues where the mechanics stretch far from what is possible using known physics.  100' falls should be fatal in nearly 100% cases for a human doing the falling.  Falling 30' and not breaking any bones is not very realistic.  So the game takes away those details.  But the underlying idea of "causing harm" is still there, and is still generally realistic.




what about: the DM can break legs after a fall as desired? (an attack vs fortitude defense at +1/10ft)


----------



## Silent Cartographer (Jan 27, 2008)

Nail, meet hammer, heheh...   

I agree that 4E is going to upset a lot of closet simulationists this spring.

The design architecture for 4E clearly a vision of gamist flexibility and power, and supports narrative play mainly through the abstraction provided by that architecture. That same level of abstraction is what drives some simulation fans nutty.

D&D has never been particularly simulationist, but I agree with the OP that 3E gave the most support for sim-style D&D compared to previous editions. Have you seen the _Rules of the Game_ web articles that dig into the rules at an excruciating level of detail? Try the  flying movement rules (part 3 of 7 on movement!); that level of simulation was never attempted by previous editions. So I think there will be 3E fans who are disappointed that 4E is "moving backward" in that regard.

However, I do think there is room for 'sandbox' style simulation. There may not be 'support' from the rules, but there are layers of gameplay above the rules layer (the so-called 'meta-game') that is free to be shaped in any way the GM and players choose. _Grand Theft Auto_ is hardly realistic from a nitty-gritty POV, but it's a classic example of sandbox gameplay, and still has a consistent (if very silly) framework of cause and effect.

I recently became aware of Ben Robbin's West Marches D&D campaign articles, which I think are brilliant. I believe this is a classic example of a low-narrative, sandbox-style D&D sim campaign that would work with any edition, including 4th.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 27, 2008)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> I'm gonna have to disagree with much of the presentation in this thread.  I'm finding the arguments to be strawmen.  They are trivializing a point of view which has merit.  I don't think that narrow "simulationism" or "realism" are the issues that folks who want these features in their game are really talking about.
> 
> Roleplaying, generally speaking, is <b>all</b> about conveying a scenario based on real-world mechanics.  The details vary, but the basic mechanics say that you can stick someone with a sword, they'll get hurt.  The rules still convey that basic mechanic, and if it failed to do so players would not buy into the game.  D&D, as a role playing game, still tries to describe scenarios which, vaguely, make sense from a real-world point of view.
> 
> There are issues where the mechanics stretch far from what is possible using known physics.  100' falls should be fatal in nearly 100% cases for a human doing the falling.  Falling 30' and not breaking any bones is not very realistic.  So the game takes away those details.  But the underlying idea of "causing harm" is still there, and is still generally realistic.





Most games are generally realistic but that is not what simuilationist is about. It is about making choices in game design.

What is more important that someone who gets stabbed several times will be severely wounded or killed or that they just lose some hp so that they can keep contributing to the fight.

One of those options are more simulationist - the rules are trying to simulate the gritty effects of combat (in a game that is say trying to simulate a true fantasy adventure...eg George RR Martin)

The second option is to provide the players with ways to enjoy the challenge and to contribute to the encounter and not have to sit out a large portion of the encounter because their character is busy being in shock and trying to stuff their innards back in.

We see a lot of options that D&D made to really improve gamism. The entire balance between spellcasters and warriors is pretty much about this and you see the battle that rages on.

Some people believe that wizards should be capable of things beyond the scope of non-magicusers as that what occurs in many types of novels (say wheel of time). The retort is that no player should have to play a characters that is weaker than another character.

If a game was trying to simulate Lord of the Rings, all of the characters would be WAY different in power levels. If a gamist version of Lord of the Rings came out, all the charactesr would have similar effectiveness.

I am simplifying the matter quite a bit. But it is really all about decisions during game design and what is being focused on.

The thief's backstab not working against say undead is an example. It didnt work against creature without 'vulnerable' parts because of a simulationist perspective. Some people, though,  didnt like the fact that thieves might have to be involved in a combat where they are ineffectual so they wanted this rule changed so that backstab works against all creatures.

If they decided the thieve's backstab shouldnt work against undead to balance out the damage it does that would then be more of a gamist decision.

These decisions are the types that define sim vs gamism.  It is why is this decision being made...to improve the simulation of that particular genre or setting, or is it to improve the ability of the participants to deal with a challenge.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 27, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> I still play old rolemaster. Its a terrible system. It may be more realistic, but after one solid blow from a goblin with a club, you are out of combat. And 2 weeks later you can go on with your adventure, if you want to fight again.
> And a fight takes forever. I rather have a simple combat system with most obvious hazards like drowning and suffocation supported by the rules, so that i actually have time to roleplay. That said: if no rules for suffocation and getting drunk etc are in, i am very displeased... although making some up is not that difficult.
> BTW: rules for drowning and marching more than eight hours are bad in 3.5... i prefered to ignore them and made up my own... atually I would be glad if there were just one rule: DM should make const checks as he seems fit... written somewhere in the Players handbook...




I love Rolemaster..but not sure I could DM easily again, too much crunch for me....but some of the best games I played were in RM.

The criticals are what turned me onto the game. But you definitely cant approach it like you do D&D or the players will be a bit unhappy that they are stunned, bleeding and possibly missing some limbs.


----------



## IceFractal (Jan 27, 2008)

As mentioned, falling 100' and walking away from it doesn't mean the system isn't simulationist. 
*Simulationist:* You fall 100', so you die.  Because falls that long will kill you.  
*Also Simulationist:* You fall 100', take 10d6 damage, but you survived, as was expected.  In this world, people who can fight dragons and win are known to be able to survive long falls.  
*Still Simulationist:* You fall 100', and recieve 10d6 gold pieces.  In this world, the god Zeppo personally rewards people who fall long distances.
*Not Simulationist:* Long falls are known to be deadly, and will kill most things.  But when a PC, BBEG, or important NPC falls, they only take 10d6 damage, because otherwise pushing people off cliffs is unbalanced.
*Not Simulationist:* You fall 100', so you suffer whatever effects the DM and/or players deem best for the story.


Side note:


			
				UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> mage hand limitation is measured in [lbs] this is a mass unit. weight is measured in newton (kg*m/s^2) so the loss of gravity doesn´t put anything into the mage hand's limit.



You, know, that's right.  But in my defense, Mage Hand uses it incorrectly as well - "Target: One nonmagical, unattended object weighing up to 5 lb.", so whether they really meant mass or weight is arguable.


----------



## epochrpg (Jan 27, 2008)

Dudes, 4th Edition is TOTALLY Simulationist... 4th Edition GURPS that is.  I cannot imagine people were playing D&D-- a class & level based system where you magically got better at everything simultaneously-- thinking it was simulationist.  Simulationists play GURPS-- where you can get killed in one shot to the eyeball, armor reduces damage, and every round of combat covers one second of time.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 27, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> As mentioned, falling 100' and walking away from it doesn't mean the system isn't simulationist.
> *Simulationist:* You fall 100', so you die.  Because falls that long will kill you.
> *Also Simulationist:* You fall 100', take 10d6 damage, but you survived, as was expected.  In this world, people who can fight dragons and win are known to be able to survive long falls.
> *Still Simulationist:* You fall 100', and recieve 10d6 gold pieces.  In this world, the god Zeppo personally rewards people who fall long distances.
> ...




Nice post.

If the genre is that heroes are really tough to kill then the way D&D did falling damage isnt a problem.  The problem was always how people percieved this.

They wanted something that should ensure certain death to result in certain death. The problem was most things in a fight ensured certain death (a fireball) but nobody wanted people to die so abrubtly.


What i found to not be simulation (given the premise that heroes can take incredible amounts of damage as a genre convention) were any rules that resulted in immediate death regardless of hp such as coup de gras rules. I felt rules like that were the problem.

The crossbow to the throat/hero as hostage types of situations that caused issues.

Apop


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 27, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Simulation has been eliminated as a design goal in 4e.



Arguably, as others have pointed out, simulation has never been a top priority in D&D -- but that is missing a very important point about simulation: the more free-form the game, the less spelled-out the rules can be, and the more we need to rely on over-arching meta-rules.

The most obvious meta-rule to fall back on is _That isn't what would happen_.  We almost always want to resort to how the real world works -- with the exception that our fantasy world is full of wizards, dragons, etc.

In a game where the rules don't actively contradict reality -- except where we really want them to, with wizards, etc. -- we can use our own judgment to augment the narrow rules.  When the rules do actively contradict reality, we get lots of arguments.


----------



## Khur (Jan 27, 2008)

I guess we should've defined "simulation" before beginning the discussion. I generally take the word, in this context, to mean, "realism," "modeling real world physics," or something similar. I don’t take it to mean, and have never seen it regularly, if ever, used to mean, “modeling an internally consistent alternate reality." Especially not an internally consistent alternate reality, such as one where you always receive an average of 35 gp for a 100-foot fall, because of the god Zeppo—or any other such absurdities. 

I think it’s safe to assume that most people mean “realistic” when they say “simulationist.” And I mean “realistic” in the sense that falling 10 stories and crossbow bolts through the head kill you. The “internally consistent alternate reality” model isn’t wrong, and it’s even entertaining to discuss, but it isn’t helpful in a simulationist = realistic discussion.

The 3e rules certainly never even suggest that they're modeling an internally consistent alternate reality of any type. Even if they did, they'd be a failure, because the rules themselves aren't internally consistent in effects even in similar in-game circumstances. It’s largely the same (or worse) with any other version of the D&D game.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 27, 2008)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> Roleplaying, generally speaking, is <b>all</b> about conveying a scenario based on real-world mechanics.  The details vary, but the basic mechanics say that you can stick someone with a sword, they'll get hurt.



Right here, you're assuming something controversial. For example, TRoS is fantasy (low fantasy, perhaps) RPGing, but in that game (under the right conditions) PCs survive sword blows. As is the case with D&D.



			
				Silent Cartographer said:
			
		

> I agree that 4E is going to upset a lot of closet simulationists this spring.
> 
> The design architecture for 4E clearly a vision of gamist flexibility and power, and supports narrative play mainly through the abstraction provided by that architecture. That same level of abstraction is what drives some simulation fans nutty.



QFT. The rest of the post is good too.



			
				UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> I still play old rolemaster. Its a terrible system.



I GM a lot of RM. Most of your complaints are legitimate, but it does have two features that I like very much: (i) in its pursuit of simulationist perfection, it makes the character sheet a total model of the PC - and this can then form the basis of thematically complex roleplaying; (ii) it's OB/parry rules give the players a lot of control over how they deal with adversity (in some respects not unlike 4e will) which can somewhat blunten the otherwise devastatingly anti-narrativist implications of the RM combat system.


----------



## marune (Jan 27, 2008)

In other words,

Simulationism is not limited to "realism".

"realism" is a kind of simulationism.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 27, 2008)

The ring thing is part and parcel for the simulationist/gamist divide.

The Simulationist sees that you can't wear Rings until 11th level and asks "Why is the character able to put on a Ring and nothing happen at 10th, but at 11th level the ring functions?" And from that starting point, the question is answered.

The Gamist sees that you can't wear Rings until 11th level and asks "What powers does a Ring have that make it inappropriate for a character of 10th level, but appropriate for a character of 11th level?" And from that starting point, the question is answered.

This is the true difference between the simulationist and the gamist. And, this is why I think, as far as the 4e rules are concerned, the designers are putting gamist questions ahead of the simulationist.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 27, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> I guess we should've defined "simulation" before beginning the discussion. I generally take the word, in this context, to mean, "realism," "modeling real world physics," or something similar. I don’t take it to mean, and have never seen it regularly, if ever, used to mean, “modeling an internally consistent alternate reality." Especially not an internally consistent alternate reality, such as one where you always receive an average of 35 gp for a 100-foot fall, because of the god Zeppo—or any other such absurdities.
> 
> I think it’s safe to assume that most people mean “realistic” when they say “simulationist.” And I mean “realistic” in the sense that falling 10 stories and crossbow bolts through the head kill you. The “internally consistent alternate reality” model isn’t wrong, and it’s even entertaining to discuss, but it isn’t helpful in a simulationist = realistic discussion.
> 
> The 3e rules certainly never even suggest that they're modeling an internally consistent alternate reality of any type. Even if they did, they'd be a failure, because the rules themselves aren't internally consistent in effects even in similar in-game circumstances. It’s largely the same (or worse) with any other version of the D&D game.




Simulationism has a pretty (well kinda) specific meaning in terms of game design and play, though it is  harder to adequately define compared to narrativism and gamism.

But simulationism is basically "simulating a genre" and it only approaches realism as the genre approaches realism. Simulating a genre is meaning having rules that model a genre and are consistent in their approach to it. Many times it invokes realism as most genres are still founded in realistic aspects.

You can use simulationism to mean realism but then you will not be using a word in the way that Peryton, Skeptic, IceFractal or others are using it and much confusion could result.

Edit...didnt mean to sound like I was the guardian of meaning of these terms...just several of us in the conversation are using it to avoid some issues with talking about realism in a game that is by definition unrealistic.


----------



## Cbas_10 (Jan 27, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Simulation has been eliminated as a design goal in 4e.
> 
> This is a fact.
> 
> ...




If 4E *forces* any of us into a particular _style_ of playing as much as this statement seems to look down at any particular player's individual desire for gaming how they want...then 4E will really be a dog of a boring game.  Let's put all these lables (simulationist, gamist, blah blah blah) aside for a bit.  Who needs 'em?

We all have various types of imaginations and different threshholds for suspension of disbelief.  Even among groups of friends who have been gaming together for ten years or more, we have various feelings and opinions about what is cool, lame, interesting, or "too out-there to give a crap about."  Granted, in a solid group of players, we tend to either have more similar feelings than others....or we are tolerant and more willing to comprimise.  But when we get out of our play groups and see others, talk to others, and even experience others' role-playing games, it is a simple fact of life that different games will be very different experiences.  Much like there are vast differences betweed reading Tolkien, Jordan, and Wies&Hickman.  We are not playing Monopoly or Chess, here.  Certain rules exist in D&D in order to create a "level playing field," while others exist to facilitate a new player's experience, while even other rules exist as optional uses in order to facilitate the telling of a story.  In the end, the "rules" of 3.x were malleable enough to support a great number of gaming styles and preferences (yes....some things needed to be fixed....not jumping into an argument about that).  _*THAT*_ is the number-one reason that I enjoy 3.x and am hesitant about 4E until I can actually see the finished product.

I don't want any person, group, or game company to tell me how to play or to try to limit my options with how I want to run my game.  I want to find and buy the game that is the best balance between _Point One:_ Provided/printed gaming ideas for me to spawn my ideas from ...and... _Point Two:_ Customization of the game itself for my purposes of telling a story vs. staying with a consistent set of rules that is fair to players (players should be surprised by plot twists...not wierdo houserules they were not told about).

Take the Exalted game as an example.  Great game, written well....but the anime influence is far too entwined in the game for my tastes.  I don't like anime, so I tried to look at the game and remove the anime influence and feel from it (since I liked other aspects of the game's system and certain bits of character types).  It did not work out.  It was far too much work to remove the elements that I did not want.  

With D&D 3.x, however, it was far easier to customize things to work how I felt the most comfortable and enjoyed the most.  Various settings to choose from, a number of classes that still allowed for player choice if a handful were excluded, and more.  In the end, D&D was D&D in my game.....but it was greatly personalized and uniquely "ours" with only 2 pages of houserules and setting exceptions.  Very little work on the structure of the game allowed us to spend a lot more time on the storyline, the action, the characterization, and other bits of fun.

So, if 4E strives to "stomp out" simulationism by formatting the game in a manner that makes it difficult or time consuming to customize or personalize....that will be thier mistake - not my loss.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 27, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> Side note:
> You, know, that's right.  But in my defense, Mage Hand uses it incorrectly as well - "Target: One nonmagical, unattended object weighing up to 5 lb.", so whether they really meant mass or weight is arguable.




jep, but there is only one verb which is used for both^^ and lb is still a mass unit 

another problem is, that you can´t use enchanted mage hand things to propell your ship, because at least the magehand thingy is magical... so it doesn´t work even then.

But maybe you could try using a magic/antimagic drive and use the free energy...


----------



## marune (Jan 27, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> This is the true difference between the simulationist and the gamist. And, this is why I think, as far as the 4e rules are concerned, the designers are putting gamist questions ahead of the simulationist.




Yeah, problem is that Bill Slavicsek said to the designers in the early stages (it's written in Races & Classes) : the DM is not a opponent, but a storyteller.

In a clearly gamist RPG, the DM is a opponent, not a story*teller*.

That's why in my first post I said I was waiting for the DMG before saying that D&D is freed from its incoherent simulationist tendencies.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 27, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Simulation has been eliminated as a design goal in 4e.
> 
> This is a fact.



This is a theory, as at this point is much of what we know about 4e.  That said, the evidence is piling up fast...







> D&D 4e is not ideally suited to sandbox play or rules-emergent world building.



What do you mean by "sandbox play"?







> We don't need 40 Threads that amount to whining about this fact.



Yes we do.  As it has been stated that initial design is even now still in flux - never mind secondary design for the second-third-fourth round of core releases - *and* that WotC are paying at least some attention to what is said here, then having 40, or 60, or 320 posts/threads asking "where'd the simulation (def.: realism) go?" would indicate there's at least some desire for them to keep it/put it back.


> I feel bad for simulation players and DMs, it reflects the sandbox experience I wish I could find others to enjoy with me.  3e was kind of a heyday for you.  But its done, if you want to protest, speak with your wallet and voices, but let the criticism focus on what can be fixed.



I'm not sure 3e was the heyday here, as it was more rules-heavy.  The lighter the rule-set, the more (or less) realistic things can be made, depending on the DM.

Lanefan


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 27, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I say nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.




Nice! My game group quotes that all the time.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jan 27, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> jep, but there is only one verb which is used for both^^ and lb is still a mass unit
> 
> another problem is, that you can´t use enchanted mage hand things to propell your ship, because at least the magehand thingy is magical... so it doesn´t work even then.
> 
> But maybe you could try using a magic/antimagic drive and use the free energy...




Or handwave it with an Eldritch Machine and get on with the damn story?


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 27, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> The ring thing is part and parcel for the simulationist/gamist divide.
> 
> The Simulationist sees that you can't wear Rings until 11th level and asks "Why is the character able to put on a Ring and nothing happen at 10th, but at 11th level the ring functions?" And from that starting point, the question is answered.
> 
> ...




Well said....what shall we call a halfbreed with mixed simulationalist/gamist parentage?

Cause I think that's where I fall...


----------



## Professor Phobos (Jan 27, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> In a clearly gamist RPG, the DM is a opponent, not a story*teller*.




That's not true; even in a gamist RPG, the GM still has the fundamental duty of all GMs:

"Ensure everyone has a good time."

Now, when people pick "gamist" play, they're having fun facing down challenges presented by the GM, granting it a semblance of adversarial play. But the "everyone has fun!" objective is overriding.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 27, 2008)

SkidAce said:
			
		

> Well said....what shall we call a halfbreed with mixed simulationalist/gamist parentage?
> 
> Cause I think that's where I fall...




simugamalist!


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 27, 2008)

sounds.....kinky...

does Eric's grandma approve?


----------



## mmadsen (Jan 27, 2008)

SkidAce said:
			
		

> What shall we call a halfbreed with mixed simulationalist/gamist parentage?



Normal.

Most people want a _game_ that _simulates_ a fantasy world full of adventure.  They want a challenge, but they want it to be free-form enough that they can "think out of the box" and not just run the numbers within a well-defined list of options.


----------



## Alnag (Jan 27, 2008)

D&D is pretty simulationist game and it always was. It is a simulation of specific genre indeed. Not real world physics. It simulates sword & sorcery fantasy. Heroic one. It do a great job. It works. And I see no big change in this paradigm...

D&D has a great element of gamism. Indeed. It has XPs and challenges... but it might not be used solely that way. And if it is not, the other part of it - the simulation one is stronger than.

There is not much of a drama, although one might speculate about this one as well, and I have heard pretty good specualtion about it too.

But please, spare us bitching about how the game is no longer simulationist. In your definition of that it never was in the first place. In mine it still is and will be.


----------



## Cbas_10 (Jan 27, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> The ring thing is part and parcel for the simulationist/gamist divide.
> 
> The Simulationist sees that you can't wear Rings until 11th level and asks "Why is the character able to put on a Ring and nothing happen at 10th, but at 11th level the ring functions?" And from that starting point, the question is answered.
> 
> ...




Well, if I had to label myself, this would firmly entrench me with the Simulationist crowd.  Unless, of course, there is something in the game that would give some reason - from more of a character's perspective - why this phenomenon exists.

Wait....I guess that is still simulationist.  But, I don't need realism as much as I want a sensible reason why something works like it does.  "Wizards can make +2 armor once they reach 6th level because they are then able to channel that much energy and harness that power when they have sufficient skill" seems a lot more sensible and interesting in a story sense than "your Ring of Doing-Something-Interesting won't work until you have garnered a certain amount of skill and experience that has _nothing at all_ to do with wearing and using that Ring."


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 27, 2008)

Cbas_10 said:
			
		

> Well, if I had to label myself, this would firmly entrench me with the Simulationist crowd.  Unless, of course, there is something in the game that would give some reason - from more of a character's perspective - why this phenomenon exists.
> 
> Wait....I guess that is still simulationist.  But, I don't need realism as much as I want a sensible reason why something works like it does.  "Wizards can make +2 armor once they reach 6th level because they are then able to channel that much energy and harness that power when they have sufficient skill" seems a lot more sensible and interesting in a story sense than "your Ring of Doing-Something-Interesting won't work until you have garnered a certain amount of skill and experience that has _nothing at all_ to do with wearing and using that Ring."




I think it is important to think why a rule is being made. All gamist rules can be explained retroactively and *seem* to be simulationist.

It is not necessarily always the result that is important but the intent.

"Why is the rule being developed that way" 

For instance I believe spell memorization was really a way to balance magic-users  with fighters. It could be explained and made sense (seemingly simulationist) but i think it really was a way to balance a wizard's power (though Gary would have to chime in on this if this is the case)

Use Magic device was similar. It could be explained away (like from the old Cugel stories) but it was to improve the effectiveness and desirability of rogues.

Gamism does not necessarily prevent good explanations, (of course you can explain anything away) but these ideas help figure out why a rule is being made.

All RPGs have some element of gamism and simulationism. These terms really just mean the underlying purpose of certain rules and game design choices.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 27, 2008)

Cbas_10 said:
			
		

> Well, if I had to label myself, this would firmly entrench me with the Simulationist crowd.  Unless, of course, there is something in the game that would give some reason - from more of a character's perspective - why this phenomenon exists.
> 
> Wait....I guess that is still simulationist.  But, I don't need realism as much as I want a sensible reason why something works like it does.  "Wizards can make +2 armor once they reach 6th level because they are then able to channel that much energy and harness that power when they have sufficient skill" seems a lot more sensible and interesting in a story sense than "your Ring of Doing-Something-Interesting won't work until you have garnered a certain amount of skill and experience that has _nothing at all_ to do with wearing and using that Ring."




Really, thats no different than: 

Bob, you gained 6,000 xp from slaying the mindflayers in the Evil Temple. You are now 9th level, and you get a bunch of followers who like you and follow your orders" 

Bob: "Sweet. Where were they when I was SLAYING those mindflayers?"

Sorry, you weren't powerful enough then.


----------



## marune (Jan 27, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> That's not true; even in a gamist RPG, the GM still has the fundamental duty of all GMs:
> 
> "Ensure everyone has a good time."




I agree if I can rephrase it to : "ensure everyone has a fair share of the spotlight".



			
				Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Now, when people pick "gamist" play, they're having fun facing down challenges presented by the GM, granting it a semblance of adversarial play. But the "everyone has fun!" objective is overriding.




I could agree that "opponent" may be too simple to describe what a DM is in a gamist play.

However, storyteller is far more troublesome.


----------



## Cbas_10 (Jan 27, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Really, thats no different than:
> 
> Bob, you gained 6,000 xp from slaying the mindflayers in the Evil Temple. You are now 9th level, and you get a bunch of followers who like you and follow your orders"
> 
> ...




Actually, that can be easily explained....in terms of my gaming style.  It might not apply to yours, which is cool.  We are not forced to play by each other's styles.



			
				One of my games.... said:
			
		

> DM: "Now that your characters have gotten back from the Temple and we finished handling the stuff your characters were buying and selling, we'll end the session for today.  Here's your XP....see you next game."
> 
> Bob: "Cool....6,000xp bumps me up to 9th level, which allows me to take a feat...specifically the Leadership feat."
> 
> DM: "Allright. Bob, your character's exploits, bragging at the tavern, and fearsome reputation have made all that time and effort trying to spread his name worthwhile...x-number of guys start to trickle in, wanting to follow your example and follow you for various reasons.  That last battle with the mindflayers must have really impressed these guys enough to commit to you."




Aside from seeing the really annoying precedent in Neverwinter Nights (where I'd walk around with a +3 longsword that was highlighted red and unusable until I hit a certain level), I really don't "get" a justification that I can get my players to swallow when I say, "Sorry...that ring is inert until the game sheet that your character has no comprehension of has a certain number scrawled upon it."


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Jan 27, 2008)

I just have one question to pose to everyone desiring realism in the D&D ruleset (of any edition):

How do you propose to make a game in which heroes are _expected_ to fight dragons and demons and such realistic in comparison to our world?  If your heroes were of (real) human fragility, they'd be little more than the tomatoes to go in the monster's pasta sauce for supper.  

"Hey Smaug, wanna chop up some of those elves to add a little spice to the stir-fry tonight?"  "Sure thing, Ashardalon!"

~LS


----------



## Cbas_10 (Jan 27, 2008)

Lord Sessadore said:
			
		

> I just have one question to pose to everyone desiring realism in the D&D ruleset (of any edition):
> 
> How do you propose to make a game in which heroes are _expected_ to fight dragons and demons and such realistic in comparison to our world?  If your heroes were of (real) human fragility, they'd be little more than the tomatoes to go in the monster's pasta sauce for supper.
> 
> ...




Well, I'll reference back to my first post in this thread.  This is a fantasy game that requires a bit of suspension of disbelief.  However, we all have different degrees of this.  The game should support a flexible enough system to support mine AND yours with some limited twealing.

To answer your question, Lord Sess....my game is not one where "heroes are required to do anything."  Mine is one where relatively ordinary (relatively, in comparison to a world populated by elves, magic, and other-worldly contacts) people find themselves in relatively extraordinary situations.  Characters are people in the world that become heroes by deed.....they are not heroes because they happen to be fully written up as PCs on a sheet of paper.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 27, 2008)

Cbas_10 said:
			
		

> Actually, that can be easily explained....in terms of my gaming style.  It might not apply to yours, which is cool.  We are not forced to play by each other's styles.




It isn't really about explaining things, though. Anything can be explained. The questions "from where does this rule originate" is probably more accurate. 

Larger creatures having -1 to AC is probably simulationist. People thought about big monsters and said "hitting bigger things is easier." And so they added a rule that makes it so.

Having to be higher level to craft a higher plus into a weapon is gamist, on the other hand. A developer decided that PCs shouldn't be able to make +4 weapons at 5th level because it would be unbalancing. Then later, fluff can be added to the rule for in-character explanation.

An RPG is not going to be purely simulationist or gamist. You'll always have things like both of these examples. And that's fine. Both simulationist and gamist philosophies, I think, _must_ be in any roleplaying game for it to work. The question is the degree to which each is going to be held in importance by the developers. When will gamism trump simulationism and vice versa become important questions that must be answered. It looks like in 4e's case, gamism is taking the forefront, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

NOTE: I didn't mean to start up the Ring thing in this thread. I think it exemplifies the clash, and if we look at it dispassionately, then we can more easily come to an understanding between groups. I don't think that simulationists and gamists need be at odds, as I don't think anyone is just one or just the other. (Well, maybe somebody ).


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 28, 2008)

Lord Sessadore said:
			
		

> I just have one question to pose to everyone desiring realism in the D&D ruleset (of any edition):
> 
> How do you propose to make a game in which heroes are _expected_ to fight dragons and demons and such realistic in comparison to our world?  If your heroes were of (real) human fragility, they'd be little more than the tomatoes to go in the monster's pasta sauce for supper.
> 
> ...




This goes back to simulationism is not realism.  

The world is already fantastical, this we know almost by definition of the game.

The next question is what is the impact of fantastical elements.

WIth some it is straightforward...wizards use magic (not real)....

Otherways it could be less straightforward such as...heroes are more indestructible than non-heroes

If this is part of the "physics" of the world then it is still "real" based on the mechanics that shape that imaginary world.

That is why the use of simulationism is used vs realism. The game is not real. Many many things in the game do not resemble reality in any way, shape or form.

There is a drive for internal consistency though given that fantastical elements (whatever they are) exist.

This goes back to the falling issue. People want falling say 1000'  to be lethal no matter the character level (not doing hp damage just killing the poor guy).

But being hit by an object in combat that is equivalent to falling 1000' they dont want to necessarily be lethal (just do hp damage).

Given that in both cases the guy got hit with the same amount of force, whiy should one be lethal and the other not.

Or if someone is dropped in lave (some think they should basically die instantly regardless of hp because being dropped in lava is deadly for anyone) but if a wizard creates a spell that is equivalent to being dropped in lava, very few think that instant death should be the result (regardless of hp).


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Jan 28, 2008)

Cbas_10 said:
			
		

> Well, I'll reference back to my first post in this thread.  This is a fantasy game that requires a bit of suspension of disbelief.  However, we all have different degrees of this.  The game should support a flexible enough system to support mine AND yours with some limited twealing.
> 
> To answer your question, Lord Sess....my game is not one where "heroes are required to do anything."  Mine is one where relatively ordinary (relatively, in comparison to a world populated by elves, magic, and other-worldly contacts) people find themselves in relatively extraordinary situations.  Characters are people in the world that become heroes by deed.....they are not heroes because they happen to be fully written up as PCs on a sheet of paper.



I would tend to agree with that, and that's the sort of basis for how I want my game to be as well.  I was merely making the (apparently) same point you did earlier - that the game world is not like our reality, and so any attempt to model it as such is fairly ludicrous.  

If you only want your PCs to ever battle goblins and orcs, and those in small numbers, then go merrily on your way with realism.  However, to design a game in which there is the possibility of confronting enormously powerful mythological creatures with any reasonable hope of victory, realism must fall by the wayside.  

Simulationism, though, I think could be attained.  That is, to make the internal physics and laws of the game world consistent.  I also think that most of the simulationism of a given game world can be reasonably back engineered from more gamist arbitrations and rules.  You just have to get creative.  The enjoyability of the system by the majority of the fans should be paramount to either design perspective though.  Not saying definitely that they are or are not achieving that, just saying that concern should supersede all others.  It is a game, after all, not a physics engine.  

~LS


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 28, 2008)

Lord Sessadore said:
			
		

> I also think that most of the simulationism of a given game world can be reasonably back engineered from more gamist arbitrations and rules.  You just have to get creative.
> 
> ~LS




This is kind of the point i was trying to get at. It is really the intent in designing the rule and not the necessary effect of the rule. 

Almost any gamist rule can be explained in a way to resemble it having been a simulationist decision.

It is really why was the rule made that is important when talking about simulationist and gamist designs as it can help let you know whether the game is good fit for your group based on what it focuses on.


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Jan 28, 2008)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> This goes back to simulationism is not realism.
> 
> The world is already fantastical, this we know almost by definition of the game.
> 
> ...



Yes, I was trying to make a similar point.  If you play in a game where "humans" can withstand a _meteor swarm_, or a 100' long dragon's bite, or the impact of a 50 lb. mace swung by a giant 20 feet tall, don't complain because falling 20 storeys or being dropped in lava won't kill you.  I agree that rules governing these things should be attempted to be written with consistency, but if they are consistent, having a level 20 character fall 200 feet won't kill him.  

~LS


----------



## Cbas_10 (Jan 28, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> It isn't really about explaining things, though. Anything can be explained. The questions "from where does this rule originate" is probably more accurate.
> 
> Larger creatures having -1 to AC is probably simulationist. People thought about big monsters and said "hitting bigger things is easier." And so they added a rule that makes it so.
> 
> ...




I'm not sure if I really fit within the "Simulationist" group, or if a third group exists: Storytellers.

In essence, if some random rule exists that works or does not work with other rules....I'm not here to call out its realism or its importance as a game balance and game play factor.  I want to be able to explain it in the sense of a story.

From my perspective....I am not running a D&D adventure that has a common theme that becomes a chronicle.  Instead, I have a storyline in mind that just happens to be told and interacted with by the players in the medium of the D&D rules.

Fire-breathing dragons that defy physics via thier mass, wingspan, and aerodynamics.....who cares?  This is fantasy....it is a story....Dragons are magical creatures that fly by the use of thier wings assisted by some sort of magic that neither needs to be detailed, nor really matters.  The point is that they _almost_ could fly on their own, but have that little bit of fantasy edge in the form of magic. It is not realistic, but relatively sensible.  But Rings that don't function until some arbitrary point in a person's life after they have performed a number of travels, fended off a number of creatures, and successfully socially interacted with enough people?  I'm open to suggestions of explinations.....but until then....

I'm not pulling the rings argument to the fore to debate rings.  I'm just demonstrating where I am coming from, and WotC happened to provide perfect ammunition for my "Too gamist is not always best for the _story_" stance.

To be fair, 3.x has an aspect that I wholly dropped/changed because it made little or no sense to me in the sense of telling a story: charging XP for spellcasting or item creation.  Instead, the "Power Component" optional rule is a standard requirement.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 28, 2008)

Lord Sessadore said:
			
		

> Yes, I was trying to make a similar point.  If you play in a game where "humans" can withstand a _meteor swarm_, or a 100' long dragon's bite, or the impact of a 50 lb. mace swung by a giant 20 feet tall, don't complain because falling 20 storeys or being dropped in lava won't kill you.  I agree that rules governing these things should be attempted to be written with consistency, but if they are consistent, having a level 20 character fall 200 feet won't kill him.
> 
> ~LS




Agree very much...your point was more succinctly made..i am guilty of long-windedness.


----------



## Khur (Jan 28, 2008)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> Simulationism has a pretty (well kinda) specific meaning in terms of game design and play, though it is harder to adequately define compared to narrativism and gamism.
> 
> But simulationism is basically "simulating a genre" and it only approaches realism as the genre approaches realism. Simulating a genre is meaning having rules that model a genre and are consistent in their approach to it. Many times it invokes realism as most genres are still founded in realistic aspects.
> 
> ...



I don't think that most of those bemoaning a lack of simulation could agree that what you say here is their definition of simulation. I'd have to question if that's what the OP meant by simulation, admitting that I don’t know. By your definition, which is a fine one, D&D has always been reasonably simulationist. 

I agree that my definition isn't the same, and as you rightly point out, not having the same definition is a point of confusion. If we had agreed beforehand that simulation means, "simulating a genre," then I should have/would have used "realism" in my posts instead of "simulation." 

But then, what does “realism” mean in this context. To me, it can only mean, “simulating real-world physics to the extent possible in a setting where magic and the fantastic coexist with some real-world situations.” I say this mostly because it’s not worth discussing how magic and fantastic elements are unrealistic when trying to discuss realism with regards to certain aspects of a fantasy RPG.


----------



## Xethreau (Jan 28, 2008)

*Mostly thankful*

I am mostly glad that simulation is a secondary priority in 4e design.  It will allow for easier, more intuitive, easier to balance, faster game play to all be priorities, which is something I agree with strongly.  I do like a degree of "simulation," but I would really hate for D&D to become Elder Scrolls.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 28, 2008)

Cbas_10 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if I really fit within the "Simulationist" group, or if a third group exists: Storytellers.




That would be narrativist based games. Definitions vary a lot. I usually define them as having rules that help the group create a story in a cooperative manner.  Other definitions are more abstract (about exploring a certain theme etc.).

A nice example of this is the characters who want to break into a house to break into a safe to steal something.

In simulationist perspective whether there is something cool in the safe is based off of some logic based on the NPC. Success could mean finding something cool or finding nothing. Failure could just mean they dont successfully find the safe or break into the house.

In narrativist perspective if they succeed they DO find something interesting and cool. If they fail something bad happens. Nothing happening is not a result.

The DM might have to change the consistency of the world (it might have been that he didnt envision the NPC having anythign intersesting...that is ok in a simulaitonist approach, but that is not ok in a narrativist approach).

Though this is kind of mixing up simulationist/narrative vs task/conflict resolution but it does help think of what the game is trying to do.

Another approach is somethign like bonus dice. In a simulationst game if you sneak past the guard to assasinate the king, a great roll to sneak past the guard doesn't help you assasinate the king it just helps you get undetected past the guard.

In a more narrativist approach, a great roll on sneaking past the guard could roll over into bonus dice to help assasinate the king.

In reality there is no reason for success on one of those challenges should help you with the other, it lacks a certain consistency (probably not the correct word); you could try and expalin it in a ad-hoc manner. In the other perspective, you actually dont care that they two are not realistically connected it is an abstraction for the game.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 28, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> But then, what does “realism” mean in this context. To me, it can only mean, “simulating real-world physics to the extent possible in a setting where magic and the fantastic coexist with some real-world situations.” I say this mostly because it’s not worth discussing how magic and fantastic elements are unrealistic when trying to discuss realism with regards to certain aspects of a fantasy RPG.




And many times that is what people are meaning as the genre they think of is "our pseudo medieval world" + independent magic elements.

A game that is based on that though would be very different than D&D. 

High-level fighters would not be nearly as fearsome as their hp would not be much different than a first-level fighter (this is another can of worms as the HP system is an pseudo-toughness + abstract feel).

People could probably come up with many more reasons.  

This is not a fault of the game or a benefit, just that the game would be very different than the D&D we play.

D&D is a mishmash, it had a gamist/simulationist perspective that was probably not designed in coherent fashion to either perspective but kind of picked and choosed which ones would be most fun for players given what they thought at the time.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Jan 28, 2008)

Alnag said:
			
		

> D&D is pretty simulationist game and it always was. It is a simulation of specific genre indeed. Not real world physics. It simulates sword & sorcery fantasy. Heroic one. It do a great job. It works. And I see no big change in this paradigm...
> 
> D&D has a great element of gamism. Indeed. It has XPs and challenges... but it might not be used solely that way. And if it is not, the other part of it - the simulation one is stronger than.
> 
> ...




Exactly, D&D was always designed to _simulate_ mid/high magic heroic fantasy, things like rituals, the new skill system and the move towards making monsters more evocative of their roots moves the game closer to that ideal, not further away.


----------



## Anthtriel (Jan 28, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> I agree if I can rephrase it to : "ensure everyone has a fair share of the spotlight".
> 
> I could agree that "opponent" may be too simple to describe what a DM is in a gamist play.
> 
> However, storyteller is far more troublesome.



Why? How is storytelling at all related to the gamist approach?

The way I see it, the gamist DM considers it all a game, and therefore tries to make the decisions that will be most "fun" for the players, whereas the simulationist DM tries to make the decisions that will seem most like "what should happen" by the rules of the campaign world.

The way I see it, the advantage of gamism is that "unfun" and frustrating situations are mostly avoided. No one needs to make a roll to see if a robber comes along and kills the party in their sleep.
But taking it too far ruins the suspension of disbelief. 

The advantage of simulatism are more difficult to define in my opinion. I once ran a completely simulationist homebrewed game that had about two or three pages of rules and relied on realism for everything else. The game had all sorts of problems of course. It had combats, and nearly all of them were fairly anticlimatic, as the players would find very creative, and overpowered ways to kill off their enemies. However, coming up with clever ways to use their abilities ended up incredibly satisfying for the players. I wouldn't run a totally simulationist game to often, and it is hard to get attached to characters if they can die on a moment's notice. But it is a very nice breath of fresh air.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 28, 2008)

Cbas_10 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if I really fit within the "Simulationist" group, or if a third group exists: Storytellers.
> 
> In essence, if some random rule exists that works or does not work with other rules....I'm not here to call out its realism or its importance as a game balance and game play factor.  I want to be able to explain it in the sense of a story.




You know, those might not have been the best example, because it throws "realism" in with things, that was a mistake. Dwarves make a good example, because they aren't real.

Simulationist: Dwarves are belligerent so they get -2 Charisma.
Gamist: We don't want to over penalize dwaven sorcerers, even if it is against type. No Charisma penalty.

I have no idea where Narativists fit in with this example, though... I've never really understood Narativism.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 28, 2008)

Anthtriel said:
			
		

> Why? How is storytelling at all related to the gamist approach?
> 
> The way I see it, the gamist DM considers it all a game, and therefore tries to make the decisions that will be most "fun" for the players, whereas the simulationist DM tries to make the decisions that will seem most like "what should happen" by the rules of the campaign world.
> 
> ...




My own personal opinion but i generally dont think DMs run games in a gamist fashion. I think DMs might enjoy games with gamist types of rulesets though.

Just a general perception and could be convinced otherwise.


----------



## rounser (Jan 28, 2008)

> I"ve never really understood Narativism.



At a guess:

Sacrifice gamist fun and fairness, and simulationist verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief, so long as it makes a good yarn?  There's a lot to be said for that, too, because a good yarn grabs the emotions.  Ideally you want a balance of all three, I'd suppose, but *good storytellers and stories are few and far between* so it's easier to shoot for gamey fun and worldbuilding verisimilitude cool factor.

Come to think of it, that's sort of what the sacrifice WOTC is making with regard to putting gamist over simulationist comes down to; making a fun and fair game, but not a believable one.  And if you can't believe in a fantasy world, what's the point of it at all?  

Fantasy has to be careful with verisimilitude, because it's living on the edge of suspension of disbelief anyway.  WOTC is going a bridge too far with this one IMO (e.g. a 4E "warlord" is nothing except a bunch of abilities just slapped together because they're fun, but there's no fun to be had in a broader sense if your imagination doesn't buy what the heck this anachronistic archetypeless "class" is doing there in the first place).


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 28, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> You know, those might not have been the best example, because it throws "realism" in with things, that was a mistake. Dwarves make a good example, because they aren't real.
> 
> Simulationist: Dwarves are belligerent so they get -2 Charisma.
> Gamist: We don't want to over penalize dwaven sorcerers, even if it is against type. No Charisma penalty.
> ...




I dont think in all cases there are 3 options (nar, sim or gam). The above is a situation where there might not be a narrativist approach to a design decision.

I dont generally consider gamist, simulationist or narrativist design decisions to include fun as an objective as it all depends on whether gamism, simulation or narrative is what you are considering fun in a specific case.


----------



## Blackwind (Jan 28, 2008)

Well, I'm just going to say something that seems really obvious to me, and I can't believe no one has come out and said it already...

This whole discussion is a confused mess because certain posters have failed to define their terms.  Half of us are talking in Forgespeak (not necessarily a bad thing) and half of us are assuming that 'simulationism' means realism, which is a common-sense thing to assume if you're not familiar with Forgist game design theory.  

So, just to clear things up: in the game design jargon used on the Forge, which is a website about (mostly) indie RPG design, the term 'simulationist' has a specific meaning.  If you want to know what that meaning is, these articles will help.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html  "System Does Matter," a brief article that defines Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/  "The Right to Dream", an essay exploring Simulationism.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/20/  "A Hard Look At Dungeons and Dragons," an essay looking at D&D from the perspective of Forgist game design theory.

For those of you with no interest in delving into this stuff, and who just want a succinct summation of what Simulationism means in Forgespeak:

"Simulationist. This player is satisfied if the system "creates" a little pocket universe without fudging. Simulationists include the well-known subtype of the Realist. Good games for Simulationists include GURPS and Pendragon."  --Ron Edwards

Hope this helps.


----------



## Cbas_10 (Jan 28, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I have no idea where Narativists fit in with this example, though... I've never really understood Narativism.
> 
> Simulationist: Dwarves are belligerent so they get -2 Charisma.
> Gamist: We don't want to over penalize dwaven sorcerers, even if it is against type. No Charisma penalty.




Again...not sure which label I should apply to myself, so here is my entry to the take on dwarves:

Me: The book says Dwarves get a -2 charisma.  It is pretty interesting to say that dwarves are surly, sometimes belligerent, and generally just not the friendliest lot.  -2 Charisma makes sense....so there we go.  I might have something more interesting to add to dwarves, but, as I don't want to spend time and effort on more rules, I'll just include more of the intricate aspects of dwarven life in the game's storyline instead of mucking around with MORE numbers and rules.

or the short version: Book says they get -2 charisma, and book says they "tend to be gruff and reserved."  No problem...lets move on to playing with information as presented.

The real kicker is.....how to justify the ring deal in the same manner?


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 28, 2008)

Blackwind said:
			
		

> Well, I'm just going to say something that seems really obvious to me, and I can't believe no one has come out and said it already...
> 
> This whole discussion is a confused mess because certain posters have failed to define their terms.  Half of us are talking in Forgespeak (not necessarily a bad thing) and half of us are assuming that 'simulationism' means realism, which is a common-sense thing to assume if you're not familiar with Forgist game design theory.
> 
> ...




I shied away from Forge definitions (love the Forge) only because there is so much discussion their as to the meanings of the terms.

I tend to hedge a bit with their definition of narratavism and am a little more broad consider it  is a design decision in developing rules that help craft a more compelling story for the participants and give more narrative control to the GM and/or players at the expense of gamism or simulation.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 28, 2008)

Cbas_10 said:
			
		

> Again...not sure which label I should apply to myself, so here is my entry to the take on dwarves:
> 
> Me: The book says Dwarves get a -2 charisma.  It is pretty interesting to say that dwarves are surly, sometimes belligerent, and generally just not the friendliest lot.  -2 Charisma makes sense....so there we go.  I might have something more interesting to add to dwarves, but, as I don't want to spend time and effort on more rules, I'll just include more of the intricate aspects of dwarven life in the game's storyline instead of mucking around with MORE numbers and rules.
> 
> ...




It is a little trickier if instead of dwarves you use the entire debate about gender modifiers. They are simulation, but generally dont hold to a gamist perspective.

Once again narrativist I would consider uncaring in this regard.


----------



## Kraydak (Jan 28, 2008)

It is important to realize that Simulationism and Gamism are not mutually exclusive.  For example, if the level of Simulationism is too low, suspension of disbelief is lost, and Gamism goes down the tubes.  I, for one, am perfectly happy with non-RL rules of physics (falling damage).  Its a magical world, it doesn't work like ours.

On the other hand, I require that NPCs behave sanely (if they are sane, of course, but thats the norm).  To pick a recent example, the 4e Pit Fiend does not behave sanely.  A creature of his powerlevel would accumulate wealth and magic items.  He should choose a strong weapon that complement his abilities and provide offensive flexibility rather than a weak one which is helpless against people who defend themselves against his other attacks (100% fire damage, 100% of the time leaves you vulnerable to fire resistance).

I hate effects that differentiate between PCs and NPCs (such as NPCs with PC class levels getting bonuses for free to make up for not wearing gear, but not getting those bonuses for free if they have gear).  Note that action points differentiate between *heroes* and *non-heroes* and, as such, merely mean that the universe considers some people more important than other.

It should be obvious, now, that I fear for my suspension of disbelief, come 4e.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 28, 2008)

Cbas_10 said:
			
		

> The real kicker is.....how to justify the ring deal in the same manner?




DM: You open the chest. There is a scroll of Delayed Blast Fireball* and a Ring of Lesser Awesomeness.
PC1: Awww. I can't use either of them. I'm not competent enough of a wizard to learn to cast that level spell, nor do I possess the inner fortitude to unlock the magic of the ring. Perhaps next when I gain more experience and stamina, I can use both items, but right now they're going into the Bag of Holding...


----------



## IceFractal (Jan 28, 2008)

> Or handwave it with an Eldritch Machine and get on with the damn story?



Well that's the crux right there.  If you're a fan of emergent gameplay and inventing within the system, there's nothing to "get on with".  What you're doing right there, figuring out how to make the starship move - *that's the fun part!*  Not that slaying foes and seeing the story come together can't be fun too, but poking the system to see what happens is as imporant as any of them.
[sblock=On that subject]An alternate propulsion method, not as efficient as Mage Hand but  less wording-dependent and easier to port between systems, is using Energy Push as your base spell, the target being a construct chained to the ship, with sufficient energy resistance/DR to avoid any damage from the spell.  

The amount of force exerted on the ship depends on how dense you can make your construct, while keeping it within a size category larger than the propulsion components.  Since we're dealing with actual force rather than raw velocity now, smaller ships will speed up faster.  

Of course if you were to make the entire ship an intelligent item, and thus a creature, all kinds of options become available.[/sblock]
Thinking about the whole simulationist/gamist/narrativist thing, I guess what I'm personally after with simulation is the emergent properties aspect.  I'm not sure that it's inherently linked to simulation, but it does seem to flourish better there.

The problem is that often, from a gamist standpoint, emergent properties seem to be looked at as bugs to be fixed;  "That 'knock over enemies' power can be used to move heavy things uphill?  Errata it, that's not what it's supposed to do."  And to be fair, quite a few emergent properties are on the order of finding that you can kill people really easily with what was designed as a minor utility spell.

A narrative standpoint isn't necessarily hostile to emergence, but it doesn't provide any either.  If you just handwave the propulsion as an eldritch machine, there's no emergence involved - you haven't discovered anything, and it wasn't a surprise how it worked because you decided how it worked.


But honestly, isn't it fun when you get something out of a system that you _didn't_ put into it directly, and the rules didn't say was there?  Maybe not everyone's cup of tea, but I hope it's not sacrificed entirely.


----------



## HeinorNY (Jan 28, 2008)

*Simulationist: * Your horses travel X miles per day, the mountains are Z miles away, and you will have to travel through the hill, it will cost you some time, so the travel to the mountains is gonna take you Y days. 
*Gamist*: Roll 1d6 days and you got there (SWSE style)
*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.

*Simulationist:* The power have a duration of 1 minute per level.
*Gamist*: The power ends when combat ends.
*Narrativism*: The power ends when the scene ends.

*Simulationist*: If you use tap the dark side of the force, you'll gain an extra dice in your roll.
*Gamist*: You make a Will save and fails, your fear made you tap the dark side of the force.
*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)

*Simulationist*: All characters, PCs and NPCs, are created using the same rules. They roll X hd at first level, gain one feat, gain skills etc.
*Gamist*: Different rules for different charcters, PCs are fully fleshed out, NPCs only have numbers depending on what they'll do in the game (only social skill bonus in a social encounter, only AC, BAB damage HP in a combat encounter.
*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)

*Simulationist:* It works this way because it makes sense in the fantasy context of the world.
*Gamist*: Its works this way because it's balanced and makes the important parts of the game as fun as it can be.
*Narrativism*: It works this way because it's good for the narrative and creates a nice and memorable story.


----------



## Cbas_10 (Jan 28, 2008)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> DM: You open the chest. There is a scroll of Delayed Blast Fireball* and a Ring of Lesser Awesomeness.
> PC1: Awww. I can't use either of them. I'm not competent enough of a wizard to learn to cast that level spell, nor do I possess the inner fortitude to unlock the magic of the ring. Perhaps next when I gain more experience and stamina, I can use both items, but right now they're going into the Bag of Holding...




After some searching and sifting through an older thread heated up over the Christmas Tree & Ring Reqs....

I don't know.  Maybe there are new mechanics in 4E that would make the ring-deal more sensible.  Still....level-based seems to gamey and arbitrary.  I prefer some sort of limit or requirement that is represented by something a character does or achieves (levels is purely a game mechanic....).  Scrolls require a character to have skill in spellcasting.  That can be explained "in the game world" without the use of rules' terms...and then later backed up by mechanics.  But for rings.....Experience with what (in a character's perspective)?  Stamina has never been represented by level?

Sorry....I'm beating a dead horse which will absolutely be ignored if I switch to 4E.  I was just surprised to see this sort of arbitrary computer-gamey thing slip into D&D.


----------



## HeinorNY (Jan 28, 2008)

*Simulationist*: I am the PC.
*Gamist*: I play with the PC.
*Narrativism*:  I roleplay the PC.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 28, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> *Simulationist: *
> *Gamist*:
> *Storytelling/narrativism:*




By those terms, I'm a Narrativist first, gamist second, simulationist third. I used to be more of simulationist, but my game time is short and I'd rather get to the good stuff (story, action, dialog, drama) with the minimum amount of rules to get in my way.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 28, 2008)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> And many times that is what people are meaning as the genre they think of is "our pseudo medieval world" + independent magic elements.
> 
> A game that is based on that though would be very different than D&D.



It would be RQ, I think.



			
				apoptosis said:
			
		

> D&D is a mishmash, it had a gamist/simulationist perspective that was probably not designed in coherent fashion to either perspective but kind of picked and choosed which ones would be most fun for players given what they thought at the time.



I think 1st ed AD&D was primarily gamist, but with the nature of the challenge (surviving and propsering in dungeon exploration) and the scale over which success or failure was determined (timescale: the campaign; character scale: not the single PC, but a whole suit of PCs, henchmen, hirelings etc per player, and with party success probably more important also than in later playstyles) being very different from subsequent approaches to play. In the 1st ed AD&D, Gygax has a discussion of time which Ron Edwards cites as an example of simulationism, but read closely it really seems to be a gamist device, intended to make time in the campaign another useful resource that players can exploit more or less well.

I think that 2nd ed really was the peak of incoherence in D&D, with a game promising gamist (or perhaps narrativist) fun delivering (at least in the official modules and gameworlds) simulationist-heavy exploration of someone else's world (either the designers' or the GM's). In light of this, I don't think that it's a coincidence that 2nd ed produced so many spin-offs and supplements - each of them can be seen as an attempt to render the game more coherent for some set of play preferences or other.

3rd ed is pretty clearly gamist in overall intent, with a strong simulationist chassis helping it get there - where it goes wrong is with marginal aspects of the rules (like drowning, weather etc) which weren't properly thought through, and more importantly where legacies of previous editions were not thoroughly revisited through the lens of coherence. 4e is now doing that.


----------



## marune (Jan 28, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> *Simulationist*: I am the PC.
> *Gamist*: I play with the PC.
> *Narrativism*:  I roleplay the PC.




Bad definitions, specialy the Narrativism one.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 28, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Bad definitions, specialy the Narrativism one.





I used this definition in the other thread:

It goes to WHY are you playing this RPG and what is important to you.

Gamist - It is a game and i enjoy overcoming challenges

Simulationist - It is a way to immerse yourself in a fictional world through your character

Narrativist - It is a way to tell an exciting story about the characters (or your character)


----------



## pemerton (Jan 28, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Simulationist: Dwarves are belligerent so they get -2 Charisma.
> Gamist: We don't want to over penalize dwaven sorcerers, even if it is against type. No Charisma penalty.
> 
> I have no idea where Narativists fit in with this example, though... I've never really understood Narativism.





			
				rounser said:
			
		

> At a guess:
> 
> Sacrifice gamist fun and fairness, and simulationist verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief, so long as it makes a good yarn?



With respect, that's a poor definition of narrativism, _if_ you are trying to capture the Forge sense of the term.

The point of narrativist play is not to enjoy a good yarn, but to produce a yarn. This yarn typically won't be especialy good, given that most RPG players - and I certainly include myself here - are not especially good writers of literature. But it will be the play group's own, and because of this authenticity it has a certain interest for that group.

With this in mind, we can see that play in which the players sit back and let the GM's world and story wash over them is not narrativist play, but rather a particular style of simulationism (in which what the players are exploring is the GM's creative vision). This is why alignment in D&D is best characterised as a simulationist mechanic - what it does is tell a story about morality (whether or not it is a good story is one on which opinions differ!), which the players then get to experience during play. Getting rid of mechanical alignment is (IMO) one of the more signficant departures from simulationism that 4e is making.

Returning to the Dwarves: if being a Dwarf makes a difference in play, then it is important (for narrativist play) that a player gets to choose whether or not they play a Dwarf - so that they can choose whether or not to make that sort of difference in play. It is conceivable that the relevant difference might be the perceived gruffness of Dwarves.  A player choosing to play a Dwarf is thereby signalling that they want their PC to undergo a certain sort of adversity (namely, being perceived as gruff) in order to develop whatever theme is of interest to them in the game. A CHA penalty might be one mechancial way to implement this choice.

Most narrativist play would also want the PC's personality to be dynamic (to an extent, at least) and under the control of the player, so you would also want mechanics which allow the player (in circumstances that s/he judges appropriate) to be able to buy off the penalty. It is a little hard to see how this would work in traditional D&D, but you could envisage APs being used here - if the player sets as her Dwarf's goal "succeed despite gruffness" then a bunle of APs might be available to be spent in social challenges to turn what otherwise would be failures into successes.

Problems for narrativism will arise if the gameworld already tries to dictate the implications of that gruffness for the player, as opposed to allowing the player to work them out in the course of play. This could be both (i) the issue never coming up, or (ii) the issue coming up only by the GM telling the player how his/her PC's gruffness is being perceived by NPCs, with the player having no meaningful control over that, and those reactions having no meaningful impact on the game.

In my view, a non-simulationist game that is not interested in exploring these issues of racial identity is either better off just having all PCs default to human, or else better be ready for racial choice to be simply a (gamist) min-maxing exercise. In 4e, I envisage the latter to be the main determinant of racial choice, with simulationist concerns about flavour (what sort of fantasy being do I want to explore while playing this game?) being a secondary factor.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 28, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> With respect, that's a poor definition of narrativism, _if_ you are trying to capture the Forge sense of the term....................




Your analysis..way better explanation thine mine


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jan 28, 2008)

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. 



			
				Cbas_10 said:
			
		

> I don't know. Maybe there are new mechanics in 4E that would make the ring-deal more sensible. Still....level-based seems to gamey and arbitrary.




But, see we go back to the style thing. It's not arbitrary from a _gamist_ perspective. Everyone pays so much attention to the 11th level get one ring thing they notice the, probably more important, 21st level get two rings. This means you can give a 15th level party of six PCs 10 rings and it is no more of a power increase than giving them 6. 

This is probably a very important balancing factor for Rings. It means they don't have to worry about mixing and matching rings until the Epic tier, when things like that might not be as much of a problem because of the Epic power scale.

Then there's the slot increases over time to scale power. I can't remember how many slots PCs have, but they'll have X slots at Heroic, X+1 slots at Paragon, and X+2 slots at Epic, another possible balancing factor. Heck, the whole +1 slot might have even been thought up as a "reward" of sorts for achieving Paragon.

So, its all about one one approaches the rules that determine if one sees them as arbitrary, or good, or bad, or pointless, or smart, or sexy, or whatever. A Gamist probably won't give an explanation much inspection before accepting it. "Oh, I'm not strong enough to call out the true power of the ring yet? I'll try again later." And that's that.

We're seeing the _exact same thing_ with the Pit Fiend, by the way. 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. Actually, I think a whole lot of these arguments could break down into this very topic itself.

It's not good or bad, but it obviously clashes with a lot of people's preferred play style.


----------



## 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>
> 
> ...



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.).


----------



## pemerton (Jan 28, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> <snip example.



Dude, high-five!


----------



## rounser (Jan 28, 2008)

> Dude, high-five!



Just please don't mention the "sexy-time".


----------



## pemerton (Jan 28, 2008)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 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.



I think you're mostly right. I don't think that this is as bad as you suggest, however, provided the monsters and powers really do allow different thematic notions to emerge in the course of mechanial play. We have been promised this in relation to Demons and Devils, and W&M makes similar sorts of noises in relation to all monsters, and the sample Paladin powers suggest that it will also be true of PC powers.

Now this is not  highbrow narrativism. To me it is more like superhero comics, or westerns, or Hong Kong movies like The Bride with White Hair or Tai Chi Master: combat has to be understood not purely literally, but also as a metaphor for all other conflict. Thus there is no need for seperate mental or spiritual damage, because hit points stand in for all of it.

(Social challenges are permitted, as recruiting allies, sidekicks and whatnot is an acceptable trope. Environmental challenges are also permitted - they are really combats, but with nature herself as the antagonist.)



			
				apoptosis said:
			
		

> 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'm not sure about WPM, because so much of its wackiness depends upon AD&D's lack of action resolution mechanics.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Jan 28, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> not to do nitpicking, but there´s a difference between "mass" and "weight" and you are mixing them: mage hand limitation is measured in [lbs] this is a mass unit. weight is measured in newton (kg*m/s^2) so the loss of gravity doesn´t put anything into the mage hand's limit.




Actually, if we're nitpicking, the pound can ALSO be a measure of weight (unlike the kilogram which is explicitly mass). And given the use of the word "weighing" in the rules, it's a viable interpretation. This is also why an American spring scale can be interpreted as accurate on the moon but a European one isn't. ;-)


----------



## Imban (Jan 28, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> We're seeing the _exact same thing_ with the Pit Fiend, by the way. 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. Actually, I think a whole lot of these arguments could break down into this very topic itself.
> 
> It's not good or bad, but it obviously clashes with a lot of people's preferred play style.




I'm personally pretty hard Simulationist, with Gamism coming in a very, very close second, and Narrativism not even being something I consider. Essentially, I try to run, and prefer to play in, games of heroes going around and being awesome and having fair and fun combats in a logical and consistent world. As such, I definitely consider a stat block the definition of a creature, but I very want them to (more or less) turn out a fun game. Pretty much everything you mentioned is pretty easy to get me to accept, though - and equally easy to make stupid enough that I can't.

How a Pit Fiend sets up fortifications doesn't really bother me - they've got all the basic abilities of real-life humans and then a ton, so they just build a fortress or get their slaves to do it for them. Now, a Beholder with a constructed lair? That needs a bit more interesting explanation that addresses the "how"s, considering a Beholder has no useful appendages.

How a Pit Fiend survives in the Nine Hells currently doesn't bother me that much either. So, they don't have Fast Healing... but they're still *miles* ahead of human politicians and celebrities in their ability to ward off assassination attempts, even when injured, simply because they can summon monsters and shrug off a ballista bolt to the face. However, it's still something I'd consider - if the fluff states or heavily implies that only a monster or NPC's vast personal power keeps it from getting whooped on the spot and the combat stats state that it has no such vast personal power, I have trouble buying it.

How they weave their intrigue? Well, as written they're superhumanly good at weaving intrigue in purely mortal manners and can kick ass when it comes down to it. And hey, if that wasn't enough, they can also grant Wishes once a century - the potential for corrupting people is *obvious* there. Because I work based on the stat block and the hard rules as a definition of the creature, however, it'd jar me to see a Pit Fiend using non-combat abilities that are never ascribed to them on the whims of an adventure designer or DM - you can raise a lot of Cain with a +22 Diplomacy, +27 Bluff, and +27 Intimidate, but you can't possess and speak through a bald seven-year-old with eyes of deep red flames. (As an aside, it's certainly possible for a DM or adventure designer to assign a specific monster an ability distinct from the racial standard. Sometimes this is cool to me, sometimes it comes off as "...yeah well *this one can*!" I honestly can't tell you what the dividing line is, save that I know it as soon as I see it.)

One of things that *does* get me, especially since 3e was terrible about this, is when fluff and stats are drastic mismatches. Even taking into account the point of view that only combat statistics are necessary, combat statistics say a lot about a being's place in the world. If Asmodeus is a level 28 solo monster and he rules unquestionably over dozens of level-36 to level-43 solo monsters that could each individually kill him in a split second, consistency's gone pretty irrevocably out the window.

As an aside, the ring thing really doesn't bother me from a simulationist point of view at all. It quite probably makes some balance sense (of course, it might not at all) and is easy enough to explain in a consistent and logical fashion. It *does* bother me greatly, but that's because I don't view D&D as a vehicle solely for presenting "D&D fantasy." If I'm running a game inspired by whatever the heck else - let's say Diablo II, for fun - I don't want the system imposing upon me that I can't improve or debilitate ability scores in any way or that people wearing two rings from level 1 are verboten or that only weapons, armors, and cloaks/pendants can have solid numerical benefits.


----------



## Greg K (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 consider myself more simulationist than gamist.  Yet, I don't care how the Pit Fiend survives in the Nine Hells unless their abilities do not back up their ability to dominate lesser inhabitants. And, I could definitely care less about how they set up fortifications.

What I do care about are the following which break my suspension of disbelief:

1) Rings not being able to hold trivial powers that low level characters can utilize.  I could easily imagine a wizard who enjoys traveling or lives in a cold environment, likes the little comforts and posessing a fondness for jewelry creating such an item.  I also think it is reasonable that anyone wearing the ring would benefit from it.  As such, level limits for benefitting  all  rings seems completely arbitrary and gamist to me.

2)  character's gaining automatic bonuses to skills in which they have not been trained, have not had the opportunity to utilize or acquire knowledge of simply because they are of higher level ( I seem to recall the Star Wars: Saga Edition being mentioned as being in. If not scratch this.)

3) per encounter magic.  
Player A: "What do you mean you can't use spell x again?  You said that spell x is weaker (or of equal power)  than spell y. So, why can you cast spell y now, but not spell x?"
Player B: " I don't know why other than the rules say so".


4) Per encounter combat maneuvers
I agree that physical combat needs to be made more interesting, but I thought the implementation of ToB: Bo9s was horrible. Prevent abusing powerful maneuvers by making it risky to attempt maneuvers with more powerful maneuevers carrying bigger risks for attempting them. It is the risk involved that keeps fighters from routinely using certain maneuvers unless they outclass an opponent, set up the attack, or the opponent drops their guard (whether due to injury, fatigue, a succesful feint, or inexperience).  Otherwise, such maneuvers are used to catch an opponent of-guard or the fighter feels the risk is worth attempting to quickly disable the opponent or otherwise end the fight.

5) characters starting encounters fully refreshed
Hmm. I can use ability x only once during this one long fight, but I four seperate encounters within that same time span, I can use the same ability 4 times.

6) the bleeding rules: I am fine with the bloodied state inflicting penalties and indicating how the battle is going.  However, I dislike the idea that the dragon breath weapon attack from that one early playtest example (or was it  a design journal)  might apply to all dragon's of that type, because the designers thought it was a "kewl" ability.

7) Keeping luck and skill as aspects of hit points.  We now have game elements that can reflect skill and luck and, imo, hit points no longer need to reflect these elements.  Skill is covered by level bonuses to save and class defense bonuses.  Luck can be simulated by the use of action points. As for lethal blows being turned into nicks, action points expenditure could be used for this as can creating a feat or ability to roll with a blow.  Furthermore, by removing luck and skill, there is no longer the bizarreness of healing spells curing luck and skill.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 28, 2008)

> 4) Per encounter combat maneuvers
> I agree that physical combat needs to be made more interesting, but I thought the implementation of ToB: Bo9s was horrible. Prevent abusing powerful maneuvers by making it risky to attempt maneuvers with more powerful maneuevers carrying bigger risks for attempting them. It is the risk involved that keeps fighters from routinely using certain maneuvers unless they outclass an opponent, set up the attack, or the opponent drops their guard (whether due to injury, fatigue, a succesful feint, or inexperience). Otherwise, such maneuvers are used to catch an opponent of-guard or the fighter feels the risk is worth attempting to quickly disable the opponent or otherwise end the fight.




The problem is, increasing randomness only punishes the PC's in the long run.  Say you have a pretty decent maneuver that will bite you in the ass 1 time in 20.  For monsters, they should use that every time.  They are only going to make so many attacks on camera, so, the chances of it coming up are fairly slim.

For the PC's, OTOH, it will come up.  Guaranteed.  And, if it is bad enough, it results in a dead PC.  Thus, players find a mid point between risk and reward and stick there all the time.  The high risk/high reward maneuvers are avoided since it will kill you and the low/risk low/reward maneuvers aren't worth any risk.

Trying to balance mechanics through punishment never, ever works.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Jan 28, 2008)

Greg K said:
			
		

> I consider myself more simulationist than gamist.  Yet, I don't care how the Pit Fiend survives in the Nine Hells unless their abilities do not back up their ability to dominate lesser inhabitants. And, I could definitely care less about how they set up fortifications.
> 
> What I do care about are the following which break my suspension of disbelief:
> 
> 1) Rings not being able to hold trivial powers that low level characters can utilize.  I could easily imagine a wizard who enjoys traveling or lives in a cold environment, likes the little comforts and posessing a fondness for jewelry creating such an item.  I also think it is reasonable that anyone wearing the ring would benefit from it.  As such, level limits for benefitting  all  rings seems completely arbitrary and gamist to me.



3.x Potions and wands can only hold low level powers, Rods work differently than staves, Certain types of bonuses work better  in certain slots, Magic and Magic Items have always had arbitrary rules, it's _Magic_. Oh, and btw? the ring rules are fairly obviously narrativist, they could easily be balanced without the tier restrictions, they're more likely to be there to make getting a ring an important story event for the character (helping to keep magic items "special" in the higher levels).


			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> 2)  character's gaining automatic bonuses to skills in which they have not been trained, have not had the opportunity to utilize or acquire knowledge of simply because they are of higher level ( I seem to recall the Star Wars: Saga Edition being mentioned as being in. If not scratch this.)



3.x characters could take ranks in things which they'd had no training in, this is less silly since it's supposed to refer to their general knowledge, life skills and "main character"ness instead of specific training. In fact the way a character like, say, a 20th level Paladin, who can fall from orbit twice and then kill an elephant with a rusty spoon, but has trouble to climbing a tree or swimming a river was one of the larger verisimilitude problems I had with 3.x.


			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> 3) per encounter magic.
> Player A: "What do you mean you can't use spell x again?  You said that spell x is weaker (or of equal power)  than spell y. So, why can you cast spell y now, but not spell x?"
> Player B: " I don't know why other than the rules say so".



Again, _exactly the same_, the difference between resting 8 hours and resting 5 minutes should be non-existent in terms of verisimilitude.



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> 4) Per encounter combat maneuvers
> I agree that physical combat needs to be made more interesting, but I thought the implementation of ToB: Bo9s was horrible. Prevent abusing powerful maneuvers by making it risky to attempt maneuvers with more powerful maneuevers carrying bigger risks for attempting them. It is the risk involved that keeps fighters from routinely using certain maneuvers unless they outclass an opponent, set up the attack, or the opponent drops their guard (whether due to injury, fatigue, a succesful feint, or inexperience).  Otherwise, such maneuvers are used to catch an opponent of-guard or the fighter feels the risk is worth attempting to quickly disable the opponent or otherwise end the fight.



So long as casters had similar (or different but equivalent) penalties you could do that, it would require messing around though. I personally think per encounter martial powers work fine, although they are fairly abstract, yes.


			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> 5) characters starting encounters fully refreshed
> Hmm. I can use ability x only once during this one long fight, but I four seperate encounters within that same time span, I can use the same ability 4 times.



Yes, that would be the "resting 5 minutes part", there's nothing wrong here.



			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> 6) the bleeding rules: I am fine with the bloodied state inflicting penalties and indicating how the battle is going.  However, I dislike the idea that the dragon breath weapon attack from that one early playtest example (or was it  a design journal)  might apply to all dragon's of that type, because the designers thought it was a "kewl" ability.



It's not in because it's "kewl", it's in because it makes the fight more interesting, dynamic and hopefully enjoyable, that's what gamist means. I could give you an explanation for how it works, but ultimately yes, it's in there for gamist reasons.

Specific Dragon abilities aside, if Bloodied is 80-90% of the time a bad thing, then at least the idea of Bloodied makes hp better from both a simulationist _and_ a gamist PoV, can't always do that, but it's nice when it does happen.


			
				Greg K said:
			
		

> 7) Keeping luck and skill as aspects of hit points.  We now have game elements that can reflect skill and luck and, imo, hit points no longer need to reflect these elements.  Skill is covered by level bonuses to save and class defense bonuses.  Luck can be simulated by the use of action points. As for lethal blows being turned into nicks, action points expenditure could be used for this as can creating a feat or ability to roll with a blow.  Furthermore, by removing luck and skill, there is no longer the bizarreness of healing spells curing luck and skill.



How exactly is healing spells healing morale and luck "bizarre"? A cleric using their faith to raise morale and give the blessing of luck makes _more_ sense and is far less wacky and out there than it literally closing wounds.


Look, most of these are just "4e works different to older editions", they make no more or less sense than their 3.x or 2e equivalents, the only parts where verisimilitude is taking second seating to gameplay are martial per encounter abilities, and maybe some abilities based off bloodied, and it's not like they can't be explained and fit into the world if your willing to take the time.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Jan 28, 2008)

Blackwind said:
			
		

> This whole discussion is a confused mess because certain posters have failed to define their terms.  Half of us are talking in Forgespeak (not necessarily a bad thing) and half of us are assuming that 'simulationism' means realism, which is a common-sense thing to assume if you're not familiar with Forgist game design theory.



And some posters seem to be using the GDS or "Threefold Model" definition of simulationism, which predates Ron Edwards's GNS model used by The Forge.

Threefold Simulationism Explained

"Threefold Model" @ wikipedia 

The Threefold Model FAQ


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 28, 2008)

I want the campaigns I run to be entertaining, fun, internally consistent from start to finish (e.g. no splatbooks or drastic rule changes introduced halfway through), somewhat whimsical at times, luck-based to a significant degree, long (5+ years minimum), larger than any one player or PC (i.e. able to withstand the unforeseen loss of same for whatever reason), a place where what the character would do is what the character does (e.g. if it makes sense that a PC would choose to leave the party, it leaves), and a place where powergaming is of little use.

What kind of '-ist' does that make me?

Lanefan


----------



## Alnag (Jan 28, 2008)

Oh good lord. It was only a matter of time, till the Forge poison will spill here as well.

I use terms simulationism, gamism and dramatism in a way they were originally meant, not in that twisted "newspeak" meaning created for the cause of diverting discussions. For that look here rather than the Forge:

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/origin.html

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/simulationism.html

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/faq_v1.html


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 28, 2008)

Cbas_10 said:
			
		

> Fire-breathing dragons that defy physics via thier mass, wingspan, and aerodynamics.....who cares?  This is fantasy....it is a story....Dragons are magical creatures that fly by the use of thier wings assisted by some sort of magic that neither needs to be detailed, nor really matters.  The point is that they _almost_ could fly on their own, but have that little bit of fantasy edge in the form of magic. It is not realistic, but relatively sensible.  But Rings that don't function until some arbitrary point in a person's life after they have performed a number of travels, fended off a number of creatures, and successfully socially interacted with enough people?  I'm open to suggestions of explinations.....but until then....



Every rule can be explained in a simulationist way, including this one.  In this world people's souls or spirits become stronger as they accomplish great deeds.  The stuff of magic is attracted to those that interest them by doing "great" things, whether they be good or evil or anywhere in between.  Maybe the gods decreed that it be so, maybe the particle stuff of magic is naturally attracted to powerful souls naturally.  As people accomplish more and more of these great deeds their soul becomes stronger.  It is known that people with strong souls are much luckier than everyone else.  They are able to survive poisons that would drop lesser people in no time.  They are able to survive damage that would rip someone in half.  They have stronger will power than others.  It is because of this will power that they can command rings who are notoriously stubborn and hard to command.  Perhaps the rings draw their power from the soul of the wearer and don't have enough energy in the hands of a "lesser" soul.

It is just as magical an impossible as a dragon flying.  Both require an impossible explanation to explain.  The point is that simulationist play can be done with ANY rules.  It's that most people don't want to simulate the world created by WOTC, they want to simulate a different one that only exists in their head(or one that looks mostly like the real world in some cases).


			
				Cbas_10 said:
			
		

> To be fair, 3.x has an aspect that I wholly dropped/changed because it made little or no sense to me in the sense of telling a story: charging XP for spellcasting or item creation.  Instead, the "Power Component" optional rule is a standard requirement.



The above explanation works fine for magic item creation as well.  Imbuing part of your soul into an item to allow it to function but it gets more powerful as you do great things, so it will come back.


----------



## HeinorNY (Jan 28, 2008)

Regarding 3E rules:

PCs and monsters are built using the same rules  = simulationist
Class/level mechanics = gamist
PC classes and NPC classes = narrativism

Narrativism rules, IMO, try to secure the PCs status as heroes and protagonists.

*Narrativism: * Cause: PCs are heroes. Consequence: They act heroically and have more power than common people that allow them to be heroes. 

*Simulationist:* Cause: PCs achieved great and heroically deeds and became more powerful than common people Consequence: PCs are heroes.



I am a simulationist at best, even more when I'm DMing.

MY motto is: If I can't believe it, I can't have fun with it.
Yeah duh, it's a fantasy game with fireball and fly spells. "Genius" point.. But when I accept the fantasy context, I can believe in it. I don't need realism, I need verisimilitude. Tolkien for example, is all about it, that's why it's so great. 

SWSE is the example of heavy narrativistic game. When play SWSE I feel like that boy in the Last Action Here Movie. All his questioning while inside Jack Slater movie have the same lack of distrust as many questions made by me while playing SWSE. 
"What a minute, the house exploded, how come you didn't die?"
"Hey, how come all girls in this city are gorgeous looking babes?"
"What? All numbers here start with 555?"

Those kind questions kill my fun when playing RPGs. If I start asking them when playing 4E, I'll stop having fun. It's simple.

"What? The same power lasted for 6 seconds in the last combat and now it lasted for 1 minute?'
"How come you can't use your martial maneuver again? Try on that monster that was sleeping when you first did it, he wasn't seeing.
"Why can you heal me once per battle but when we are resting you can't?"

The answers: "It's just a movie./ It's a game." don't help at all.
MY games are not like movies. I need to believe in what's happening. If the characters leave the Inn, the innkeeper is still there doing his stuff.

I have to believe in it. If playing 4E will be like being the boy in Last Action Hero, I'm out. It just won't work for me.

Without verisimilitude, the game just look plain dumb to me.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 28, 2008)

ZombieRoboNinja said:
			
		

> Actually, if we're nitpicking, the pound can ALSO be a measure of weight (unlike the kilogram which is explicitly mass). And given the use of the word "weighing" in the rules, it's a viable interpretation. This is also why an American spring scale can be interpreted as accurate on the moon but a European one isn't. ;-)




ok, just looked it up in wikipedia... its actually called pound-force or just pound

you know that system is strangely inconsistent...^^


----------



## loseth (Jan 28, 2008)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> I used this definition in the other thread:
> 
> It goes to WHY are you playing this RPG and what is important to you.
> 
> ...




I really find it very difficult to use GNS to meaningfully articulate what I like in terms of game design. I want a _game_ that lets me enjoy overcoming challenges by immersing me in a fictional world through the window of characters participating in an entertaining story. Any time a game puts itself in a situation where the above are mutually exclusive--or, more often IME, a situation where the designer falsely believes that they are mutually exclusive--a little voice goes off in my head saying 'bad design: you should have thought about this a little more.'


----------



## HeinorNY (Jan 28, 2008)

loseth said:
			
		

> I really find it very difficult to use GNS to meaningfully articulate what I like in terms of game design. I want a _game_ that lets me enjoy overcoming challenges by immersing me in a fictional world through the window of characters participating in an entertaining story. Any time a game puts itself in a situation where the above are mutually exclusive--or, more often IME, a situation where the designer falsely believes that they are mutually exclusive--a little voice goes off in my head saying 'bad design: you should have thought about this a little more.'



They are not exclusive. But the design philosophy behind a game can enforce one of them, or at least "prepare the field" for one or two types of style in detriment of the other.
IMO, D&D 3E is fairly balanced and flexible regarding the 3 styles of playing. Actually I think it's more flexible than balanced. I can identify gamist, simulationist and narrativism mechanics in 3E. I also think one of the success factor behind D&D is exactly its flexibility towards gaming style. It's very hard to play a gamist session of Vampire, or a narrativistic session of Cyberpunk 2020. 

D&D is the best in style flexibility by light-years. Or it was...

But then came SWSE with its "fast paced cinematic gaming" philosophy and it almost killed simulationist style of playing. Come on... roll 1d6 days to calculate travel time??? Characters have extra HD and "normal" people don't??? Oh yeah, they are the "protagonists"... thus we need narrativistic rules to assure that don't we?  

Narrativistic gaming is about "destiny", the characters are supposed to be the heroes, thus the rules are built around that. The characters are supposed to be more powerful than others because they are the main characters. They have extra HD because they are "special". Destiny points anyone? The gaming World here exists around the PCs and for them.

Simulationist is about "choices", characters are supposed to become heroes. They don't have special privileges in the rules, they are, as much as possible, normal people, until they start DOING heroic stuff. If the heroes are more powerful than others, that's because they had a hard time adventuring, earning that power. Heroes here don't need extra HD, they have more HD because they have more levels because they killed more monsters! Here PCs are just part of the world, and it exists with them or without them.

Of course my D&D is not fully simulationist, there ARE powerful PC classes and weak NPC classes, but it is not so narrativistic that I can't be as simulationist as I want to. There are gamist mechanics as classes, levels, CR, expected gold per level, LA, etc. because the game needs to be balanced and easier to play, and I like it. The problem is when a style overcomes another. 

If 4E goes that same SWSE's path my style of gaming is screwed.
R.I.P D&D *1974 +2008

I hope not.

OBS: All I needed in order to be fine was one of the designer to come here and just write 2 words: "Don't worry."


----------



## loseth (Jan 28, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> But the design philosophy behind a game can enforce one of them, or at least "prepare the field" for one or two types of style in detriment of the other.




Yes, that is the great negative legacy of GNS in my opinion*. I can see several potential game-design situations that could apply to any given aspect/mechanic/element of a game during the design phase:

i) All three of GNS (as well as other important stuff not covered by GNS) can be achieved to a maximal or near-maximal degree with relative ease.

ii) At least two of GNS _appear_ mutually exlcusive, but with good use of problem-solving skills, all can be achieved maximally or near-maximally.

iii) One or more of GNS really _are_ mutually exclusive with one or more others.

Of course, in situation iii, you really do have to choose (though I'm not at all convinced that being consistent about your choice is a necessary condition for producing a great game). But unfortunately, I think that a widespread misconception that GNS either are or should be mutually exclusive causes many designers to sometimes treat situations i and ii (especially ii) as if they were iii. The result is a game that is sub-optimally designed thanks to a false belief, on the part of the game designer(s), that making a mechanic/element/aspect work in terms of one of GNS will necessarily dilute the extent to which it achieves the other two parts of GNS.


*Not that it doesn't have positive ones as well.


----------



## Imban (Jan 28, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Every rule can be explained in a simulationist way, including this one.




Hmm, that's not true if you define simulationism as the pursuit of internal consistency - which is the definition I'm operating under, at least - definitionally, rules that ruin internal consistency can't be explained as advancing the pursuit of internal consistency. In the more common but less definitional complaint, rules that blatantly embody game design goals without a provided in-world explanation can have creative justifications fashioned - referred to as "fanwank" in most fandoms - but, as they default to not having any justification, are often glaring to players who desire in-world explanations and internal consistency.

I point to Asmodeus vs. the gods in Hell in 3e as an example of the former, where the rules themselves return results completely incompatible with what the fluff they're tied to indicates, and also the results of too many things being left up to the DM by the system, especially if multiple DMs are running or prewritten adventures are being used. (While a single DM who very much enjoys internal consistency is certainly likely to deliver internally consistent results, you're going to risk widely disparate views of the same thing in the same campaign when you have multiple people writing the plot and a lot of monsters' powers, for example, are left totally up in the air.)

The latter would be... well, I don't actually have a really good example right now. I guess the Ring thing if it's left totally unaddressed beyond a one-liner saying "ring slots are gained at levels 11 and 21" - taken alone, it raises enough questions to make it *feel* inconsistent ("Why do rings work like this, and nothing else? Why can I only wear one ring at a time now, but next level two is fine?") and more importantly there would be no official explanation to make it in any way internally consistent.



> The point is that simulationist play can be done with ANY rules.




As seen above, I dispute that. I find that in most cases, however, the former case I stated is a symptom of *bad rules* rather than clashing design goals.



> It's that most people don't want to simulate the world created by WOTC, they want to simulate a different one that only exists in their head.




Actually, this is why I don't like the Ring thing, as I said a few posts above, but I don't think it's because of the design goal this thread's about. As above, one of the other, totally unrelated things I've also always liked about D&D is the ability to adapt it to things and to adapt things to it, which 3e especially brought out. I don't just want it to be a vessel for "D&D fantasy", and the more common things that work in idiosyncratic ways, the more problematic adaptation is. Basically, if it's not flagrantly stupid or broken ("this spell kills any amount of selected targets within 500 miles with no resistance possible and even an apprentice can cast it") and it's within the realm of fantasy, especially fantasy literature, I want to be able to bash D&D into running that or bash the unique material from it into D&D. I mean, 3e had enough room for quarterstaves (the weapons), staves (the things with 50 charges that store spells and cast them based on your caster level and casting stats), and runestaves (the things from Magic Item Compendium) - I don't really want to hear that 4e doesn't have room for any enchanted item from any reasonable fantasy source.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 28, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> But then came SWSE with its "fast paced cinematic gaming" philosophy and it almost killed simulationist style of playing. Come on... roll 1d6 days to calculate travel time??? Characters have extra HD and "normal" people don't??? Oh yeah, they are the "protagonists"... thus we need narrativistic rules to assure that don't we?
> 
> Narrativistic gaming is about "destiny", the characters are supposed to be the heroes, thus the rules are built around that. The characters are supposed to be more powerful than others because they are the main characters. They have extra HD because they are "special". Destiny points anyone? The gaming World here exists around the PCs and for them.




I have SW Saga and I'd say it's firmly simulationist.  I think it does a good job of what it wants to support - playing a game that feels like being in a Star Wars movie.  It doesn't do a good job of asking moral questions.  Take a look at the Destiny mechanics.

Let's say I'm playing a Jedi and I have the Destiny of Redemption.  I meet up with the Sith I've been tangling with all campaign and I decide that he actually doesn't deserve to be redeemed - that's a powerful moral statement.  What happens in the game?  You take a penalty for making that choice.

Contrast that to Burning Wheel's Belief system: if you turn away from a Belief, you get rewarded.  If you achieve a Belief, you get rewarded.  The choice is up to the player, knowing that his ability to contribute in the game won't be affected.


----------



## HeinorNY (Jan 28, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I have SW Saga and I'd say it's firmly simulationist.  I think it does a good job of what it wants to support - playing a game that feels like being in a Star Wars movie.




Lol yeah. SWSE "simulates" the movies very well, actually it almost perfectly recreates the action and stories we see in the movies. But it doesn't make SWSE "simulationist" as in the GNS theory or any other RPG theory.
If SWSE mechanics allow players to create a game that is identical to a movie, the game is not simulationist, it is narrativict, or cinematic.

A good example of the same story being told in the simulationist and narrativistic/cinematic styles is Lord of the Rings. 
The books are simulationist, most of what happens there happens because it is supposed to happen that way. If the characters need 40 days to travel that distance, it's because that's how long it's gonna take, and not because of a meta-story motive. 

My D&D is Tolkien's LotR and not Peter Jackson's LotR.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 28, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> Hmm, that's not true if you define simulationism as the pursuit of internal consistency - which is the definition I'm operating under, at least - definitionally, rules that ruin internal consistency can't be explained as advancing the pursuit of internal consistency. In the more common but less definitional complaint, rules that blatantly embody game design goals without a provided in-world explanation can have creative justifications fashioned - referred to as "fanwank" in most fandoms - but, as they default to not having any justification, are often glaring to players who desire in-world explanations and internal consistency.



Well, it can still be internally consistent and have exceptions to rules.  Real life is "internally consistent" and still has exceptions to rules all the time.

I mean, if you were analyzing real life as if it were a game, you might wonder why it is why some materials melt at a certain temperature and others melt at a different one.  You might wonder why one set of physics works at the subatomic level while another one works at bigger than that, why you people taller than x can ride the ride but no one under that can, why some people are male and others aren't, etc.

All rules have exceptions and reasons.  Some we understand, some we don't.  Sometimes the reason is readily apparent, sometimes you need to have someone explain the reason for it.

I don't think that this needs to be "fanwank".  Take for example, an employer saying that you aren't allowed to use the internet for personal things while at work and explaining it by saying that it is losing them money.  Meanwhile another department in the same company is allowed to use it for personal things because "they need it as a stress reliever".  That is a "reason".  You may not agree with the inconsistency involved in the rule, but it is one anyways.

Most rules SEEM inconsistent unless you know more about.  Some of the greatest mysteries of the real world made no sense to anyone at all until science eventually explained them.

When I think of any in game rule, I think of it the same way: "Does this game the game more balanced and more fun for the players mechanically?  If so, I can make up a reason to fit the rule...or at the worst case scenario I can use "Scholars and mages haven't been able to answer that question yet, it is a great mystery."

Either way, I'd rather have the mechanically sound rule that was harder to explain than the mechanically bad rule that made perfect sense.


			
				Imban said:
			
		

> I point to Asmodeus vs. the gods in Hell in 3e as an example of the former, where the rules themselves return results completely incompatible with what the fluff they're tied to indicates, and also the results of too many things being left up to the DM by the system, especially if multiple DMs are running or prewritten adventures are being used. (While a single DM who very much enjoys internal consistency is certainly likely to deliver internally consistent results, you're going to risk widely disparate views of the same thing in the same campaign when you have multiple people writing the plot and a lot of monsters' powers, for example, are left totally up in the air.)



Well, there are a number of issues that come up when you have multiple DMs.  More than just this one.  I don't think the game was ever intended to be used with multiple DMs in the first place.  I really don't think that a game that catered to this sort of thing should be what they should be aiming for.


			
				Imban said:
			
		

> The latter would be... well, I don't actually have a really good example right now. I guess the Ring thing if it's left totally unaddressed beyond a one-liner saying "ring slots are gained at levels 11 and 21" - taken alone, it raises enough questions to make it *feel* inconsistent ("Why do rings work like this, and nothing else? Why can I only wear one ring at a time now, but next level two is fine?") and more importantly there would be no official explanation to make it in any way internally consistent.



I love rules that raise questions.  Some of my favorite parts of role playing books are when something completely comprehensible is said without a reason for it.  They inspire the most creativity in me.

And there are a lot of them in the game.  It's just that people normally house rule them or gloss over them when it comes to explaining them.

I love the idea that rings can't be used until high level.  Whereas, I'm sure that the reason for it is a math one(bonuses that rings give break the formulas if added before 11th level), the real reason can be whatever I want and it can be the root of plots in my world if I wanted to or explained using a simple explanation and move on with playing mechanically interesting games.


			
				Imban said:
			
		

> Actually, this is why I don't like the Ring thing, as I said a few posts above, but I don't think it's because of the design goal this thread's about. As above, one of the other, totally unrelated things I've also always liked about D&D is the ability to adapt it to things and to adapt things to it, which 3e especially brought out. I don't just want it to be a vessel for "D&D fantasy", and the more common things that work in idiosyncratic ways, the more problematic adaptation is. Basically, if it's not flagrantly stupid or broken ("this spell kills any amount of selected targets within 500 miles with no resistance possible and even an apprentice can cast it") and it's within the realm of fantasy, especially fantasy literature, I want to be able to bash D&D into running that or bash the unique material from it into D&D. I mean, 3e had enough room for quarterstaves (the weapons), staves (the things with 50 charges that store spells and cast them based on your caster level and casting stats), and runestaves (the things from Magic Item Compendium) - I don't really want to hear that 4e doesn't have room for any enchanted item from any reasonable fantasy source.



D&D has never simulated everything.  It has only ever simulated D&D Fantasy.  The thing about D&D fantasy is that is has always had a kitchen sink feeling to it.  If it's ever been mentioned in any book ever, it must be in D&D.  Which has actually caused some of the internal consistency issues you don't like.

If magic imbued into staves creates charged items, why do runestaves work differently?  If a belt of giant strength can be made why can't a earring of giant strength?  And if it can be made, why does it cost more?  And what slot does it take up?  If it is the head slot, why does putting on an earring suddenly make your helmet stop working?  The answer to all of those questions is easy: Balance and creating a fun game.  The in game reason?  Something about certain magics having affinity for certain parts of your body.

In 4th edition they are actually going for MORE consistency by saying "All rings give this type of bonus and can't be worn until 11th level", "All neck slot items give you this type of bonus", and so on.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jan 28, 2008)

loseth said:
			
		

> I really find it very difficult to use GNS to meaningfully articulate what I like in terms of game design. I want a _game_ that lets me enjoy overcoming challenges by immersing me in a fictional world through the window of characters participating in an entertaining story. Any time a game puts itself in a situation where the above are mutually exclusive--or, more often IME, a situation where the designer falsely believes that they are mutually exclusive--a little voice goes off in my head saying 'bad design: you should have thought about this a little more.'



I don't think there is a "one true answer" when designing a game.  For a game to have mechanical consistency you need to control the numbers carefully.  If a character is expected to have a +10 to hit at 12th level then allowing an item into the game that would increase that to +40 would be perfectly acceptable by immersion sake(there is magic, with magic anything is possible, so it is possible to make an item that does that, so it makes sense that one exists).  It isn't a good idea for game balance, however.  So, one has to invent rules to prevent it for gamist reasons:  "Magic doesn't get THAT powerful in this world."

Why can a wizard only cast so many spells per day?  For balance reasons again.

Nearly every rule in the game sacrifices immersion in a world for mechanical benefit.  Unless you have no problem immersing yourself in a world where all of those rules are true.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 28, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Oh, and btw? the ring rules are fairly obviously narrativist, they could easily be balanced without the tier restrictions, they're more likely to be there to make getting a ring an important story event for the character (helping to keep magic items "special" in the higher levels).




Sorry, this is stepping on the DMs toes. How special rings are should be, imo,  a DM decision based on the campaign not the designers. 



> 3.x characters could take ranks in things which they'd had no training in, this is less silly since it's supposed to refer to their general knowledge, life skills and "main character"ness instead of specific training.



Accept 
a) a guide mentiions insitituting training rules. 
b) the DM saying no to putting ranks in a certain skill due to lack of training or having encountering situtations where the character could have developed the skill.

Then there is also Sean Reynolds Fewer Absolute article which opens up many trained skills to untrained characters without granting automatic bonuses based on level.



> In fact the way a character like, say, a 20th level Paladin, who can fall from orbit twice and then kill an elephant with a rusty spoon, but has trouble to climbing a tree or swimming a river was one of the larger verisimilitude problems I had with 3.x.




My problem is with the paladin falling from orbit.  I have no problem with the paladin not being a good climber. The character sould have been buying ranks in the skill if he had been climbing during his early training or later during his adventures (the same goes for swimming).



> Again, _exactly the same_, the difference between resting 8 hours and resting 5 minutes should be non-existent in terms of verisimilitude.




I never said Vancian was good. I am glad that they removed Vancian. However, the solution has introduced its own problems that are just as bad, imo.  Better solutions already exist in 3e from third parties. Simply introducing hp loss or some other mechanic to represent strain and fatigue that can be recovered by taking time to rest or at a slower pace by engaging in non-strenous activites.



> Look, most of these are just "4e works different to older editions", they make no more or less sense than their 3.x or 2e equivalents, the only parts where verisimilitude is taking second seating to gameplay are martial per encounter abilities, and maybe some abilities based off bloodied, and it's not like they can't be explained and fit into the world if your willing to take the time.




My  issue is not with differences between 4e and past editions. Every edition has its odd rules.  My issue is with the designers of the new edition introducing odd rules of their own -especially, when the rule attempts to fix problems with spell casting and stale combat  would have been fine if it had not broke verisimilitude, Why were 3rd parties able to offer solutions that fixed the problem while not breaking verisimitude?   

As for taking the time to explain odd gamist rules that break verisimilitude, the fact that I can do so doesn't change the fact that the rules requiring me to do so exist.  And, attempting to explain some of the rules to fit the world is still going to strain credibiity (per encounter for instance).


----------



## loseth (Jan 28, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I don't think there is a "one true answer" when designing a game.  For a game to have mechanical consistency you need to control the numbers carefully.




I agree with both of those assertions, though I don't think the latter affects or is affected by GNS.



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> If a character is expected to have a +10 to hit at 12th level then allowing an item into the game that would increase that to +40 would be perfectly acceptable by immersion sake(there is magic, with magic anything is possible, so it is possible to make an item that does that, so it makes sense that one exists).  It isn't a good idea for game balance, however.  So, one has to invent rules to prevent it for gamist reasons:  "Magic doesn't get THAT powerful in this world."
> 
> Why can a wizard only cast so many spells per day?  For balance reasons again.
> 
> Nearly every rule in the game sacrifices immersion in a world for mechanical benefit.  Unless you have no problem immersing yourself in a world where all of those rules are true.




Here's where we disagree. This is what I mean by believeing (in my opinion falsely) that if you're doing one of GNS, you must be 'sacrificing' the other. I'm a serious immersionist, but the existence of a sword that makes someone hit his opponent every time not matter how poor his skill (which is effectively what the proposed +40 sword would be, assuming we're talking a D20-ish game) totally destroys my sense of immersion. It doesn't seem to fit with (simulate) the fantasy literature I know and love, thus jarring me from my immersion, and it doesn't fit my conception of how magic might affect the world were it real (simulating reality--i.e. verisimilitude). Now let's take a magic sword that, in the hands of a skillful warrior, increases his chance of defeating an opponent but doesn't make him invincible by any means. That provides genre emulation and verisimilitude for me, allowing me to immerse myself much more easilly in the game, setting and story. In this case, increasing the simulationist value of a given game element (the existence of magical sowrds and the bonuses they give) helps increase game balance and thus increases the gamist value of that same element.

Of course, as I stated earlier, there are places where two or more of GNS really do conflict and you'll have to choose, but I think there are many more situations (like the one above) where designers assume a conflict exists because the three elements of GNS are often wrongly portrayed as mutually exclusive 'styles.'


----------



## Greg K (Jan 28, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The problem is, increasing randomness only punishes the PC's in the long run.  Say you have a pretty decent maneuver that will bite you in the ass 1 time in 20.  For monsters, they should use that every time.  They are only going to make so many attacks on camera, so, the chances of it coming up are fairly slim.
> 
> For the PC's, OTOH, it will come up.  Guaranteed.  And, if it is bad enough, it results in a dead PC.  Thus, players find a mid point between risk and reward and stick there all the time.  The high risk/high reward maneuvers are avoided since it will kill you and the low/risk low/reward maneuvers aren't worth any risk.




Other than the BAB penalties being slightly high (imo), I don't think the penalties from Book of Iron Might were out of line.  The various penalties, if any,  that a maneuver might cause  included bab penalty, losing dex bonus, requiring a full round action, falling prone, suffering the effect of the attack, the opponent getting an attack or skill check that might disrupt the maneuver,  the opponent getting saving throws to resist additional effects ( dazed, deafened, stunned, limb temporarily disabled (inflicting an attribute or other penalty), temporary blindness, knocking them prone), and a maneuver doing no damage just the additional effect .

As for biting the players, there are ways to address that.
If the player is the attacker:
- action points to improve the attack roll, gain a reroll (minimum roll 10), temporarily negate a maneuvers penalty.
- choosing to use a maneuver when the opponent is suffering penalties either  from the damage track or from a previous successful maneuver
- the use of feats, talents that allow a second roll or temporarily inflict a penalty on the opponent's ability to defend.

if the player is the defender
- saving throws to avoid things like dazed, deafened, blindness, etc. It is really no different than resisting a spell and the opponent still has to successfully hit.
- opposed skill checks that can negate a maneuver's additional effect (or primary effect if it does know damage).
- action points to boost saving throws or allowing them to either offer a second roll (minimum die roll 10) or simply negate an affect
- feats or talents similar to those in M&M that allow second second saving throws.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 28, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I think you're mostly right. I don't think that this is as bad as you suggest, however, provided the monsters and powers really do allow different thematic notions to emerge in the course of mechanial play. We have been promised this in relation to Demons and Devils, and W&M makes similar sorts of noises in relation to all monsters, and the sample Paladin powers suggest that it will also be true of PC powers.
> 
> Now this is not  highbrow narrativism. To me it is more like superhero comics, or westerns, or Hong Kong movies like The Bride with White Hair or Tai Chi Master: combat has to be understood not purely literally, but also as a metaphor for all other conflict. Thus there is no need for seperate mental or spiritual damage, because hit points stand in for all of it.
> 
> ...




That is a good point about D&D and its damage metaphor....funny my favorite game of the moment TSOY actually really uses 1 Harm tracker that integrates social, mental and physical damage, which I REALLY REALLY like.

For WPM..my feeling was that the addition of action resolution mechanics that i figured 4E was going to bring to the table would be why WPM would be a great module to redo. Maybe I am thinking about 4E incorrectly but I thought that 4E would really improve action resolution mechanics compared to previous editions.

We definitely seem to be on the same page it seems


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 28, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The problem is, increasing randomness only punishes the PC's in the long run.  Say you have a pretty decent maneuver that will bite you in the ass 1 time in 20.  For monsters, they should use that every time.  They are only going to make so many attacks on camera, so, the chances of it coming up are fairly slim.
> 
> For the PC's, OTOH, it will come up.  Guaranteed.  And, if it is bad enough, it results in a dead PC.  Thus, players find a mid point between risk and reward and stick there all the time.  The high risk/high reward maneuvers are avoided since it will kill you and the low/risk low/reward maneuvers aren't worth any risk.
> 
> Trying to balance mechanics through punishment never, ever works.




While I agree in principle, if you are a heavy simulationist perspective then this is not the likely outcome as the DM needs to think what would the monster do in a situation if it were the main character in the story.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 28, 2008)

loseth said:
			
		

> I really find it very difficult to use GNS to meaningfully articulate what I like in terms of game design. I want a _game_ that lets me enjoy overcoming challenges by immersing me in a fictional world through the window of characters participating in an entertaining story. Any time a game puts itself in a situation where the above are mutually exclusive--or, more often IME, a situation where the designer falsely believes that they are mutually exclusive--a little voice goes off in my head saying 'bad design: you should have thought about this a little more.'




There are definitely times where they can be exclusive.

Simulationism many times is exclusive of either gamism or narrativism. 

XP is not simulationism in most peoples ideas of a fantasy world. You would get better at skills that you practiced though the system is such that you can get better at skills you didnt practive based on you having more XP.

It really is a question of in what circumstances do you want some choices dictated by one of the three perspectives.

This doesnt mean that you cant ad hoc all sorts of explanations to make your ideas seem consistent or part of the physics of the world, but that is irrelevant to the original intent of the design decision.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 28, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Every rule can be explained in a simulationist way, including this one.  In this world people's souls or spirits become stronger as they accomplish great deeds.  The stuff of magic is attracted to those that interest them by doing "great" things, whether they be good or evil or anywhere in between.  Maybe the gods decreed that it be so, maybe the particle stuff of magic is naturally attracted to powerful souls naturally.  As people accomplish more and more of these great deeds their soul becomes stronger.  It is known that people with strong souls are much luckier than everyone else.  They are able to survive poisons that would drop lesser people in no time.  They are able to survive damage that would rip someone in half.  They have stronger will power than others.  It is because of this will power that they can command rings who are notoriously stubborn and hard to command.  Perhaps the rings draw their power from the soul of the wearer and don't have enough energy in the hands of a "lesser" soul.
> 
> It is just as magical an impossible as a dragon flying.  Both require an impossible explanation to explain.  The point is that simulationist play can be done with ANY rules.  It's that most people don't want to simulate the world created by WOTC, they want to simulate a different one that only exists in their head(or one that looks mostly like the real world in some cases).
> 
> The above explanation works fine for magic item creation as well.  Imbuing part of your soul into an item to allow it to function but it gets more powerful as you do great things, so it will come back.




Making an ad hoc explanation for a gamist (or narrativist) design decision (rule)  is NOT simulationism. It is an ad hoc explanation for a rule.

The perspectives that should be looked at is what is primary driving the design of the rule.  

The entire discussion about simulationism is not about rationalizing why a rule could exist in the world, it is about why was the rule designed that way.

Now there are obvious cases where someone is trying to do both I want a cool rule that fits in with the simulation of the world, but generally the rule is designed to accomplish one of the goals (eg game balance, consistency with the genre fluff, giving characters the ability to narrate results in the story etc..)


----------



## Blackwind (Jan 28, 2008)

Of course the real fatal flaw in 4E's design, and the real reason why people are getting so upset with the changes, is that the designers are intentionally moving away from both Retro and Stupid design features, thus shifting D&D from Retro Stupid (which is really fun) to some new abyss of reason which is neither Retro, nor Stupid, nor Pretentious... utter crap if you ask me.  

Nowadays, and even moreso once 4E is released, gamers seeking Retro Stupid play will be forced to migrate to C&C, or revert to earlier editions of D&D.*

</onlylike80%joking>

http://jrients.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-got-your-threefold-model-right-here.html 

---

*Don't flame me.  I think C&C and older editions of D&D are fun, too.


----------



## helium3 (Jan 28, 2008)

Alnag said:
			
		

> Oh good lord. It was only a matter of time, till the Forge poison will spill here as well.




What is this Forge poison you speak of?


----------



## malladin (Jan 28, 2008)

GNS-Just Say No


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 28, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> What is this Forge poison you speak of?




Basically it is a forum where people theorized about why people play games and how game design can influence the fun that is achieved by certain playstyles.

It really was more of a theorizing of some reasons why people used to get in arguments over game rules and play styles. They just decided to use some specific terminology to better discuss these ideas.

They were by no means the first to look at the issues, they ended up just having a lot of voices that did it (and one very vocal voice in Ron Edwards)

It really is no different than this entire Ring debate. The only difference is that they use more specific terminology (which like many field of knowledge, they defined for their use).

Why I don't always agree with the ideas on the Forge (frankly there are a lot of people there) they do many times bring up interesting analyses of gaming, game play and game design.

Many people don't like the Forge as the people at the Forge sometimes do not speak well about certain game systems (usually the negative term they use is incoherent, though I am sure worse words have been used).

It all depends on whether you care about theories behind gaming. People design and play games without lots of meditating on the overall agenda and theory behind them and sometimes they work and sometimes they don't.

The Forge just tried to approach it in a more academic sense (which makes sense as Ron Edwards is a biology professor).

Honestly I believe many of the issues that are brought up at the Forge are very similar to issues that people bring up here, they just tend to codify them in more consistent terminology.

It goes back to the Ring debate, the HP debate, game balance etc. We all complain and take issues with many of these issues. Forge theories are just one (i generally think very good) way of discussing these issues and possibly come to greater understanding of the core problems and solutions.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jan 28, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Simulation has been eliminated as a design goal in 4e.
> 
> This is a fact.
> 
> ...




What can I say but yep. That's certainly in 100% agreement with everything I've seen about 4E. Good, bad? Well, it's all perspective. For me, I think it's both, but I think overall, the good gained from dumping the various simulationist elements of D&D (which were indeed strong with 3E, and clearly present in 2E, ESPECIALLY very early 2E)



			
				WyzardWhately said:
			
		

> A game being "simulationist" has _nothing to do with realism._
> 
> Simulationism only requires that the game follow some kind of internal logic, and that the characters be able to determine what that is.  What breaks sim is when gamist or other elements violate that internal logic, not when it violates real-world principles and experience.




This bears repeating, because some people _still aren't getting it_. AD&D, particularly 2E, was attempting a kind of simulationism, not really "realism" (you can have a game that's simulationist in regard to 4-colour comics, or 1920s pulp, or whatever), and to ignore that and go "lol D&D wasn't simulationistz", is really illustrative of a basic misunderstanding of the terminology. Clearly D&D wasn't _purely_ "real-world"-style simulationist like GURPS, but nor was it purely gamist (indeed, it's hard to think of an RPG pre-1994 which was). So trying to suggest that there's "no change" really seems very out there.

It's a meaningful change, and like I've said, I think it'll work out for the better, at least in my games. Doesn't mean I won't miss it, and/or try to sneak a bit of simulationism back in through the back door, as it were, though 

I think D&D doing this does leave a bit of a gap in the market, and it'll be interesting to see if anyone manages to fill it (my prediction: they don't).

PS - Alnag's "poison" comment earned him a quick trip to my ignore list. Trying to formalize debate so people can understand what others are talking about is "poison"? Good heavens.


----------



## Imban (Jan 28, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> D&D has never simulated everything.  It has only ever simulated D&D Fantasy.  The thing about D&D fantasy is that is has always had a kitchen sink feeling to it.  If it's ever been mentioned in any book ever, it must be in D&D.  Which has actually caused some of the internal consistency issues you don't like.




Oh, certainly. However...



> If magic imbued into staves creates charged items, why do runestaves work differently?




Well, for the same reason *flaming quarterstaves* work differently: they're different items. For me, if it's ever been mentioned in any book ever, it must be able to be put in D&D. I don't want to hear that "magic imbued into staves creates charged items. Period."



> If a belt of giant strength can be made why can't a earring of giant strength? And if it can be made, why does it cost more?




Well, that's really stupid? I mean, honestly I'd let it pass if you actually thought it would be cool or were trying to model source material, but that's Boots of Intellect level stupid there. As far as costing more, that's more or less the system trying to "soft" rule against that (by making it unfeasible to "shift slots around" so per RAW you don't see Boots of Intellect) rather than a hard rule - it's easy to remove if you don't care about associating items and their slots any more than "That isn't retarded, right?" without meaningfully affecting the mechanical working of the game at all.



> And what slot does it take up?  If it is the head slot, why does putting on an earring suddenly make your helmet stop working?




Uh, your head slot. Or your earrings slot. Or one of your accessory slots. Seriously, I've played in games where each of those has been true, because they were based around different things. I suppose that in the "head slot" one, it would indeed make a helmet stop working, because it would count the same as trying to stack any two helmets, both in terms of the mechanical reason and the in-game reason.

And I mean, that's a reasonable in-game reason, since having people wear a skullcap, an earring, and a helmet would also be stupid.



> The answer to all of those questions is easy: Balance and creating a fun game.  The in game reason?  Something about certain magics having affinity for certain parts of your body.
> 
> In 4th edition they are actually going for MORE consistency by saying "All rings give this type of bonus and can't be worn until 11th level", "All neck slot items give you this type of bonus", and so on.




That's consistency in a way, yes, but as I said in my last post, this is one of the times where I definitely don't want the consistency of a single setting.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 28, 2008)

Silent Cartographer said:
			
		

> D&D has never been particularly simulationist, but I agree with the OP that 3E gave the most support for sim-style D&D compared to previous editions. Have you seen the _Rules of the Game_ web articles that dig into the rules at an excruciating level of detail? Try the  flying movement rules (part 3 of 7 on movement!); that level of simulation was never attempted by previous editions.




The 3rd edition flying movement rules are a simplification of the 1st edition rules as laid out in the DMG.  

Based on my reading of the first edition DMG, I think D&D was explicitly simulationist from the offset.  It spends a very large amount of time discussing the world's physics, as it where.  It may have not had in its first stab an elegant ruleset for simulating things, but it was drawing in the near term from a wargaming mindset which is explicitly simulationist.  One of the reasons that the 1st edition game was so prone to rules arguments was that many of the rules were laid out in a simulationist fashion - this happens because this is true about the interaction of X and Y - which prompted players to seek ad hoc rulings or disagree with ad hoc rulings based on thier understanding of the 'physics' of the situation.  This was inherent in the rules.   To view 1st edition D&D as gamist because it does not have a the holistic approach to the rules we associate with modern simulationist games is I think viewing the game out of context.   If you actually read the 1st edition DMG and the Dragon articles from the period of 1st edition, they are very much of the approach, 'When this happens in the world, how do we simulate it?'  If everyone is adopting a different approach to the question, its mainly because when these questions are being asked they are often being asked for nearly the very first time.  The rules set wasn't designed; it evolved.

In any event, I think you are wrong to suggest that 3E represented the high point in D&D's simulationism and we are only know moving from it.  Things like 'Infravision' were taken out of the game precisely because the explaination involved too much rules trouble.  The flight rules were simplified, and so forth.  What 3E represents is not so much the height of simulationism in the game, but the height of simulationist elegance in the game.  It produces the most elegant simulationist toolset of any edition. 

You are right however that 4E is no longer seeing this as a high priority design goal.


----------



## Philip (Jan 28, 2008)

Three groups are recreating the adventure in the Hobbit with the 4e rules. Thhe first a group consists of strict simulationists, the second of strict gamists and the third of stric narrativists.

At some juncture the person playing Bilbo's character stumbles across the ring and puts it on. What happens?

1. The Simulationists
Before the ring is put on, a intense discussion ensues. Everyone agrees that the current 4e rules do not represent the Rings of Power correctly, and players and DM begin suggesting intricate rules-systems and additions to the 4e rules to better represent a Ring of Power. Although every member keeps disagreeing over the exact rules to use, they are having great fun thinking up mechanics to represent a Ring of Power.

2. The Gamists
The Ring doesn't work, the Bilbo character is too low level. The DM knows it, and every players knows it and accepts it. It is even likely that the player playing Bilbo won't even try to put it on since they know it "won't work" anyway. They will keep it safe for the moment they attain the level to use it. They go on with the game, slay some Orc and are having great fun.

3. The Narrativists
The Ring works! The players don't argue once about the fact that the rules say the Ring shouldn't work for such a low level character. On the contrary, the fact that the Ring goes against the rules is an even stronger indication that it is an essential plot item, and they focus on unraveling its mysteries and have great fun.

In summary: any rules set tends to bother strict Simulationists. There is always something that could be improved or tinkered with, in fact, part of their fun comes from discussing rules and tinkering with them. For them a solid basis that needs some tinkering is the ideal ruleset: 4e.

The Gamist needs rules that are clear and consise, but still allow everyone to do something "useful" in-game. An ruleset to intricate or full of expections and oddball rules frustrates them. The streamlined 4e version is an ideal ruleset.

The Narrativists don't care much about the ruleset. They care more about finding different players they can play with that also know the system, and they like the system to provide enough room for their favorite stories: 4e.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 28, 2008)

Philip said:
			
		

> 3. The Narrativists
> The Ring works! The players don't argue once about the fact that the rules say the Ring shouldn't work for such a low level character. On the contrary, the fact that the Ring goes against the rules is an even stronger indication that it is an essential plot item, and they focus on unraveling its mysteries and have great fun.
> 
> I
> ...




Actually this is a huge misunderstanding. Narrativist playstyles really want rules, they have to have rules that encourage narrativist agendas (the PC/player controls the story and it is based on the wants of the character/player and is tied to the character/players goals).

Actually they are the ones who really need rules. allow the players to have narrative control in the creation of the story. Games like  early D&D were not good for narrativists play specifically because they had little to no rules to address PC control of narrative and story outside of their characters strictly defined class abilities.

Games that don't have rules that encourage the role of the character in the story (by that I mean it is focused on the characters decisions, goals, desires and all outcomes are tied into  choices made by the characters) dont have a narrativist agenda and are usually a poor choice for players looking for this.


----------



## Philip (Jan 28, 2008)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> Actually this is a huge misunderstanding. Narrativist playstyles really want rules, they have to have rules that encourage narrativist agendas (the PC/player controls the story and it is based on the wants of the character/player and is tied to the character/players goals).




I don't think I misunderstand. I agree, Narrativists do need rules, they just don't care overmuch if it is 3.0, 3.5e, 4e or some WoD ruleset, as long it meets some minimum standards. I think 4e will meet enough of those standards to be fun for the strictly narrativist gamer.


----------



## WyzardWhately (Jan 28, 2008)

Philip said:
			
		

> I don't think I misunderstand. I agree, Narrativists do need rules, they just don't care overmuch if it is 3.0, 3.5e, 4e or some WoD ruleset, as long it meets some minimum standards. I think 4e will meet enough of those standards to be fun for the strictly narrativist gamer.




This is incorrect.  Narrativists care just as much about rules as anyone, they just prefer rulesets along the lines of The Mountain Witch, Capes, My Life With Master, or With Great Power.  It's not "minimum standards," it's "rules that actually support what they are attempting to do."


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 28, 2008)

Philip said:
			
		

> I don't think I misunderstand. I agree, Narrativists do need rules, they just don't care overmuch if it is 3.0, 3.5e, 4e or some WoD ruleset, as long it meets some minimum standards. I think 4e will meet enough of those standards to be fun for the strictly narrativist gamer.




I dont mean to just disagree but from what you replied I dont feel we are on the same page.

Actually what I mean is that they need narrativists based rules. Rules that engage narrativists play.

LOTR in narrativists play---

Gandalf - his character is about struggling using/not using great powers and how the ring could corrupt him = there would need to be rules that address both the consequences of him using his powers and that address his choice of taking and using the ring. There must be rules that make certain that the choice of him taking the ring comes into play

Boromir - he wants to to use the ring for the good of Gondor. They need rules that allow that choice to firmly impact play (and rules that make sure that the choice happens)

Samwise - that player wants a character where a individual of little power but great loyalty is crucial to the story. Rules that allow him to gain bonus dice and advantages whenever he helps Frodo obtain Frodos goal. His choice is also between loyalty to do Frodos wishes vs loyaltly to not let Frodo damage himself by being the ring bearer. The choice of taking the ring from Frodo for Frodos own good vs obeying Frodo must come into play and there must be some rules to facilitate this.

Frodo - the player wants to be the main protagonist (this is of course arguable) but has little power but great responsibility. He needs rules that impact his choice to keep being the ring bearer vs lettign someone else take it for their own ends.

That is what would be rules for narrativist play. A good rules set that does not address the characters goals and the players narrative control, do not address narrativist play at all.


----------



## Kesh (Jan 28, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> What is this Forge poison you speak of?



 The Forge is a gaming forum that is well known as the main discussion area for the GNS theory of gaming*. Trouble is, it earned a bad reputation as some gamers sought to promote 1) GNS itself, which has flaws or 2) their particular style of gaming as "best." It also has a reputation of being a bit insular, to the point where folks who go there to ask questions about gaming theory tend to feel shunned by the regulars. It doesn't help that many of the terms used by GNS are found in other areas of academia, but used in a completely different manner. This, combined with the rather loose criteria for each GNS category, lends to arguments about what "category" a particular game or group fits into.

It's also where Ron Edwards, one of the main proponents of GNS, made the comment that people playing _Vampire: the Masquerade_ were literally *damaging their brain* by playing the game.

Needless to say, some folks find this attitude hostile.

Anyway, in my experience, any discussion that leans into the realm of GNS theory tends to spiral out of control, and will eventually lead to statements which are thinly veiled personal attacks against a particular playstyle and/or that the other side of the debate doesn't understand The Theory™.

* For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, GNS stands for Gamist-Narritavist-Simulationist. The idea being that most gamers focus on one aspect of gaming, and that they should focus their energies on games/groups with a similar goal for maximum fun. It starts falling apart the minute you try to define criteria for each category, though.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 28, 2008)

Kesh said:
			
		

> The Forge is a gaming forum that is well known as the main discussion area for the GNS theory of gaming*. T




In the end it is just a model. Like most models it cannot account for everything, but for me I find it the best model at the moment to help understand design decisions and how to better choose and play games that will reward what I am looking for. What I am looking for of course will vary from time to time.

I tend to not define things exactly as others do but I hope I define it enough and the definition is robust enough that I can communicate it to others such that we can reliably speak about gaming and mean similar things.


Someone could come up with a better model and if so, I will start using that one.

There have definitely been some horribly chosen words from people at the Forge. That quote of Ron's probably not one of his more shining moments.

I hate the quote as it is wrong on so many level, though I agree with his original argument which was to say that the StoryTeller system really didn't advance narrative which is advertised it would, any better than D&D did (which is what it was trying to separate itself from).

I think heated debate becomes pointless. I try never to take the offensive as it never helps in an internet forum.


----------



## AZRogue (Jan 28, 2008)

I like the direction 4E is going and I'll tell you why. My gaming group (2 of whom I've gamed with since the Red Box back in gradeschool) stopped playing DnD about 2 years ago because it had grown too tedious and, frankly, too boring. We're all adults with a limited amount of free time and it became easier to just hang out since everyone's enthusiasm for 3E faded so quickly. The fights dragged on too long and the players' actions became repetitive. So they all drifted into the MMORPG world and that was that.

But the changes coming in 4E, especially the promise of giving players more options in combat (really focusing on that area) and the simplicity of their taking care of combat and interaction rules while not making a hundred thousand rules on how to use a toilet is just great. I mean, i've DM'd for years and I don't think that I've ever actually done more than glance at the Ecology/Fluff sections of the monster manuels. I don't need it. I remember where they live and I know what I want them to be doing. I don't need to roll to see if they live in a cave or a tree stump.

But, regardless, I'm going off track. My players are, for the first time in years, excited about playing DnD and that makes ME excited.


----------



## takasi (Jan 28, 2008)

As Vegepygmy and others pointed out, there is also the GDS (Gamist-Dramatist-Simulationist) model.  I personally don't have enough understanding of GNS to know the difference between Simulationism in both models, but if someone has time I would love to hear an overview.  Big Model theory is...involved it seems, but I am willing to learn.

Here is Wikipedia's overview of GDS:

"In its most formal sense, the threefold model claims that any single GM decision (about the resolution of in-game events) can be made in order to further the goals of Drama, or Simulation, or Game. By extension, a series of decisions may be described as tending towards one or two of the three goals, to a greater or lesser extent. This can be visualised as an equilateral triangle, with a goal at each vertex, and the points between them representing different weightings of the different goals."

Note that this model describes how a campaign is run by a DM and not how a ruleset is developed by a game designer.

As someone else pointed out, a DM choosing to run a game where the rules say a character must be x to activate item y can make as many simulationist decisions as another DM using rules where characters don't even have x and item y doesn't exist at all.

Regardless of the intent of the game designers, it's the DM who actually runs the game.  One of the most basic decisions that determines if a game leans towards the simulationist side has nothing to do with the ruleset at all:  are encounters tailored or are they a part of the status quo?  Are heroes just as likely to run into an encounter that is too high or too low for them as an encounter that's "just right"?

Theoretically, IMO you could run a campaign using the D&D Miniatures rules for combat that lean more towards simulationism than most campaigns that use 3.5.  Consider the following questions:

1.) When it rains, is it for mood or did the DM use a weather pattern table?

2.) If a character dies in the middle of the wilderness, does the party look for a replacement or does the new PC find the party?

3.) Do the PCs receive income from non-combat sources, including investments in property such as strongholds, farms, caravans, etc?  

4.) How did you determine if PCs have friends and relatives?  How were the friends' and relatives' locations determined?  How are events in their lives generated?

5.) If a character is accused of stealing from an ancestral burial ground, how is law enforcement resolved?  (And more importantly how do you determine if he is accused in the first place?)

6.) If a caravan is encountered on the road, how do you determine the number of wagons and what's in them?

7.) If there is a thieves guild in a town (again, how is that determined), who is their leader?  Are they willing to sell arson and assination services?  How do you determine which businesses are under their protection?

You'll have a very tough time finding skirmish combat rules (which is 90% of the RPG core rules) to answer these questions.  Yet it's the method that the DM uses to answer these questions that determine if a campaign is gamist/dramatist/simulationist.  Does he just make up whatever story sounds cool for his group?  Does he tailor things to make an interesting puzzle or scenario for the group?  Or does he look for additional, non-combat rules to help him generate a world that's less subjective and biased towards the characters in game and the players at the table?

IMO, whether a DM uses tables and non-combat rules made by third parties (or older WotC supplements) will determine if a 4th edition game is simulationist or not.


----------



## Silent Cartographer (Jan 28, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The 3rd edition flying movement rules are a simplification of the 1st edition rules as laid out in the DMG.
> 
> ...
> 
> What 3E represents is not so much the height of simulationism in the game, but the height of simulationist elegance in the game.  It produces the most elegant simulationist toolset of any edition.



Since I'm going on some very old memories for 1E AD&D rules, I'm quite willing to stand corrected on that score; your knowledge of 1E is clearly fresher than mine. I agree with your final conclusion; that's a good analysis. 

In any case, the point was that 4E has changed design direction in this regard. The success of 3E rightfully attracted fans who may be unhappy that 4th edition has so abruptly adopted gamist principals that relies heavily on abstraction of in-game causality. That abstraction can most easily be put to use for player or GM-driven narrative; its harder to reverse-engineer causes from gamist generated effects. It's not impossible (see _Classic Traveller_), but it is markedly different from the 3E approach to causality.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jan 28, 2008)

Greg K said:
			
		

> 7) Keeping luck and skill as aspects of hit points.  We now have game elements that can reflect skill and luck and, imo, hit points no longer need to reflect these elements.  Skill is covered by level bonuses to save and class defense bonuses.  Luck can be simulated by the use of action points. As for lethal blows being turned into nicks, action points expenditure could be used for this as can creating a feat or ability to roll with a blow.  Furthermore, by removing luck and skill, there is no longer the bizarreness of healing spells curing luck and skill.




I'm thinking that you can't really do this as long as we have ever-increasing hit points. Or some mechanism of 'hit points' at all. I think it's a sacred cow that needs to be gotten rid of.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 28, 2008)

takasi said:
			
		

> As Vegepygmy and others pointed out, there is also the GDS (Gamist-Dramatist-Simulationist) model.  I personally don't have enough understanding of GNS to know the difference between Simulationism in both models, but if someone has time I would love to hear an overview.  Big Model theory is...involved it seems, but I am willing to learn.
> 
> Here is Wikipedia's overview of GDS:
> .........




I think some of the limitation of GDS were the reason they developed GNS. 

One BIG difference is in the drama idea.

Drama was about how can the DM craft a story around PCs. It is rules uncaring. 

Narrativism is about rules that allow the players the narrative power to craft a story around their characters.

The problem was that Drama part of GDS didnt really mean much excpet by how the DM acted. This put everything in the hands of the DM. GNS is about how the rules empower each of the participants (the third participant being the rules themselves).

You mention that the DM runs the game. To what extent is the big question.

Some people believe it is DM creates and environment and the players just adventure their way through it.

Some believe that the DM creates it and adjusts it to the players (sometimes thought of as GM fiat)

Others believe rules should allow the PCs to have a huge say in what happens in the world.

They all can employ different designs that can influence how a game and in turn a campaign plays itself out.

BTW..i am not saying GNS is the end-all be-all of design and play theory. I am sure better ones can be developed. This was just some differences between GDS and GNS.

I don't really care which model is used as long as it can facilitate better understanding of gaming, playing games and game design and the social contract between players.


----------



## takasi (Jan 28, 2008)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> I don't really care which model is used as long as it can facilitate better understanding of gaming, playing games and game design and the social contract between players.




I agree, I think understand game style is important in appreciating games.  They are all styles, and IMO no one is 'better' than the other.

Thank you for describing the differences.  Specifically, what is difference about simulationism?  In GDS, reliance on world building rules is generally in the domain of Simulationism, whereas in GNS the System is defined to govern all three aspects?  Any other thoughts on how simulationism differs in the two system?  I don't understand it yet.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 28, 2008)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I'm thinking that you can't really do this as long as we have ever-increasing hit points. Or some mechanism of 'hit points' at all. I think it's a sacred cow that needs to be gotten rid of.




I have no problem with getting rid of hit points per level (or even hit points entirely as I love the damage save of True20 and Mutants and Masterminds). However, I don't think it is necessary to get rid of hit points entirely to make what I suggest work. There are several games that use  hit points, but not hit points per level, and in those games hit points do not include the concept of luck or skill in turning a potentially lethal blowi into a nick or near miss.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 28, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> I want the campaigns I run to be entertaining, fun, internally consistent from start to finish (e.g. no splatbooks or drastic rule changes introduced halfway through), somewhat whimsical at times, luck-based to a significant degree, long (5+ years minimum), larger than any one player or PC (i.e. able to withstand the unforeseen loss of same for whatever reason), a place where what the character would do is what the character does (e.g. if it makes sense that a PC would choose to leave the party, it leaves), and a place where powergaming is of little use.
> 
> What kind of '-ist' does that make me?
> 
> Lanefan



That description sounds like pretty hard-core simulationism to me. As well as 1st ed AD&D, it sounds like you might enjoy RQ, Pendragon, Ars Magica or perhaps Rolemaster as gaming systems.

But I wouldn't be surprised if you also have a hint of 1st ed AD&D/wargaming-style gamism in you - you enjoy the competitive/problem-sovling aspect of play, but like an extremely robust simulationsit chassis to frame the nature of the problems and what counts as an acceptable solution. If this is more like you, then you might find Pendragon and Ars Magica less appealing as they would drag you too far away from that problem-solving and more into the fiddly bits of the gameworld.


----------



## HeinorNY (Jan 28, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> I want the campaigns I run to be entertaining, fun, internally consistent from start to finish (e.g. no splatbooks or drastic rule changes introduced halfway through), somewhat whimsical at times, luck-based to a significant degree, long (5+ years minimum), larger than any one player or PC (i.e. able to withstand the unforeseen loss of same for whatever reason), a place where what the character would do is what the character does (e.g. if it makes sense that a PC would choose to leave the party, it leaves), and a place where powergaming is of little use.
> 
> What kind of '-ist' does that make me?
> 
> Lanefan



Welcome to the truly heroic world of simulationist. 

"We don't need special metagame rules to make our characters heroes, cheats are for cheaters. Just give me the same tools that everyone else gets, let me perfect them using my own effort and I'll show what heroism is all about. We don't need "Destiny" points to artificially create memorable moments, or even to save our skin. If we die, we die. Life is cruel and sht happens, but when we manage to achieve something truly important, something that really makes a difference to the world, it's gonna be memorable because it was "real", not fabricated by cinematic rules.
In Simulationist gaming, heroism does not dictate actions. Actions dictate heroism. Heroes are made with choices, hard work, bravery and a bit of luck. We forge our destiny instead of being carried by it. Our characters make history instead of being made by the story."


----------



## pemerton (Jan 28, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> PC classes and NPC classes = narrativism



Again, I have to disagree. NPC class rules are really a simulationsit device, an attempt to reconcile PC heroism with an assumption that the PC build rules actually model an in-game process. What NPC classes do is articulate what that process is for the rest of the world.

4e is adopting a more clearly narrativist (or gamist) approach to NPC build, by dropping the assumption that NPCs use the PC build rules at all. A consequence of this is that the PC build rules cannot be understood as modelling any in-game process. Hence, the death of simulation (TM).



			
				ainatan said:
			
		

> Narrativism rules, IMO, try to secure the PCs status as heroes and protagonists.
> 
> *Narrativism: * Cause: PCs are heroes. Consequence: They act heroically and have more power than common people that allow them to be heroes.



But you leave out the most important point: narrativism secures the right of the _players_ to make choices that affect the gameworld. A game in which the GM explains to the players how their PCs are heroes and protagonists is not narrativist, it is simulationist (in the extreme, simulationist rail-roading).

It is a sign of the entrenched status of simulationist thinging that many people have difficulty drawing this sort of distinction between the player and the PC.



			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> I have SW Saga and I'd say it's firmly simulationist.



I don't have SWSE, but what you say fits with my understanding of its rules and approach.



			
				loseth said:
			
		

> This is what I mean by believeing (in my opinion falsely) that if you're doing one of GNS, you must be 'sacrificing' the other.



I think that the same set of rules can (at least tolerably) support both gamism and narrativism (4e, I'm looking at you!).

Supporting gamism and simulationism is also possible, if the rules are intricate enough in their simulationist mechanics to allow meaningful player choices, or if the gamism happens in a part of the game that is not mechanically regulated. RM is an example of the first. AD&D, espcially 1st ed, is an example of the second. RQ or classic Traveller are both games which are highly simulationist, and which I would think it is very hard to play in a gamist fashion (as the rules simply don't have the complexity to facilitate "winning" or "losing" choices).

I think it's hard to have a set of mechanics that are both simulationist and narrativist, because any action resolution mechanics that give the players narrative control will almost certainly jar with the simulationist goal. One way to get around this is to locate the narrativist mechanics purely in the character build rules, where even serious simulationists tend to be more tolerant of purely metagame devices (RQ and classic Traveller are the only mainstream RPGs I can think of which completely eschew metagame character build). For idiosynchratic reasons I have GMed RM in this fashion for a long time - but it has only worked in an environment with a lot of player trust that if they send a signal to the GM via character build, the GM will pick up on it in the course of play.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Based on my reading of the first edition DMG, I think D&D was explicitly simulationist from the offset.



Maybe. But it also (like wargaming) had gamist goals as well - in particular, exploiting the physics of the world in order to be a better player is an evident goal of play. As per my response to Lanefan, and also my observation earlier in this post, I think AD&D is somewhat peculiar in locating its gamist elements primarily outside of, rather than within, its mechanics.



			
				Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Clearly D&D wasn't _purely_ "real-world"-style simulationist like GURPS, but nor was it purely gamist (indeed, it's hard to think of an RPG pre-1994 which was).



Following Ron Edwards, can I nominate Tunnels and Trolls? Interestingly, 4e seems to be developing at least on T&T-ism: you build an encounter just by bundling together the right number of XP (just as in T&T you build an encounter just by bundling together the right number of monster dice).



			
				loseth said:
			
		

> I'm a serious immersionist, but the existence of a sword that makes someone hit his opponent every time not matter how poor his skill (which is effectively what the proposed +40 sword would be, assuming we're talking a D20-ish game) totally destroys my sense of immersion.



You need to rewarch Crouching Tiger - it's the Jade Destiny!



			
				Philip said:
			
		

> Narrativists do need rules, they just don't care overmuch if it is 3.0, 3.5e, 4e or some WoD ruleset, as long it meets some minimum standards. I think 4e will meet enough of those standards to be fun for the strictly narrativist gamer.



As Apoptosis said, narrativists tend to need a rather definite set of rules - or, at least, need there NOT to be de-protagonising rules (such as Alignment, Force Points, Personality Disadvantages, etc). Thus, no earlier edition of D&D has helped them (due to alignment) and nor does WoD, I don't think (as it has de-protagonising Humanity rules).

As I noted above, a particular sort of simulationist ruleset can be used, especially if it allows metagaming in character build. But (from long experience) I know that it is much easier to achieve narrativist goals if the players actually have metagame action-resolution mechanics that they can use.



			
				apoptosis said:
			
		

> We definitely seem to be on the same page it seems



Agreed.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 28, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Welcome to the truly heroic world of simulationist.
> 
> "We don't need special metagame rules to make our characters heroes, cheats are for cheaters. Just give me the same tools that everyone else gets, let me perfect them using my own effort and I'll show what heroism is all about. We don't need "Destiny" points to artificially create memorable moments, or even to save our skin. If we die, we die. Life is cruel and sht happens, but when we manage to achieve something truly important, something that really makes a difference to the world, it's gonna be memorable because it was "real", not fabricated by cinematic rules.
> In Simulationist gaming, heroism does not dictate actions. Actions dictate heroism. Heroes are made with choices, hard work, bravery and a bit of luck. We forge our destiny instead of being carried by it. Our characters make history instead of being made by the story."




Now i want to play Rolemaster


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 29, 2008)

> As Apoptosis said, narrativists tend to need a rather definite set of rules - or, at least, need there NOT to be de-protagonising rules (such as Alignment, Force Points, Personality Disadvantages, etc). Thus, no earlier edition of D&D has helped them (due to alignment) and nor does WoD, I don't think (as it has de-protagonising Humanity rules).






I always thought that the Humanity rules were going to be an attempt at narrativist style of play. 

That they would allow the exploration of the theme of that as your character gains power you lose your humanity. And that vamps are infatuated with humanity at the same time. So that meaningful players choices could occur of power vs humanity.

The problem with the humanity rules is that it was not a good tool for allowing players to make meaningful choices on this theme.

it never did happen, though Ron's 'Sorcerer' took up the challenge and made a great game out of it.


----------



## takasi (Jan 29, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> 4e is adopting a more clearly narrativist (or gamist) approach to NPC build, by dropping the assumption that NPCs use the PC build rules at all. A consequence of this is that the PC build rules cannot be understood as modelling any in-game process. Hence, the death of simulation (TM).




I fail to see how providing a streamlined system for statting NPCs prevents a more simulationist favoring DM from creating NPCs using the PC build rules.  It just isn't the default assumption anymore.  It has been said you can add class levels to monsters and NPCs. 

On the other hand, I do see how not providing a streamlined method forces a more gamist or narrativist leaning DM into a certain style.

At this point we have very little to base these assumptions on, correct?  If there are specifics I would like to see them.

Finally, I would also like to add that most of the NPCs in 3.5 (monsters primarily, but occasionally a few humans in modules) had supernatural, extraordinary and spell-like abilities.  There were no rules on assigning them, and it was also a system distinct from PC generation.  If this is the qualification for simulationists 'extinction' (which it isn't) then it would already be dead (and it's not).


----------



## HeinorNY (Jan 29, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Again, I have to disagree. NPC class rules are really a simulationsit device, an attempt to reconcile PC heroism with an assumption that the PC build rules actually model an in-game process. What NPC classes do is articulate what that process is for the rest of the world.




To me the distinction between "protagonists" classes and "extras" classes, considering the protagonists classes are much more powerful, to be a narrativistic mechanic, or even a gamist, but clearly not simulationist. My assumption is based on a simple question (followed by lots of questions  : Why is that? Is there any in-game explanation for the X% of the population that have access to a better set of class powers? Do they have better genes? (Yes, but that's the reason they have better abilities.) Why don't the town guards get fighter levels instead of warrior levels? Wouldn't they be more efficient town guards?
 If the answer for all these question is found outside the gameworld, using any metagame, metastory, point, it's clearly not a simulationist mechanic.
If all PC characters in the gameworld come from a special monastery where they teach the eleven ways of adventuring, and only those trained in that monastery have access to PC classes, then it could be considered a simulationist mechanic.



> 4e is adopting a more clearly narrativist (or gamist) approach to NPC build, by dropping the assumption that NPCs use the PC build rules at all. A consequence of this is that the PC build rules cannot be understood as modelling any in-game process. Hence, the death of simulation (TM).



I agree, and SWSE is a preview of that philosophy, unfortunately for the simulationist gamers.



> But you leave out the most important point: narrativism secures the right of the _players_ to make choices that affect the gameworld. A game in which the GM explains to the players how their PCs are heroes and protagonists is not narrativist, it is simulationist (in the extreme, simulationist rail-roading).
> 
> It is a sign of the entrenched status of simulationist thinging that many people have difficulty drawing this sort of distinction between the player and the PC.




In narrativistic gaming, the PC do have the right to affect the gameworld, they are supposed to have that right because they are the "protagonists", the world is made around their existence. In simulationist gaming, PCs also may have the right to affect the gameworld with their actions, but they have to earn that right. 
A game where the DM and players mutually agree their characters are the protagonists of the story is a narrativistic game by the simple fact that in simulationist there is no such thing as protagonists, characters are just part of the world, they have to crave that heroic status.
Also, there is no such thing as railroading in simulationism, It wouldn't make any sense at all. In simulationism, things in the gameworld happen that way because they are supposed to happen that way. It's all about "status quo" DMing, and status quo DMing and railroading are mutually exclusive. The simulationist DM let the characters create the story as they act in the gameworld, if they're 1st lvl and go to the red dragon cave, they just made the story about the unlucky adventurers. 
A simulationist DM does not create a story/adventure for  the PCs. He creates an independent sequence of events, that may or may not be triggered by the PCs, and the PCs are dragged into it, by story hooks for example, and decide to take part on the events to alter it, stop it or whataver the best option is, but if they do nothing, the sequence of events take place anyway. That's simulationism. When PCs leave the inn, the innkeeper is still there doing his stuff.

*Railroading and story imposing exists when the story precedes the characters' action. In simulationism, characters' actions always precede the story.*


----------



## Wyrmshadows (Jan 29, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Welcome to the truly heroic world of simulationist.
> 
> "We don't need special metagame rules to make our characters heroes, cheats are for cheaters. Just give me the same tools that everyone else gets, let me perfect them using my own effort and I'll show what heroism is all about. We don't need "Destiny" points to artificially create memorable moments, or even to save our skin. If we die, we die. Life is cruel and sht happens, but when we manage to achieve something truly important, something that really makes a difference to the world, it's gonna be memorable because it was "real", not fabricated by cinematic rules.
> In Simulationist gaming, heroism does not dictate actions. Actions dictate heroism. Heroes are made with choices, hard work, bravery and a bit of luck. We forge our destiny instead of being carried by it. Our characters make history instead of being made by the story."




Gods YES!!!!!   

I've been running D&D games for years from this perspective and interestingly enough my campaign was never considered unfun. I now run True20 and am learning Runequest and may or may not run 4e depending on the final rules. No doubt there will be 3rd party support for of a simulationist/narrativist style of play....time will tell.



Wyrmshadows


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 29, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> In narrativistic gaming, the PC do have the right to affect the gameworld, they are supposed to have that right because they are the "protagonists", the world is made around their existence.




Well... the game world is there in order to support making moral choices, yeah; but it depends on the game as to how much control over the environment the players actually have.

In Burning Wheel, a player can say, "The bishop is a thief."  If I, the DM, have already decided that he's not a thief, he's not a thief, and the player can't make it so.  I believe Sorcerer also gives the GM that level of "content authority."



			
				ainatan said:
			
		

> Also, there is no such thing as railroading in simulationism, It wouldn't make any sense at all.




Railroading never makes sense.  It depends on your definition of railroading, but I like to say that it is when your ability to make meaningful choices has been taken away.


----------



## Henry (Jan 29, 2008)

Wyrmshadows said:
			
		

> I've been running D&D games for years from this perspective and interestingly enough my campaign was never considered unfun.




I come from that school of gaming, myself, a bunch of old-schoolers from the 70's and 80's who used all kinds of dirty tricks, etc. to maximize their chances, instead of just going it cinematic-style. Nowadays, my current gaming friends and I are a little more cinematic in approach, but I still do have a soft spot for the whole "never cut a sucker an even break" game design of the older versions.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 29, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Well... the game world is there in order to support making moral choices, yeah; but it depends on the game as to how much control over the environment the players actually have.
> 
> In Burning Wheel, a player can say, "The bishop is a thief."  If I, the DM, have already decided that he's not a thief, he's not a thief, and the player can't make it so.  I believe Sorcerer also gives the GM that level of "content authority."
> 
> ...




I thought there might be some components of BW that allow you to rewrite NPCs (grab content authority), but honestly haven't looked at the books in a while.

I know that if you want to bring in an NPC, you could make a circle roll and say the Bishop is a thief if the bishop had not already been planned out by the GM, but this might not be what you mean. You are probably more up to date on BW than I am.

It has been awhile since i read BW. The Narrativist very very crunchy game. I love the game, but it really requires your entire group to know the rules and for them to be able to hit many components of the game to really fully enjoy it.

I never could really get into scripting combat, I tended to not script it and just do it in a more traditional sense, which probably loses some appeal of the fight mechanics.

I really like your definition of railroading.


----------



## HeinorNY (Jan 29, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Railroading never makes sense.  It depends on your definition of railroading, but I like to say that it is when your ability to make meaningful choices has been taken away.



Pretty much that. 

When I started playing AD&D, I had a DM that we consider to be a tyrannical Evil DM, but today I understand he was a narrativism aficionado.
He was the kind of DM that used to give xp bonus and penalty regarding roleplaying. When sessions ended, he decided if it was a productive session not by the overall fun and good time, but by how well the story was developed and how far we went into his plots.
Once we are debating about gaming styles and I proposed a "fictional" gaming situation to better understand his style. I said: "The PCs manage to create a brilliant plan to steal a very powerful magic item from a blacksmith. The plan is flawless and there is nothing in the rules or in the gameworld (and in the blacksmith's house) preventing that plan to work. Would you allow them to steal the item?"
He answered: "No. The story is more important, if PCs get that item, the story and the plot is gonna change too much, or will be ruined. I'll just create some metagame situation, anything, but they will never put their hands on that item. No matter how good their plan is." 

When character's achievements may be limited for the sakes of the story, you are playing a narrativistic game. 
When they are limited by the sakes of game balance, it's a gamist game. 
Simulationist games are limited only by in-game circunstances, never by metagame or metastory intrusion. And DMing is much more complicated 

That's negative railroading. 
Positive railroading is simpler, the story is there, character will have to go there so the game may continue; If in-game factors are not enough, metagame circunstances arise to accomplish that.


----------



## marune (Jan 29, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Pretty much that.
> 
> When I started playing AD&D, I had a DM that we consider to be a tyrannical Evil DM, but today I understand he was a narrativism aficionado.
> He was the kind of DM that used to give xp bonus and penalty regarding roleplaying. When sessions ended, he decided if it was a productive session not by the overall fun and good time, but by how well the story was developed and how far we went into his plots.
> ...




Sorry, but you understand nothing at narrativist play.

One of the most basic idea of narrativist play is that the story isn't already written by the GM.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 29, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Welcome to the truly heroic world of simulationist.
> 
> "We don't need special metagame rules to make our characters heroes, cheats are for cheaters. Just give me the same tools that everyone else gets, let me perfect them using my own effort and I'll show what heroism is all about. We don't need "Destiny" points to artificially create memorable moments, or even to save our skin. If we die, we die. Life is cruel and sht happens, but when we manage to achieve something truly important, something that really makes a difference to the world, it's gonna be memorable because it was "real", not fabricated by cinematic rules.
> In Simulationist gaming, heroism does not dictate actions. Actions dictate heroism. Heroes are made with choices, hard work, bravery and a bit of luck. We forge our destiny instead of being carried by it. Our characters make history instead of being made by the story."



Yep, that about sums it up...with a dash of humour thrown in.

And pemerton, good call: I *am* a 1e kid, to this day! 

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 29, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Sorry, but you understand nothing at narrativist play.
> 
> One of the most basic idea of narrativist play is that the story isn't already written by the GM.



Then I am *completely* misunderstanding the term.

"Narrativist" to me implies the presence of a *narrator*, who serves the essential function of telling the story or at least keeping it moving.  Sounds like a DM to me.

Lanefan


----------



## marune (Jan 29, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Then I am *completely* misunderstanding the term.
> 
> "Narrativist" to me implies the presence of a *narrator*, who serves the essential function of telling the story or at least keeping it moving.  Sounds like a DM to me.
> 
> Lanefan




That's probably why it was renamed "Story now"  

I won't go in a GNS / Big model explanation here, look at my sig / TheForge.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jan 29, 2008)

*Some Ideas*

I've not played in a narrative game, so I don't feel qualified to comment on such games.  (But see below, as narration is an important part of my games.)

For "Simulationist", I view games that create a model, then have players basically run through that model, with little game master intervention.  That is, strictly and fully modelled.

For "Gamist", I view games that immerse players in more or less abstract "Games" that do little to convey any kind of realistic scenario.

As for "Realism", I discount this as an actual goal and insteal look to "verisimilitude" and "immersion".  I want to be able to take myself outside of the specific rules and describe a scenario -- using a simple narrative description -- and have the players imagine what their characters would do -- again using simple descriptions, then have the game evolve an outcome that the players have fun with, and believe.  Within this outlook, I look for the rules to be sound "arbitrators" of the outcome.  The rules provide a common framework so that I can play the game with my friends, and add in both structure and uncertainty.

From this point of view, all of the rules have to "make sense".  This seems best captured as being "non-arbitrary" and "amenable to interpolation".  For example, the rule on no rings until 10'th level.  That sounds like legacy weapons, only applied to rings.  So, the basic idea is sound.  But it breaks down in the interpolation part.  There ought to be some "1/2" power ring that can be worn at 5'th level.  Or, there ought to be more classes of items, not just rings, that have this sort of limitation.  Having just the rule with rings, and with hard points that magically map to the range of available levels, feels a bit arbitrary.

If we look at another rule, the 5' step.  That is a little odd, but one can picture that while you are engaged with an enemy in a sword fight, you ought to be able to adjust your position a little.  The rule is a little arbitrary, but it has a sense to it that makes it acceptable.

Now, let me imagine an ability that wreathes your sword in flame when you get a critical on an opponent, and not provide any background reason for it.  That to me sounds gamist.  You can have a fun game using that as a rule, but without some grounding, the rule doesn't fit into role playing.  This gets at a fundamental aspect of role playing, which is that it must tie to some imaginable explanation.  If you added the rule to balance the fighter against mages, but provided no explanation, that's gamist.  On the other hand, the fighter was a member of a desert tribe devoted to the sacred phoenix, who had imbued their weapon with the sacred fire of the phoenix, then the ability makes sense.  (But has become a specialized class ability and a magical one.)


----------



## marune (Jan 29, 2008)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> Now, let me imagine an ability that wreathes your sword in flame when you get a critical on an opponent, and not provide any background reason for it.  That to me sounds gamist.  You can have a fun game using that as a rule, but without some grounding, the rule doesn't fit into role playing.  This gets at a fundamental aspect of role playing, which is that it must tie to some imaginable explanation.  If you added the rule to balance the fighter against mages, but provided no explanation, that's gamist.   On the other hand, the fighter was a member of a desert tribe devoted to the sacred phoenix, who had imbued their weapon with the sacred fire of the phoenix, then the ability makes sense.  (But has become a specialized class ability and a magical one.)




That would be hardcore gamism yeah.

Let's hope that 4E will be a good high-Exploration gamist RPG (your second example even if I don't like the "make sense" thing).


----------



## pemerton (Jan 29, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> In narrativistic gaming, the PC do have the right to affect the gameworld, they are supposed to have that right because they are the "protagonists", the world is made around their existence.



Again, I would want to point out that the key rights-holders in narrativistic play are not the PCs, but the _players_. Their PCs are simply one element of the gameworld that we can imagine the players  having the power to affect. Their PCs also provide a conduit through which they can affect other parts of the gameworld. But the players might also have the power to affect parts of the gameworld that are neither their PCs, nor causallly connected in the gameworld to their PCs. Apoptosis has given an example of the players having the ability to spend Plot Points (or whatever you want to call them) in order to (for example) decide that a certain sort of NPC lives in a particular example. Another would be the ability of the players to make it the case that incriminating evidence exists in a safe, by deciding to have their PCs look for such evidence in the safe, and then having their PCs succeed in the ensuing conflict (this example was given upthread, I think, in relation to conflict resolution mechanics).



			
				ainatan said:
			
		

> Also, there is no such thing as railroading in simulationism



Not in the sort of simulationism you are describing, which seems roughly to be what Ron Edwards calls "purist for system", and what some others call "sandbox play". But a lot of high-concept simulationism (eg CoC, or any D&D play in which alignment figures prominently) can have strong railroading elements (eg failed San checks in CoC, or alignment imperatives in D&D).



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> "Narrativist" to me implies the presence of a *narrator*, who serves the essential function of telling the story or at least keeping it moving.  Sounds like a DM to me.



As Skeptic's reply implies, "narrativism" is a bit of an unhappy term. But the idea is not that there is a single narrator, but rather that the players as well as the GM have narrative control (ie can determine what happens in the gameworld).

Most mainstream RPGs allow players to do this only in very special cases. Thus, most allow the players to choose their profession (there are some exceptions even to this, like RQ, classic Traveller, and arguably D&D rolling 3d6 6 times in order). But once they have built their characters, the players have no other power to change the gameworld except by declaring actions for their PCs, and using the action resolution mechanics (which are understood as modelling the ingame reality), and/or relying on GM fiat, to resolve those actions. So most of the time ingame outcomes are dictated by the dice rolls &/or GM adjudication. The players can't simply declare that the gameworld is a certain way. Furthermore, in many games the players do not even have an unfettered right to decide what their PCs think or intend (eg my PC has the "Sullen" disadvantage, so I have to RP her in that way or else I'll lose XP).

Games designed to support narrativist play tryto get rid of mechanics that limit the players' narrative control (this would mean getting rid of personality trait mechanics, alignment mechanics etc), and also to introduce mechanics that enhance that control. One common one is Fate Point mechanics, which in various ways allow players to override dice rolls or change the results of dice rolls. Another different narrativist mechanic is one suggested by the 4e designers in a sidebar on p 20 of W&M: if the players go to one of the PoL, then unless they stick their nose into someone's dirty business they won't get attacked. A gameworld that follows this logic is one in which the players have a limited power to choose when their PCs are exposed to adversity, as they can avoid that risk by having their PCs go to a PoL. This contrasts with more traditional D&D, which assumes that the GM has a prerogative to start an encounter with the PCs at any time.

(There is a thread on DM-proofing 4th edition where I am arguing that 4e has a lot of features that seem likely to increase players' narrative control - for me this is an attractive feature of 4e, but I think it is part of what is making some others, like Reynard for example, more doubtful about it.)



			
				ainatan said:
			
		

> When I started playing AD&D, I had a DM that we consider to be a tyrannical Evil DM, but today I understand he was a narrativism aficionado.
> He was the kind of DM that used to give xp bonus and penalty regarding roleplaying. When sessions ended, he decided if it was a productive session not by the overall fun and good time, but by how well the story was developed and how far we went into his plots.



What you are describing is not narrativism, because so far from being play aimed at giving the players narrative control, it seems to have deprived them of any. It sounds to me like poorly-executed high-concept simulationism.



			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> Railroading never makes sense.  It depends on your definition of railroading, but I like to say that it is when your ability to make meaningful choices has been taken away.



I'm happy with the definition. And I agree railroading doesn't really make sense. But if one has to locate it in the GNS framework it can only count as simulationist, with the game mechanics being drama and the GM being empowered to override any counter-drama with his or her own.

Not a fun playstyle, but quite a few 2nd ed AD&D modules went pretty close to it, if not all the way. And many more RPGs encourage it, by telling the GM to override the action-resolution mechanics if necessary to keep the story on the rails.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 29, 2008)

takasi said:
			
		

> I fail to see how providing a streamlined system for statting NPCs prevents a more simulationist favoring DM from creating NPCs using the PC build rules.



It doesn't. But it does free up space for narrativist or gamist play.



			
				takasi said:
			
		

> On the other hand, I do see how not providing a streamlined method forces a more gamist or narrativist leaning DM into a certain style.



Yes, because it limits both the players and the GM's capacity to introduce game elements that suit their purposes, by requiring those elements to be build via a process that models the ingame process of personal development.



			
				takasi said:
			
		

> At this point we have very little to base these assumptions on, correct?  If there are specifics I would like to see them.



I think there are quite a few specifics. I won't rehash my argument here, but it's running on the DM-proofing thread - my initial argument is at post 122 and it drags on from there (if you're not persuaded by my initial argument, I don't know that there is much else in my later posts that will persuade you - they are clarifications, not really additions).



			
				takasi said:
			
		

> Finally, I would also like to add that most of the NPCs in 3.5 (monsters primarily, but occasionally a few humans in modules) had supernatural, extraordinary and spell-like abilities.  There were no rules on assigning them, and it was also a system distinct from PC generation.



This is true to an extent, but greatly complicated by the presence of the ECL rules. At least in principle the game seems to aspire to every creature being PCable. This gets in the way of gamism (because it makes it hard to build monsters which are good opponents in part just because they have features which would be untenable for a balanced PC). It doesn't necessarily get in the way of narrativism, except that it burdens the system with mechanics that are unnecessary (in so far as narrativist players may well not care that PCs are built under mechanics which have no ingame meaning).



			
				takasi said:
			
		

> If this is the qualification for simulationists 'extinction' (which it isn't) then it would already be dead (and it's not).



The line was meant more as a quick quip than a detailed argument. I guess I was indicating that the abandoning of simulationist design goals for NPCs (ie once they are no longer built in the same fashion as PCs, we are basically precluded from supposing that the PC build rules model an ingame process) is a paradigmatic example of the anti-simulationist trend of 4e.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 29, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> "Narrativist" to me implies the presence of a *narrator*, who serves the essential function of telling the story or at least keeping it moving.  Sounds like a DM to me.




Narrativist play is about answering moral questions.  It's important that these answers are not front-loaded into the game or the setting; they have to be the personal beliefs of the players.

I think "Thematic" is a better name.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 29, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Narrativist play is about answering moral questions.  It's important that these answers are not front-loaded into the game or the setting; they have to be the personal beliefs of the players.
> 
> I think "Thematic" is a better name.



I'm not sure the questions have to be _moral_ ones, or at least not in any narrow sense of that word. But I agree that it does involve the development and exploration of themes _in the course of play itself_. So the non-front-loading that you mention is very important!


----------



## loseth (Jan 29, 2008)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> There are definitely times where they can be exclusive.




I agree (as I stated in my two earlier posts).



			
				apoptosis said:
			
		

> Simulationism many times is exclusive of either gamism or narrativism.




Again, I agree. I just think that the number of actual instances of mutual exclusivity is much lower than the perceived number of instances, and also that degree of mutual exclusivity is also often perceived as being higher than it really is (this is especially evident in the inappropriate use of the naval 'ship design triangle' to conceptualise GNS).



			
				apoptosis said:
			
		

> XP is not simulationism in most peoples ideas of a fantasy world. You would get better at skills that you practiced though the system is such that you can get better at skills you didnt practive based on you having more XP.




This is another good example of a perceived mismatch that isn't really three. To accurately simulate the great effect that experience has on one's profession performance, it is often difficult to individually quantify all the factors that  improve one's performance. In fact, many of these factors are quite amorphous or not fully understood even by experts and are thus inherently resistant to quantification in the first place. You'll often get a more accurate simulation of a person’s professional abilities by just focussing on a few important (and easily measurable) factors and assigning a level to account for the performance in general.

D&D does this, with the profession in question being 'adventurer.' Now, in D&D terms, being an adventurer mostly means being someone who excels at exploring the places where enemies are present, interacting with people to find such enemies and then killing the enemies in combat. So, the most logical way of simulating the way experience causes an increase in one's overall ability as a D&D-style adventurer? Use a system based on combat experience (since being a D&D adventurer is mostly about combat), with some room for including relevant non-combat elements (like achieving important adventuring goals) in the mix. In other words, use the D&D XP/level system. 

Could more be done to marry-up the excellent simulationist and gamist potential of the level/XP system? Definitely. One option that I have used many times myself, for example, is to reduce the skill list to only the most important adventuring skills, so that it's logical that all adventurers should get better at them (thanks to the SWSE half-level bonus) as they become more experienced adventurers. The rest of one’s ‘skills/abilities’ can then be handled by a much simpler system that won’t interfere with the main (combat-oriented) game mechanics, but still provides the verisimilitude of fully-fleshed-out characters. I'm sure there are many other things that could also be done to make the XP/level system more consistent and fit better with most people's sense of verisimilitude, but the fact that more needs to be done doesn't change the excellent potential that's there. 

However, if a designer adopts the mistaken attitude that 'XP is a gamist concept, dammit, so trying to make it work in terms of immersion and setting/story consistency must be badwrongdesign,' then he or she will needlessly end up with a design that is suboptimal.



			
				apoptosis said:
			
		

> This doesnt mean that you cant ad hoc all sorts of explanations to make your ideas seem consistent or part of the physics of the world, but that is irrelevant to the original intent of the design decision.




Adopting a policy of making the game numbers work as the first priority and then modifying game elements, on an ad-hoc basis, to be more successful at simluation whenever the need arises is a clear design intent and, IMHO, one that is likely to produce a good game.


----------



## Kesh (Jan 29, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Then I am *completely* misunderstanding the term.
> 
> "Narrativist" to me implies the presence of a *narrator*, who serves the essential function of telling the story or at least keeping it moving.  Sounds like a DM to me.
> 
> Lanefan



 … and, as I pointed out earlier, this is why GNS fails. The terms have no solid definition and use names that have other meanings.

But, yes, my understanding is:

Gamist = "Random fun regardless of the rules" aka "_Where are the Cheetos™_?"
Narritavist = "Collaborative story building over the rules" aka "_Okay, you swing from the chandelier, as the necromancer proclaims his power over all life…_"
Simulationist = "Using the rules precisely for the fun" aka "_If you move to this position, you can gain a tactical advantage from the terrain…_"

And I'm sure someone will pick apart my off-the-cuff definitions, as well. This is why any thread that brings up GNS devolves into a debate over GNS itself.

/threadjack


----------



## Imban (Jan 29, 2008)

Kesh said:
			
		

> … and, as I pointed out earlier, this is why GNS fails. The terms have no solid definition and use names that have other meanings.
> 
> But, yes, my understanding is:
> 
> ...




Absolutely none of those are "correct", no, but I've pretty much dropped out of this thread since it turned from a discussion of 4e's position on the scale of world emulation to GNS discussion.

The Forge has always had a terminal problem with term definitions, and given the tendency of RPG debates to devolve into arguments over the words we're using, this creates an unbeatable combination of fail and lose.

I'll just say that, to the best of my knowledge, what you described as "gamism" doesn't fall into any of the three Forge-recognized creative agendas (but is occasionally referred to in various places as "cheetoism"), what you described as "narrativism" seems to just be the act of roleplay, and what you described as "simulationism" is more along the lines of the Gamist creative agenda. In my opinion, at least, you'd be best off not trying too hard to learn the terms unless you actually care about debating RPG theory on some of the sites and boards where it's discussed - most of the people you'll find bringing those terms into discussion outside of those places knows just enough theory to start the debate into the spiral of semantic lose I mentioned earlier.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 29, 2008)

loseth said:
			
		

> I agree (as I stated in my two earlier posts).
> 
> 
> This is another good example of a perceived mismatch that isn't really three. To accurately simulate the great effect that experience has on one's profession performance, it is often difficult to individually quantify all the factors that  improve one's performance. In fact, many of these factors are quite amorphous or not fully understood even by experts and are thus inherently resistant to quantification in the first place. You'll often get a more accurate simulation of a person’s professional abilities by just focussing on a few important (and easily measurable) factors and assigning a level to account for the performance in general.
> ...




You make a good point. I should probably rephrase it to. In strong simulationism where skills are very individual and granular then skills that are not used should not be advanced with XP.

In you idea..a broad skill "Adventuring" would make sense that is was raised during "adventuring". That makes sense.

My argument goes more to why is the decision made vs how well can you incorporate other elements to make the design decision result in an overall good rule design.

The difference between starting with:

"we want all characters balanced" and finding interesting simulationism elements so that it is interesting and has verisimilitude to the world

vs.

I want wizards to have the ability to do things of a greater magnitude vs non-magic guys as that is my idea of how the fantasy genre should work; now finding some game rule design so that the wizard character is not overshadowing all the other characters during conflicts.

My point was not that the exclusivity is in the end result but more that about the primary reason of the design decision.

I dont think decisions are made in a vacuum and a gamist decision that is then explained adhoc for continuity might lead to a simulationism decision that then needs to be designed to fit allow for game balanace.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 29, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Narrativist play is about answering moral questions.  It's important that these answers are not front-loaded into the game or the setting; they have to be the personal beliefs of the players.
> 
> I think "Thematic" is a better name.




My only point of disagreement with this is that several narrativist games specifically look at very particular themes/moral questions. 

DiTV looks at certain moral choices while Sorcerer is really about will you sacrifice your humanity for power.

Now there is a bit of leeway, in Sorcerer for instance they dont actually define humanity as that is what the group should do, but there is a bit of front-loading into the system.


----------



## painandgreed (Jan 29, 2008)

After reading this and the other threads on 4E, I would have to agree that I think design decisions have been made that are taking D&D in a direction with regard to play style that I do not wish to go. I find this a shame, because I have always believed that a good game can and should support multiple styles of play. Sure the game rules might favor certain directions as that is what makes different games different. Different people, just as different groups have different styles of play. Even the same group may favor different styles of play from session to session in the same game depending on how they feel. A good GM is one that can switch between the play styles by reading his players in a way that is fun for them and himself. A good game allows and supports these shifts in styles of play and caters to the largest number of players because of it. To cut out one style of play means making a niche game that has limited the number of people that it will make happy as well as the average length that it can make a group happy.

It seems to me that 4E is favoring certain styles of directly at the cost of others. This is sad because I think that with good design it could support various styles of play without noticable cost to any. 3E did a pretty good job, but I felt it fell down in a few places I would have liked to seen worked on. 4E seems to be working on some of those issues while making others worse. I won't say I'm not going to play 4E because I'll end up playing whatever me and my friends end up playing as a group. I won't say that the game will suck for our play, because a good GM is capable of making a game fun despite the rules. Still, I am not excited about it, nor will I be the first to buy it among my peers. I will still be watching and hoping till the day it comes out that I am wrong.


----------



## takasi (Jan 29, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> It doesn't. But it does free up space for narrativist or gamist play.




You phrase it as though space is taken away from simulationism.  DMs can still develop NPCs using the rules for building PCs but now they can also use a more streamlined system too.  I fail to see how they are taking anything away from simulationism.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Yes, because it limits both the players and the GM's capacity to introduce game elements that suit their purposes, by requiring those elements to be build via a process that models the ingame process of personal development.




Please explain the 'ingame process of personal development' in more detail please.  I fail to follow your logic, but I believe I could if your defined specific examples.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I think there are quite a few specifics. I won't rehash my argument here, but it's running on the DM-proofing thread - my initial argument is at post 122 and it drags on from there (if you're not persuaded by my initial argument, I don't know that there is much else in my later posts that will persuade you - they are clarifications, not really additions).




I will review these now:



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> *making Demons, Devils and other monsters more immediately recognisable to the players, and gives them distinctive tacics (thus allowing the players to recognise a monster and take account of its known and distinctive tactics in their play choices);




Again, this is an additional option.  It does not prevent the DM in any way of changing the Color of these elements.   Game design should provide options; the DM should decide which options to select when deciding the style of his game.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> *rebalancing magic items and encounter build rules (to make players less vulnerable to accidentally unbalanced GMing);




Again, for DMs who wish to be gamist.  Simulationist DMs can easily make status quo encounters.  A variance in economic prices is necessary for any simulationist DM, and I don't know of any core books in D&D that have provided a detailed level of economic variance, do you?



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> *introducing Second Wind rules and making APs core;




I agree with this one.  We'll see how easy it is to strip out, or add to NPCs for simulationism.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> *giving all PCs per-encounter abilities (which mean that players are no longer hostage to the GM's decisions about the overall passage of time in the gameworld);




In every system the PCs have per-encounter abilities.  However, I think this allows the DM to be more simulationist, not less, as I believe per-day spells are an arbitrary gamist mechanic.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> *introducing the PoL assumption that PoLs are safehavens until the players choose to trigger adversity (see sidebar, p 20, W&M);




That's a very broad guidelines, and not something built into the rules IMO.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> This is true to an extent, but greatly complicated by the presence of the ECL rules. At least in principle the game seems to aspire to every creature being PCable.




The majority of monsters had no ECL, and we've yet to see anything concrete about playing as monsters at this time.  ECL was also in general an arbitrary metagame assignment that has no simulationist effect on the actual game world. 



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I guess I was indicating that the abandoning of simulationist design goals for NPCs (ie once they are no longer built in the same fashion as PCs, we are basically precluded from supposing that the PC build rules model an ingame process) is a paradigmatic example of the anti-simulationist trend of 4e.




That premise is false, as there is nothing stating we cannot use PC build rules to create NPCs populating the world.


----------



## Imban (Jan 29, 2008)

takasi said:
			
		

> You phrase it as though space is taken away from simulationism.  DMs can still develop NPCs using the rules for building PCs but now they can also use a more streamlined system too.  I fail to see how they are taking anything away from simulationism.




We'll see - judging by the Hobgoblins in MMV, these may return entirely different results. They may not. I hope you can see how the streamlined system returning results that you can't even come close to with the "full" system takes space away from simulationism, however.



> In every system the PCs have per-encounter abilities.  However, I think this allows the DM to be more simulationist, not less, as I believe per-day spells are an arbitrary gamist mechanic.




They're both arbitrary to some extent, but it's difficult to rationalize "encounters" and "scenes" in the context of a world, especially if it's written in a way wherein the same power used by the same character at the same level can last 6 seconds or 20 minutes depending on when it's used. Per-day spells were an arbitrary mechanic, but were consistent in the context of a world.



> The majority of monsters had no ECL, and we've yet to see anything concrete about playing as monsters at this time.  ECL was also in general an arbitrary metagame assignment that has no simulationist effect on the actual game world.




The specifics were an arbitrary metagame assignment for balance reasons, but the goal they were designed to achieve - allowing monster statblocks to be used as bases for player characters and NPCs - had the effect of allowing monster races to be real races too, and not just single, streamlined combat templates.



> That premise is false, as there is nothing stating we cannot use PC build rules to create NPCs populating the world.




As far as we know. I've actually seen an RPG that disallowed this (or rather, warned quite accurately that the game would become unfun if PCs were used as NPCs), and it's quite possible that the separation of the two systems in 4e means that that choice would be accompanied by all of the non-PHB monster races losing their racial flavor, if they were even possible to create under the PC build rules at all.

I'm just saying, we've heard assurances that some monsters will be playable as PCs, but WotC has essentially never given this idea the rules quantity and quality it deserves.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Jan 29, 2008)

Lord Sessadore said:
			
		

> Yes, I was trying to make a similar point.  If you play in a game where "humans" can withstand a _meteor swarm_, or a 100' long dragon's bite, or the impact of a 50 lb. mace swung by a giant 20 feet tall, don't complain because falling 20 storeys or being dropped in lava won't kill you.  I agree that rules governing these things should be attempted to be written with consistency, but if they are consistent, having a level 20 character fall 200 feet won't kill him.
> 
> ~LS




But the rules only apply if the PCs are involved.  If an NPC archmage needs to die for the sake of the story, it's okay to have him fall off a 20 foot tall ladder and break his neck.  Nobody in the the game world is going to protest, 'He's an archmage!  No archmage would ever die from a 20 foot fall!"

A simulationist game would assume that hitpoints have a reality within the game world.


----------



## takasi (Jan 29, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> We'll see - judging by the Hobgoblins in MMV, these may return entirely different results. They may not. I hope you can see how the streamlined system returning results that you can't even come close to with the "full" system takes space away from simulationism, however.




A few minor differences for combat perhaps, which again only makes up a very small fraction of world design and simulationism.  Whether goblins get 5 imaginary hit points if they are an NPC or 10 imaginary hit points as a PC is nearly insignificant to me in terms of campaign style.  I can see how if you use a streamlined system you're sacrificing detail for time, but these details come down to such a small resolution:  who wins in combat.  There are so many other resolutions to take into account that determine simulationism, and I've seen nothing new in 4E so far that would impact this.



			
				Imban said:
			
		

> They're both arbitrary to some extent, but it's difficult to rationalize "encounters" and "scenes" in the context of a world, especially if it's written in a way wherein the same power used by the same character at the same level can last 6 seconds or 20 minutes depending on when it's used. Per-day spells were an arbitrary mechanic, but were consistent in the context of a world.




The light from a flashlight can last 6 seconds or 20 minutes depending on how it's used.  I think this is is a clear area where the argument has no leg to stand on yet.  



			
				Imban said:
			
		

> The specifics were an arbitrary metagame assignment for balance reasons, but the goal they were designed to achieve - allowing monster statblocks to be used as bases for player characters and NPCs - had the effect of allowing monster races to be real races too, and not just single, streamlined combat templates.




'Real' races?  IMO even the stat blocks in 3.5 only reflected streamlined combat templates, whether they were to be used as PCs or NPCs.  You had to use much more than a stat block to simulate their society and non-combat behavior.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jan 29, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Simulation has been eliminated as a design goal in 4e.




Simulation was eliminated as a design goal back in 1976. Read the AD&D 1e DMG sometime. In it, Gary clearly states that when fun clashed with simulatuion in design, fun took precedence _every single time_. D&D has never been about simulation by design.


----------



## Imban (Jan 29, 2008)

takasi said:
			
		

> A few minor differences for combat perhaps, which again only makes up a very small fraction of world design and simulationism.  Whether goblins get 5 imaginary hit points if they are an NPC or 10 imaginary hit points as a PC is nearly insignificant to me in terms of campaign style.  I can see how if you use a streamlined system you're sacrificing detail for time, but these details come down to such a small resolution:  who wins in combat.  There are so many other resolutions to take into account that determine simulationism, and I've seen nothing new in 4E so far that would impact this.




Perhaps you missed my reference, in which I deliberately and intentionally referenced NPCs that, as NPCs, get unique abilities to regain HP and gain attack bonuses when they pass their saves against spells, grant Spell Resistance 14 to everyone in the area at level 4, and draw out the souls of their minions to heal themselves and power themselves up - all major abilities that PCs can never get that are much more significant than a few numbers being a bit higher or lower on the sheets because the monster used quick-play rules instead of full rules.



> The light from a flashlight can last 6 seconds or 20 minutes depending on how it's used.  I think this is is a clear area where the argument has no leg to stand on yet.




Er, *what*? If I turn on a working flashlight, it works until the battery dies, it breaks, or I turn it off. If I'm walking through a dark room, then a lit room, then a dark cave complex, I'm not forced to turn off my flashlight in the lit room, and probably wouldn't if there was a cave complex dead ahead.



> 'Real' races?  IMO even the stat blocks in 3.5 only reflected streamlined combat templates, whether they were to be used as PCs or NPCs.  You had to use much more than a stat block to simulate their society and non-combat behavior.




I meant as being capable of having the mechanical variety the full build system grants you, over being geared solely for being quickly dropped into an encounter without mechanical support beyond "well, make it up yourself" for variations.


----------



## marune (Jan 29, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Simulation was eliminated as a design goal back in 1976. Read the AD&D 1e DMG sometime. In it, Gary clearly states that when fun clashed with simulatuion in design, fun took precedence _every single time_. D&D has never been about simulation by design.




Alignments and classes with built-in ethical code like Paladin "implicity" supported simulationist play from the begining of AD&D.

I could find many others examples (2E non-weapon proficiency comes to mind, DMG guidelines about "statu-quo" encounters, etc.)


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jan 29, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> In it, Gary clearly states




Gary, like many people on this thread, including the OP, clearly had no business misusing GNS Forge-speak.  He really should have researched the way they were used before committing them to paper in the DMG.


----------



## takasi (Jan 29, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> Perhaps you missed my reference, in which I deliberately and intentionally referenced NPCs that, as NPCs, get unique abilities to regain HP and gain attack bonuses when they pass their saves against spells, grant Spell Resistance 14 to everyone in the area at level 4, and draw out the souls of their minions to heal themselves and power themselves up - all major abilities that PCs can never get that are much more significant than a few numbers being a bit higher or lower on the sheets because the monster used quick-play rules instead of full rules.




How is this any obtainable by a PC than the arbitrary extraordinary, supernatural and spell-like abilities of monsters in 3rd edition?  



			
				Imban said:
			
		

> Er, *what*? If I turn on a working flashlight, it works until the battery dies, it breaks, or I turn it off. If I'm walking through a dark room, then a lit room, then a dark cave complex, I'm not forced to turn off my flashlight in the lit room, and probably wouldn't if there was a cave complex dead ahead.




I was pointing out that variability in effects is not the issue, it's control.  We have heard nothing about how much control a party has over when an encounter starts.  This is a case where there is a lot of speculation but no actual rules.



			
				Imban said:
			
		

> I meant as being capable of having the mechanical variety the full build system grants you, over being geared solely for being quickly dropped into an encounter without mechanical support beyond "well, make it up yourself" for variations.




We've yet to see why you can't give a pit fiend fighter levels if you want to, and we've yet to see the system for increasing the pit fiend's natural abilities.


----------



## Psion (Jan 29, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> 4E design rightly seems to be clearly/explicitly gamist, however I won't be sure until I read the DMG.
> 
> IMHO, that's a good thing because the gamist/sim mix in D&D was often incoherent.




That sounds like the oft repeated falsehood of the forge.

That there are different pursuits in playing and designing game is the "true" bit in threefold theories.

That they are true and pure like is was some physically distinct state of being like solid/liquid/gas is a forge falsehood. There is a significant overlap between many possible design goals. Whether or not incoherence exists is a function of individual parts of the game and how they play with each other, not straddling the lines that only exist in someone's model.


As to the OP: thank you for hitting on one of the main 2 reasons that 4e is looking like it will not be "the game for me."


----------



## Reynard (Jan 29, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Simulation was eliminated as a design goal back in 1976. Read the AD&D 1e DMG sometime. In it, Gary clearly states that when fun clashed with simulatuion in design, fun took precedence _every single time_. D&D has never been about simulation by design.




That passage refers largely to the simulation of medieval combat, not the simulation of a particular milieu.


----------



## marune (Jan 29, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> That there are different pursuits in playing and designing game is the "true" bit in threefold theories.
> 
> That they are true and pure like is was some physically distinct state of being like solid/liquid/gas is a forge falsehood. There is a significant overlap between many possible design goals. Whether or not incoherence exists is a function of individual parts of the game and how they play with each other, not straddling the lines that only exist in someone's model.




When I say "gamist" design, of course it's a shortcut for a RPG that is designed in a way that playing as written will help the players pursue a gamist agenda over the course of a instance of play.

When a say clear/explicit design, I mean that players/DM will find in the book something like "The goal of the D&D game is to X Y Z". For instance, an explicit gamist D&D could say that the goal is to overcome enough challenges trough adventures to finally succeed and retire at 30th level (you win!).


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 29, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> That they are true and pure like is was some physically distinct state of being like solid/liquid/gas is a forge falsehood. There is a significant overlap between many possible design goals. Whether or not incoherence exists is a function of individual parts of the game and how they play with each other, not straddling the lines that only exist in someone's model.




As far as design goes, I think I agree with you.

Do you buy into the idea that each of GNS are (pretty much) incompatable in actual play?  I have a follow up question for you depending on whether or not you think that's true.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jan 29, 2008)

There are several problems with The Forge:

1) They use lots of manufactured terminology. This terminology is explained very, very, very badly. I mean really badly. Normally only academics are this bad at explaining a concept. Never ever go to the Forge if you want an explanation of GNS, go here instead. GNS is actually really simple:

Gamism is all about challenging the players. Players solving a riddle instead of rolling their PCs' Solve Riddle skill? Pure gamism.

Narrativism is all about story.

Simulationism is all about (you guessed it) simulation. Not necessarily medieval reality, or even medieval reality with magic. You might be trying to simulate fiction. It can sometimes be hard to tell the difference between a simulation of fiction (ie a story) and narrativism.


2) They're dead wrong that games are worse when they mix GNS. It is, in fact, essential as WotC's market research demonstrated. This shows that there are several necessary features all players want from an rpg. Amongst these are tactical challenge and a good story which shows a game (by which I mean a period of units of play, not a published product) cannot succeed unless it has both gamist and narrativist elements.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 29, 2008)

We should start a new thread to debate these issues instead of putting it in here.


----------



## Psion (Jan 29, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> As far as design goes, I think I agree with you.
> 
> Do you buy into the idea that each of GNS are (pretty much) incompatable in actual play?  I have a follow up question for you depending on whether or not you think that's true.




Not necessarily, no.

First off, as I have already said, I think those "isms" can overlap and leave gaps. Two techniques might conflict, but they also might complement each other or not interact appreciably at all. I see plenty of games that make compromises like "we'll model gun damage because gun enthusiasts appreciate the realism, but we'll give you this out to save characters because we think that will make for a better story."

In a different vein, I know it's common to write indie games as small pamphlet style games with a single over-arching style guideline. And that's fine. But I think it's possible and acceptable to design a game as a linked set of sub-activities which might follow different goals for the space of that particular challenge or interlude.


----------



## Craw Hammerfist (Jan 29, 2008)

This thread really opened my eyes.  I was so confused by the conflicting opinions of the very terms the OP was discussing that I went and read the GNS articles.  That simplified everything.    Holy cow!  I'm a lawyer and used to dealing with terms that are defined specifically for the brief, but that is overkill.  I am now confident that no two posters in this thread are talking about the same thing.  

If you buy the GNS, then "simulationist gaming" is an oxymoron.  If you are "in it to win it" it is a game and the players are gamist.  ANY choice that allows one to mechanically alter a character begins to destroy simulation.  "My character spends three months practicing archery, so her bow attack gets better."  Sim?  Not according to the GNS.  It's gamist because the player implies his willingness to "Step on up" and meet a combat "Challenge" via the expenditure of "Currency" (time in game) to improve the character vis-a-vis the rule set.  _If_ this is the definition of gamist, then D&D is 100% gamist and always has been.

_If_ the definition of "sim" is "internally consistent rules that make sense within the genre" then D&D is and always has been 100% pure "sim."  The genre is "D&D."  By definition, it is internally consistent with itself.  The complaint has to be based on some other genre that the complainer is using as a base-line.  The ring issue is a perfect example.  The "I want a sim" camp complains that it isn't realistic that a ring can't be used until the 11th level.  Compared to what universe?  I'm wearing a ring right now and, try as I might, I can't get it to do anything magical (except guarantee that my credit cards are maxed).  In what genre did the callow youth setting out on his first adventure have mastery over the power of a magic ring?  (the one ring being an artifact for purpose of this discussion)  How is it internally inconsistent for a 1st level character to put on a ring and be told "though you can sense great power untapped within, your efforts to reach it are thwarted by a powerful resistance?"  If that same character were 10th level, would he not then be told, in perfect consistency, "the torrent of power contained in this ring is tantalizingly close.  You press against the barrier with your will and feel the barrier stretch thin. . .but hold."

Every complaint I have heard from the "sim" camp boils down to "I just don't like this rule."


----------



## marune (Jan 29, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> 2) They're dead wrong that games are worse when they mix GNS. It is, in fact, essential as WotC's market research demonstrated. This shows that there are several necessary features all players want from an rpg. Amongst these are tactical challenge and a good story which shows a game (by which I mean a period of units of play, not a published product) cannot succeed unless it has both gamist and narrativist elements.




Yeah, that's the problem with D&D, it always tried to please to all and that's impossible.

Gamist RPG can't promise a good story, because the meaningful choices of players (strategies, guts decision, etc.) can lead them to fail when a sucess would be better for the story and vice versa.

If you override those choices, you are infact removing the gamist elements.

However, some mix is possible using layers :

For example,_ Burning Wheel_ has a powerful narrative engine (Artha) even if the Fight! and Duel of Wits sub-systems have strong gamist elements.


----------



## Psion (Jan 29, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> For example,_ Burning Wheel_ has a powerful narrative engine (Artha) even if the Fight! and Duel of Wits sub-systems have strong gamist elements.




So, lost soul, do you agree with THAT analysis? (I know that BE is one of your favorite systems.)


----------



## marune (Jan 29, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> So, lost soul, do you agree with THAT analysis? (I know that BE is one of your favorite systems.)




I could add that _Riddle of Steel _ has a simulationist combat system under the hood, but the main system (spiritual attributes) is narravist.

The players who fail to recognize it lose their characters in the firsts combats.


----------



## HeinorNY (Jan 29, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> They're dead wrong that games are worse when they mix GNS.



They are wrong indeed. The most successful and played RPG of all time has the greatest mix of GNS.


----------



## marune (Jan 29, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> They are wrong indeed. The most successful and played RPG of all time has the greatest mix of GNS.




Of course, more popular = better.

BTW, D&D doesn't help a narrativist agenda at all.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 29, 2008)

Craw Hammerfist said:
			
		

> I am now confident that no two posters in this thread are talking about the same thing.



Actually, Apoptosis, Skeptic, loseth and I are using the terms in the same way.

It's not surprising, however, that there are differences of nuances in the critical analysis of RPGs. Why should this domain of criticism be any different from literature, film etc?


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 29, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> They are wrong indeed. The most successful and played RPG of all time has the greatest mix of GNS.




Popular doesn't really equate to well made. That is painfully obvious in most all of life.

D&D had no narrativist options it is pretty much just G and S.

D&D is very good for many things. It is also very bad for many types of play.

It is great for doing a classic dungeoncrawl. 

It invented the dungeoncrawl and does it well.

It does a good job of simulating the heroic journey. 

It does tactical combat pretty well.

It is generally bad for exploring character goals and motivations.

It is pretty bad for murder mysteries.

It is pretty bad for horror.

It is REALLY REALLY bad for stories that involve characters of widely different levels of combat prowess.

This just means that it is a tool that is best used for games that are focused on its strengths and maybe not the best tool for exploring other types of themes and genres.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 29, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> D&D doesn't help a narrativist agenda at all.



On the DM-proofing thread, I am arguing that this is probably not true of 4e - that many of the changes do help a (certain sort of) narrativist agenda. Do you have a view on that?


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 29, 2008)

Craw Hammerfist said:
			
		

> Every complaint I have heard from the "sim" camp boils down to "I just don't like this rule."




Forget formal GNS for a while.

Let's talk about something everyone is familiar with - fireball.

Alot of people do use different definitions of 'simulationist'.  To me, the heart of simulationism is a thought experiment.  Simulationists treat RPGs as a mental toy, rather than as means of achieving some story end or as a challenge to be overcome.  

Simulationism expresses itself in the game fundamentally with the notion that the actual game effect of the rules ought to be its intended effect.  Hense, if the actual game effect of fireball is to not set things on fire (as it is in 3E), the simulationist response is to either look for a deep in game reason why fireballs don't set things on fire, or else to respond that a rule about balls of scalding fire ought to either be changed mechanically to where it does what you'd expect things to do (set things on fire) or else be changed in flavor (rename it 'arcane blast') so that it does not create the expectation that it should set things on fire. 

To compare this to other responces to the rules of fireball, a gamist would probably be happy to say, "Sure fireballs actually do set things on fire, but because things being set on fire is mechanically messy, it should be ignored except when it has no mechanical effect."  A narrativist would be happy to say, "Sure, fireballs actually do set things on fire, but because things being set on fire is mechanically messy, it should be ignored except when it has an important dramatic effect." 

Looking back at the games history, the 1st edition fireball was strictly simulationist.  The rules offer the proposition, "If wizards can summon bursts of fire, then the followings effects should occur: the spell takes the form of an explosive bead which bursts on contact, things should catch on fire, creatures should be damaged, more powerful wizards should summon hotter fire, the expanding ball of fire should expand to fill the area that it is contained in...", and so forth.  

The 3E rules to fireball are more explicitly gamist in construction.  Reading between the lines, they read, "Wizards in fantasy games can traditionally summon balls of fire.  For the purposes of simplicity, these balls of fire are limited to the following precise, balanced, and easily adjudicated effects."  The notion that we should be thinking about how an actual exploding ball of fire would effect a world somewhat similar to our own is removed from the rules.  The world becomes more 'what is happening in the game' and less 'what is happening in our head when we envision what is happening in the game'.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 29, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> On the DM-proofing thread, I am arguing that this is probably not true of 4e - that many of the changes do help a (certain sort of) narrativist agenda. Do you have a view on that?




I generally agree that it could help, but I think that it is an unintentional consequence of their desire to increase some gamist elements.

The players have more control in certain things, my issue is that I am not sure that their increased power will reflect their ability to investigate their characters goals and themes.

I think there are some elements to increase "Story Now" but that is I think based off their desire to not have the 15-minute adventuring problem.

I thought you had a good analysis definitely, I am just still trying to tie it back to the players ability to center the story on their characters and to increase their ability to introduce elements based on the players desires.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 29, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Forget formal GNS for a while.
> 
> Let's talk about something everyone is familiar with - fireball.




Nice thoughts about simulationism. They really are about how "logically" would this play out given the "science" of the game world. (science including everything from physics to psychology to social sciences)

There is not narrative issue about fireball except for WHY is the character throwing a Fireball that is what is important to narrativism.

Honestly i think many people who have talked about the WoW problem are really having an issue with the game drifting from a more simulationist stance to rules that are better for overcoming challenges using mechanical rules effects.

I think the entire issue about losing items when hit by a fireball was also all about this issue.

I think the entire debate over the Pokemount is the same.  Since D&D up till present is a game of simulationism goals vs gamism goals, people who like one get upset when it drifts to the other.  You can have both goals but like anything, not everybody is going to be happy.

It is called incoherrent due its lack of consistency, which doesnt necessarily mean the game will be bad, but that you will see people having issues when the two come into conflict.


----------



## Psion (Jan 29, 2008)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> Popular doesn't really equate to well made. That is painfully obvious in most all of life.




Painfully obvious is a rather subjective measure. I think it's "painfully obvious" despite criticism that D&D performs well. The metric I use here is that I enjoy D&D immensely whereas other games of supposedly superior design give me much less enjoyment. And something performing its function well is the ultimate metric of game design quality. (Of course you may not enjoy it as well/YMMV/etc., thus the subjective bit.)

The attribute we should be pointing to with respect to popularity is that whatever is popular _draws criticism_. So indeed, we should not take the mere presence of criticism as a signifier that something is intrinsically poorly designed.



> D&D had no narrativist options it is pretty much just G and S.




I would concur that is where the focus of D&D's mechanics lies.



> D&D is very good for many things. It is also very bad for many types of play.
> 
> It is great for doing a classic dungeoncrawl.
> 
> ...




I concur. I don't think this is a result of _incoherence_, but the mere fact that one size does not fit all.


----------



## HeinorNY (Jan 29, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Of course, more popular = better.





			
				apoptosis said:
			
		

> Popular doesn't really equate to well made. That is painfully obvious in most all of life.




I think you both quoted the wrong person, I didn't say D&D was the best or even that it was well made. I said it was the most successful and most played RPG.
I'll repeat it so there is no misunderstanding: D&D the most successful and most played RPG.

Everybody now:

Deeeeee NNNNNNN Deeeee iiiiiisssss theeeeee moooooosst successsssssful annnnnnnd mooooossst plaayeeeed RPGeeeeeee.

Now just the girls:

D&D is the most successful and most played RPGeeeeeeee weeeee.

Now just the dogs:

Wooof woof wooooooof woof woof wooooooof woffffffffffffffffffffff!

Now the homies:

D&dee is the most successfuleee and most playedee RPGee ya dig?

Did I hear anyone saying anything about quality?



..


.


...


Thanks everyone.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 29, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> Painfully obvious is a rather subjective measure. I think it's "painfully obvious" despite criticism that D&D performs well. The metric I use here is that I enjoy D&D immensely whereas other games of supposedly superior design give me much less enjoyment. And something performing its function well is the ultimate metric of game design quality. (Of course you may not enjoy it as well/YMMV/etc., thus the subjective bit.)




Actually it was 8.9 on the validated PO scale, which is completely objective...just kidding. I am not even saying D&D is poorly designed or you cant get immense enjoyment out of it.

I LOVE AD&D and really enjoy playing it. It is a mishmash of rules that suit different agendas (gamism and simulation). I really enjoy the game (maybe it is just nostalgia, i am sure that has something to do with it).  

I dont really sit around thinking why I enjoy it, i just do.

I would say FUN is probably the best metric for a game. It is a hobby afterall and should be fun (of course tennis is a hobby as well and it can be frustrating as can be).




> I concur. I don't think this is a result of incoherence, but the mere fact that one size does not fit all.




I agree. 

I do think it is incoherrent in design, but the above is more an illustration why it is not a general tool to accomplish different gaming goals not a question of it being incoherent.

But in my opinion, the further D&D veers away from the classic 'series of mostly combat challenges', the less ideal of a tool it becomes.


----------



## Craw Hammerfist (Jan 29, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Let's talk about something everyone is familiar with - fireball.
> 
> Alot of people do use different definitions of 'simulationist'.  To me, the heart of simulationism is a thought experiment.  Simulationists treat RPGs as a mental toy, rather than as means of achieving some story end or as a challenge to be overcome.
> 
> ...




Why, thank you.  That is the most cogent explanation for the sim-gamist issue I have heard.  It does, however, raise a problem with point of view.  You are assuming that a fireball would catch things on fire.  If all of the players have that same assumption, then you can go forward in the sim experience.  I don't assume a fireball would do more than scorch the walls.  I worked in the oil field years ago and saw a handfull of small explosions.  Those that were natural gas related typically did not catch things on fire.  The fire was hot, but it was over fast.  Most of the damage was concussive.  An exploding gasoline can catches all kinds of things on fire, however because it throws fuel all over.  What if fireball is more akin to the former?  Does that mean 1e was gamist for me, but 3e is a sim?  

Granting that the fireball is just a single example, I'm sure that there are any number of instances where the natural consequences of a spell or action do not get tracked in D&D.  However, for any given scenario, "what is happening in my head" is different, to varying degrees, from "what is happening in your head."  How does this get rectified in a sim based game? (or is that the game itself?)  In D&D, the rule switched.  Whereas you were more comfortable with the rule as enabling a sim game in 1e, it feels more internally consistent to me in 3e.  Is simulationism v gamism a purely subjective viewpoint?


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 29, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> 
> Thanks everyone.






> > Originally Posted by Doug McCrae
> > They're dead wrong that games are worse when they mix GNS.
> 
> 
> ...




That is true you didn't state that. 

In all fairness though there was an implication (and i made an inference, maybe incorrectly) based on your reply to Doug McCrae that you were saying this as  he was talking about quality.

Unless he meant 'worse' in a way I misunderstood.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 29, 2008)

Craw Hammerfist said:
			
		

> Why, thank you.  That is the most cogent explanation for the sim-gamist issue I have heard.  It does, however, raise a problem with point of view.  You are assuming that a fireball would catch things on fire.  If all of the players have that same assumption, then you can go forward in the sim experience.  I don't assume a fireball would do more than scorch the walls.  I worked in the oil field years ago and saw a handfull of small explosions.  Those that were natural gas related typically did not catch things on fire.  The fire was hot, but it was over fast.  Most of the damage was concussive.  An exploding gasoline can catches all kinds of things on fire, however because it throws fuel all over.  What if fireball is more akin to the former?  Does that mean 1e was gamist for me, but 3e is a sim?




You still run into other sim problems (i am sure you knew this, i am saying this in a good way)

Why does fire resistance/immunity help if it concussive damage. Why does it melt metals but not catch stuff on fire. 

Of course the players handbook was never supposed to be a chemistry, biology or physics manual (thank goodness, those are very dry and I am a scientist).


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 29, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> On the DM-proofing thread, I am arguing that this is probably not true of 4e - that many of the changes do help a (certain sort of) narrativist agenda. Do you have a view on that?




Hey Peryton,

I think this is where I am having an issue....

Does increasing PC power (i dont mean necessarily power as in spell power or combat power) necessarily increase what we think of as narrativist agendas.

That is my disconnect and would love to hear support one-way or the other.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 29, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> So, lost soul, do you agree with THAT analysis? (I know that BE is one of your favorite systems.)




Yeah, kind of.  I've never really liked Fight! all that much (I prefer the simpler Bloody Versus because I feel like it gets right to the point of the conflict).  Duel of Wits I haven't experienced any problems with; I think it's because everything is about the conflict in a way that Fight! actions aren't.

The Infection mechanics in BE seem to create "incoherence" as well.  I think the fact that it's presented (or how I have been presenting it) as a challenge between players and GM causes problems; winning becomes the main goal, pushing the thematic interests aside.


----------



## marune (Jan 29, 2008)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> I generally agree that it could help, but I think that it is an unintentional consequence of their desire to increase some gamist elements.
> 
> The players have more control in certain things, my issue is that I am not sure that their increased power will reflect their ability to investigate their characters goals and themes.
> 
> ...




I agree with you apoptosis.

However, don't forget that even if on the mechanical side, the gamist over sim seems to be clear, that doesn't mean that the game will be preseted with a clear gamist mindset.

For instance, Bill Slavicsek said that the DM is not a opponent but a story*teller** when writting 4E basic outlines for the designers.


*That's not nar, but sim


----------



## marune (Jan 29, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Yeah, kind of.  I've never really liked Fight! all that much (I prefer the simpler Bloody Versus because I feel like it gets right to the point of the conflict).  Duel of Wits I haven't experienced any problems with; I think it's because everything is about the conflict in a way that Fight! actions aren't.




For my part, I didn't say I dislike Fight! or Duel of Wits (because Artha plays a large role in them). 

The thing to remember is to use Fight! only in really important combat, i.e. the one that is the longest scene in the movie (Obi-Wan vs Anakin, etc.)

In fact, my ideal RPG would probably be a layered gamist/nar game like BW (Damn I hate the lifepaths!).


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 29, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> I agree with you apoptosis.
> 
> However, don't forget that even if on the mechanical side, the gamist over sim seems to be clear, that doesn't mean that the game will be preseted with a clear gamist mindset.
> 
> ...




I agree totally.

HOw the game is presented can be very different than how the rules make the game playout.

I think WhiteWolf had this problem. It presented itself as a modern horror game that was about losing your humanity to vampirism (narrativism), but it really played out as a vampire superhero game I always felt (very gam/sim).


----------



## Craw Hammerfist (Jan 29, 2008)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> You still run into other sim problems (i am sure you knew this, i am saying this in a good way)
> 
> Why does fire resistance/immunity help if it concussive damage. Why does it melt metals but not catch stuff on fire.
> 
> Of course the players handbook was never supposed to be a chemistry, biology or physics manual (thank goodness, those are very dry and I am a scientist).




Oh, I agree with you.  In reality a sizable explosion in a building, a la fireball would literally bring down the house.  The question is how do you account for differing worldviews between players?


----------



## HeinorNY (Jan 29, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> *That's not nar, but sim



The SimDM is not a storyteller, he is GOD. What he does is to say to the players the consequences of their actions and omissions.
He is GOD as an embodiment of the "laws of physics" of the gameworld. He is neutral, imparcial and uninterested. He is a judge.

The SimDM is a Judicator.

He also roleplays the NPCs of course


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 29, 2008)

Craw Hammerfist said:
			
		

> Why, thank you.  That is the most cogent explanation for the sim-gamist issue I have heard.  It does, however, raise a problem with point of view.  You are assuming that a fireball would catch things on fire.




I think this is a good reason why the DM needs to be the one who resolves these kinds of disputes.  I also think it's a good reason for Rule 0 - if the game rules say something that don't fit with the simulated material, you need the DM there to deal with it.  

Fireball doesn't say that things catch on fire, and we think that's stupid, so the DM steps in and rules that it does.

I don't think that authority needs to rest with the DM necessarily, but I think that's a good way of dealing with those types of issues.

Of course, I don't really "get" sim play, so I could be wrong.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 29, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> For my part, I didn't say I dislike Fight! or Duel of Wits (because Artha plays a large role in them).
> 
> The thing to remember is to use Fight! only in really important combat, i.e. the one that is the longest scene in the movie (Obi-Wan vs Anakin, etc.)
> 
> In fact, my ideal RPG would probably be a layered gamist/nar game like BW (Damn I hate the lifepaths!).




I in theory like lifepaths but it is a bit much crunch.

Have you played Shadow of Yesterday. Right now it is my goto fantasy game. 

It is very gamist/nar.  i read Bringing Down the Pain, and initially hated it as it was SO different. NOw I love it. 

It is nice as it lets the players decide when to Zoom in on the action.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 29, 2008)

Craw Hammerfist said:
			
		

> Oh, I agree with you.  In reality a sizable explosion in a building, a la fireball would literally bring down the house.  The question is how do you account for differing worldviews between players?




Whoever brought the beer* and cheetos of course.

*or other similarly popular drink


----------



## marune (Jan 29, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> The SimDM is not a storyteller, he is GOD. What he does is to say to the players the consequences of their actions and omissions.
> He is GOD as an embodiment of the "laws of physics" of the gameworld. He is neutral, imparcial and uninterested. He is a judge.
> 
> The SimDM is a Judicator.
> ...




That's true for some kind of simulationist play ("Purist for System" is the forge name) that many here describe as "sandbox" play.

However, when the DM write a story (module) and then "play it out" with the players, it's usually simulationist play. Same for any game that mainly attempt to re-create a given genre/theme.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 30, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Bill Slavicsek said that the DM is not a opponent but a story*teller** when writting 4E basic outlines for the designers.
> 
> 
> *That's not nar, but sim





			
				skeptic said:
			
		

> That's true for some kind of simulationist play ("Purist for System" is the forge name) that many here describe as "sandbox" play.
> 
> However, when the DM write a story (module) and then "play it out" with the players, it's usually simulationist play. Same for any game that mainly attempt to re-create a given genre/theme.



Agreed with both (I made the reference to Purist for System and Sandbox upthread). There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding on this thread as to what Narrativist play (in the Forge sense of that term) involves.



			
				apoptosis said:
			
		

> Hey Peryton,
> 
> I think this is where I am having an issue....
> 
> ...



I can see how you would have an issue here. I think I might be working with a more expansive notion of narrativism than some other posters (including you, perhaps).

Let me assume, for the sake of exposition, that I am right about the ways in which 4e will increase player control (in character build, in action resolution, in the incidence of adversity, etc). Does this support narrativist play? In my view, it does for a certain somewhat narrow, but I think reasonably popular, set of themes. Broadly, these are the same themes that are explored in B-movies: themes of heroism, struggle, sacrifice, loyalty. Westerns, superhero comics, Jet Li movies from the early and mid 90s, etc, all explore these themes.

If you accept a key premise of all those genres, that nearly all conflict is to be resolved through physical violence, then I think 4e D&D can be a vehicle for exploring the themes I have identified above.

For example: I am playing a PC in a 4e game set in the canonical (treating W&M as canon) PoL setting. For the past couple of levels I have been purchasing my magic items from the Wizard Nicholas in the town of Polis. Then the GM tells me that, as I am leaving his shop one day, I notice a shady character (perhaps a hobgoblin in a cloak, I'm not sure) going down the alley to the back entrance to Nicholas's shop.

Now in standard D&D, as a player I have no way to control this situation: the relationship between Nicholas and the hobgoblin, and its relationship to the adventure, and whether or not the PCs get ambushed that night by a group of Hobgobling magic item smugglers, is also under the GM's control. Furthermore, the alignment rules already answer any moral questions that the circumstances described might give rise to. If I just turn my back and walk away, the GM might well hit me with an alignment purge.

But in 4e (at least as presented in W&M) I as a player get to choose whether or not I want to investigate the shady hobgoblin, and thus whether or not I want to trigger an adventure that raises loyalty (to Nicholas, to Polis) as a theme. The existence of social challenge mechanics also (speculatively, but hopefully) gives me a range of different ways of responding to that adventurer should I choose it - and there are remarks in W&M (I think around p 20) that suggest that it will be certain sorts of "grey area" creatures (they give dragons and hobgoblins as possible examples) who will be the main focus of the social challenge mechanics.

I'll ready concede that this is not the most high-powered narrativism of all time (either thematically or mechanically) but I think it is different from what D&D has offered in the past.

Another example, focusing just on combat: traditionally in D&D, once a character is in combat, all they can do is fight, flee or surrender. A player has no way of setting or changing the stakes of the combat. 4e, by introducing its sophisticated currency of actions coupled to complex suites of powers, seems apt to change this. If we assume, for example, that Second Wind is a once-per-encounter ability, then by using that ability a player is immediately raising the stakes of the encounter, by putting his or her PC's life on the line.

Now, that on its own would not help the game support narrativism if every combat produced a one-way-track with the use of Second Wind at the end of the line. But my feeling (or at least hope) is that the combat mechanics will be sophisticated enough (as a result of the gamist design imperatives that are driving them) that players will have a lot of room for their own decision-making in when and how to use their different powers and thereby affect what is at stake in the combat. And if you then accept the genre proposition put forward above, that in certain genres physical violence is a sort of metaphor for a whole lot of more subtle thematic combat (eg battles between the Hulk, Thunderbolt Ross and Bruce Banner are really explorations of the Freudian theory of Id vs Ego vs Super-ego) then these choices themselves constitute player-directed thematic exploration, development and resolution.

Again, not the most sophisticated narrativism of all time, but something different from what D&D has made room for in the past.

My thoughts on this are influenced to a degree by a lot of experience GMing Rolemaster. In his Simulationism essay Ron Edwards classifies RQ and RM both as Purist for System, and I can see why he does. But that classification ignores certain features of RM that are very different from RQ. First, it has very complex and highly metagamable character build rules (unlike RQ, which I think is rivalled only by classic Traveller for the simulationism of its character build rules), which rules give the players a lot of say over (i) the shape of those very important game elements, the PCs, and (ii) the action resolution tools they will have to hand (a range of skills, spells etc). This can lead RM into gamist territory, but also can foster a degree of low-key narrativism. Thus I have GMed games in which characters, by their ongoing patterns of development of various social skills, and the way the use of these skills has impacted on the gameworld, have explored themes to do with friendship, loyalty, social isolation, the pursuit of power and so on. This can't be done in RQ, because in RQ the player cannot simply allocate DPs to skills at each level and thus take his or her PC in new directions.

A second feature of RM is its combat rules: each round a player who's PC is in melee has to allocate some of his or her combat skill to attack, and some to defence. In the simulationist language of RM this is described as parrying a lot or a little, but again by locating a very meaningful player choice at the heart of melee combat (again, the main form of conflict resolution in a bog-standard fantasy RPG) it opens the door to gamism, but also (on occasions, at least) to a low-key narrativism, as the player gets to choose (at least in certain combats, in which the numbers in play don't simply mandate a single rational response) exactly what to put at stake in that combat, and how. (The range of choice here is increased once other mechanical options are brought into play, like decisions on whether or not to use and/or sustain Adrenal Moves.)

Obviously this is not TRoS, but it's not RQ either, in which the choice is simply one between Dodge skill and Parry skill and there is almost always a single rational mechanical choice.

A slightly long post, but I hope it illustrates what I have in mind.

EDIT: Just as high-concept simulatonism is different from purist-for-system simulationism, but (as long as we are working within the GNS framework) we really have no choice but to label them both simulationism, so there may well be approaches to play that are rather different, and yet which (as long as we are working within the GNS framework) we have no choice but to label narrativist. (In his Story Now essay, Ron Edwards has a table that classifies narrativist games along various dimensions, but the details currently escape me.)

The sort of narrativist play I am describing could be describe as virtually vanilla, in that (i) it does not have ultra-narrativist mechanics to support it but rather depends upon (ii) the absence of narrativist-destroying simulationist mechanics (such as alignment, personality disadvantages, etc) plus (iii) piggybacking on complex mechanics (character build, action resolution, world-building guidelines, etc), introduced originally for non-narrativist purposes, that create room for meaningful player choices.

Maybe "low concept" narrativism?


----------



## Thaniel (Jan 30, 2008)

I'm late to the thread, so this may be going back a bit, so I'm sorry.
But to go back to the subtopic of "Rings don't work until you get to a certain level", I'm not sure what the headache is about this, seeing as we don't even know what kind of powers Rings are limited to.  Has it not occurred to some people that Ring-powers may be tied to character abilities not available until Paragon level?

In which case, it would be no worse than a hypothetical Ring-Of-Better-Diamond-Body to a 10th level monk.  It's useless to him (i.e. non-functioning) until he gets Diamond Body ability at level 11 and BAM! Now it does something.  Why is that so hard to imagine?

Granted, we don't know what abilities Rings have in 4e, but I am willing to postpone gripes until we know.  I have some modicum of faith in the designers to make a rule that means something vs just "Hey, here's an idea. Throw it in willy-nilly!"


----------



## marune (Jan 30, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> But in 4e (at least as presented in W&M) I as a player get to choose whether or not I want to investigate the shady hobgoblin, and thus whether or not I want to trigger an adventure that raises loyalty (to Nicholas, to Polis) as a theme. The existence of social challenge mechanics also (speculatively, but hopefully) gives me a range of different ways of responding to that adventurer should I choose it - and there are remarks in W&M (I think around p 20) that suggest that it will be certain sorts of "grey area" creatures (they give dragons and hobgoblins as possible examples) who will be the main focus of the social challenge mechanics.




I'm not sure that the prep-time reduction of 4E vs 3.xE is enough to help this kind of play.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 30, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Agreed with both (I made the reference to Purist for System and Sandbox upthread). There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding on this thread as to what Narrativist play (in the Forge sense of that term) involves............




Hmmmm...i see where you are going. I like your analysis though I will need to think about it.

My first thought is that many of your elements are really gamist designed rules that you are perceiving as narrativist, but instead of reacting in a critical manner I want to think through it with the assumption that you are correct and see where it leads me.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 30, 2008)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> Hmmmm...i see where you are going. I like your analysis though I will need to think about it.
> 
> My first thought is that many of your elements are really gamist designed rules that you are perceiving as narrativist, but instead of reacting in a critical manner I want to think through it with the assumption that you are correct and see where it leads me.



Have a look at the edit to my post and see if that helps any.

Basically I agree with the first clause of your second sentence quoted above (though I don't think the 4e designers are entirely oblivious to narrativist concerns - W&M seems to me to have some awareness of this, and Chris Sims has almost expressly canvassed narrativist concerns on the Healing thread). But I'm more interested in what can be done with a game, than simply what the designers think can be done with it.

From memory, Ron Edwards in one of his essays notes that some designs that support gamism can also support narrativism, because both require that the players have a degree of control over the game that simulationism tends to preclude. Assuming my memory is correct, then I am agreeing with him. If my memory is faulty, then he _should_ have said this!


----------



## pemerton (Jan 30, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that the prep-time reduction of 4E vs 3.xE is enough to help this kind of play.



Now that may be true. The suggestion that designing NPCs might take 10 to 20 minutes per character (in a recent Mearls blog, I think) is a bit concerning.

RM (to which I have been making some comparisons) gets around this by having a lot of pre-gen NPC stats in the core rulebooks, plus monsters that are very easy to run from the stats presented in C&T provided that the GM is familiar with the spell lists those monster descriptions reference.

Magic items are also both simpler and less important in RM than in D&D (mostly they just give a numerical bonus to a skill, and so the arithmetic of assigning items and incorporating them into a stat block is very easy).

Hopefully the 4e DMG &/or MM will tackle this issue effectively.


----------



## marune (Jan 30, 2008)

Would you say that character traits from Burning Wheel are narravisit-destroying ?

I'd say no because their specific sanctioned (rewarded) usage.

(When you invoke them in a way to put you in trouble, you are rewarded by a metagame ressource)


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Jan 30, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> not to do nitpicking, but there´s a difference between "mass" and "weight" and you are mixing them: mage hand limitation is measured in [lbs] this is a mass unit. weight is measured in newton (kg*m/s^2) so the loss of gravity doesn´t put anything into the mage hand's limit.
> 
> on topic: I hope there are rules for drowning. And I hope those rules are not using hp damage. (Con checks vs DC seems appropriate)



I didn't check to see whether anyone already nitpicked your nitpick, but in the English system, the pound is a unit of force, which means that it is also a unit of weight.  It goes by different names (poundal, pound-force) depending on the context in which it is used (physics, engineering, etc.). The reason why it is often used as a unit of mass is because in certain contexts there is a unit of mass which is defined in terms of the number of pounds of force a quantity of matter exerts due to Earth's gravity.  So a 1 lb. object exerts 1 lb. of force when on the surface of the Earth.  For clarity, these units are often differentiated as pound-force and pound-mass, but most often the pound is used as a unit of force and other units of mass such as the slug or poundal are used, which provides a better system because you don't need an extra multiplier to provide Newton's second law.

So if we're using the pound as a unit of force, a ship in a low-gravity environment would indeed weigh nothing and thereby satisfy the restrictions of the Mage Hand spell.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 30, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Would you say that character traits from _Burning Wheel_ are narravisit-destroying ?
> 
> I'd say no because their  specific sanctioned (rewarded) usage.
> 
> (When you invoke them in a way to put you in trouble, you are rewarded by a metagame ressource)




I think the key is that the player invokes the character traits and not the GM so that it allows the player narrative control.


----------



## marune (Jan 30, 2008)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> I think the key is that the player invokes the character traits and not the GM so that it allows the player narrative control.




Yeah, the answer was in the question


----------



## pemerton (Jan 30, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Would you say that character traits from _Burning Wheel_ are narravisit-destroying ?
> 
> I'd say no because their  specific sanctioned (rewarded) usage.
> 
> (When you invoke them in a way to put you in trouble, you are rewarded by a metagame ressource)



I had in mind more the HERO system type mechanics, where a personality disadvantage gives bonus points but then dictates how the character is to be played. Another example (which I think you mentioned upthread) is the requirement that Paladins be LG and adhere to a Code - in 1st ed AD&D, especially, this is meant to act as a balancing mechanicism, and again it dictates how the character is to be played.

A system in which character traits (or relationships, or whatever) generate opportunities for protagonism (eg by giving metagame resources anytime the system or the GM invokes them so as to generate adversity for the PC) I wouldn't characterise as narrativist-destroying.

A further issue would be whether or not the player has the power to change these aspects of the character through play (eg TRoS spiritual attributes): if not, then the narrativistic focus of play is necessarily more thematically confined, I think.

Does any of that make sense?


----------



## marune (Jan 30, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Does any of that make sense?




Of course, the goal was to make everyone around understand it  

The 2E paladin is a narrativist nigthmare IMHO.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 30, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Have a look at the edit to my post and see if that helps any.
> 
> Basically I agree with the first clause of your second sentence quoted above (though I don't think the 4e designers are entirely oblivious to narrativist concerns - W&M seems to me to have some awareness of this, and Chris Sims has almost expressly canvassed narrativist concerns on the Healing thread). But I'm more interested in what can be done with a game, than simply what the designers think can be done with it.
> 
> From memory, Ron Edwards in one of his essays notes that some designs that support gamism can also support narrativism, because both require that the players have a degree of control over the game that simulationism tends to preclude. Assuming my memory is correct, then I am agreeing with him. If my memory is faulty, then he _should_ have said this!




Still thinking it through. 

I am having a hard time thinking that combat options are narrativist and not gamist even though they give the player more control.

The parrying/dodge choices in RM I really dont see as narrativist at all, more of a mixture of sim/gam.

My feeling is that narrativist mechanics should be addressing WHY they are in the combat. Or should allow the player to determine what are the stakes of the combat (though that is also merging narrativism and conflict-resolution)

I am on board with the Second Wind mechanic aiding narrativism, if it allows you to raise the stakes of the conflict. I am not quite sure how Second Wind works though.

Now the metaphor of combat is interesting but does seem to be in disagreement with maybe the earlier ideas that the themes should not be so concrete before the game begins (meaning that it is out of control of the players). Given that though, I am trying to think in looser terms to see if i can align it with your theory. I think though that the choice of combat options should have some meaning to the character besides just winning the combat.

In this manner i feel that that the dropping of alignment is better at not being "narrative"-destroying.

More options in character creation seem to be much more gamist or simulationist unless they are directed to some theme or goal of the character.

I am not giving up on your theory, but it is not coming together for me yet. I will agree that it is less "narrativist"-destroying than earlier versions.  Though possibly some of the kits from 2E had some advantages in narrativism if you think that they choice of kits (the ones that were more about the characters history and background) impacted choice of future actions. But this last idea is mostly just armchar theorizing.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 30, 2008)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> Still thinking it through.
> 
> I am having a hard time thinking that combat options are narrativist and not gamist even though they give the player more control.
> 
> The parrying/dodge choices in RM I really dont see as narrativist at all, more of a mixture of sim/gam.



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

Of course these can be interpreted in a Sim way. It can also be interpreted in a Gamist way, as RM combat can be highly competitive both between players (who try to mathematically optimise their performance) and in group play against the GM's monsters/NPCs - and correct parry/dodge choices becomes very important here. Under both interpretations, I would want to stress the difference from RQ, which has Attack and Parry as different skills, and therefore allows no gamism (or narrativism) because there is no meaningful choice to be made - just use your best numbers (more on this below).

The RM mechanic's contribution to narrativism is this: a player is both empowered and obliged to split between attack and defence every round, and by so doing is able to impose a thematic significance on a combat (by dragging it out, by approaching it in a risky fashion, by relying on allies - ganging up can be very vicious in RM because of the way parrying multiple foes is handled). There is a marked contrast with RQ (my mainstay purist-for-system comparitor): RQ contains risky fights, safe fights, collaboration with allies, etc, but all this is determined by the GM's choice of adversary. RQ has no mechanic which allows the player to make choices that determine whether a combat is safe or risky, or one in which co-operation is necessary or redundant. D&D 3E has a few such mechanics (eg the Combat Expertise feat) but they have nothing like the same scope or ubiquity as OB vs parry in RM.

Now, as I cheerfully concede the range of thematic payoff that can emerge from this sort of play is narrow: but honour, courage, loyalty and so on are there, and more themes can be present also if the combat is allowed to be interpreted at all metaphorically (eg the player of a Paladin making meanignful mechanical decisions in relation to a combat with a demon, which therefore determine the shape of the ensuing combat, is easily seen as addressing at least simple moral or religious themes).

I will also cheefully concede that not all RM combat has the potential I describe above. It is mostly a feature of mid-to-high level play, in which PC skill numbers relative to typical adversary skill numbers are sufficiently high that the players have a range of meaningful choices to make of the sort I am trying to describe. Once you get to a situation where (for example) the only realistic option is to parry all out and hope for an open-ended high roll, narrativism by way of combat choice is gone.



			
				apoptosis said:
			
		

> I am on board with the Second Wind mechanic aiding narrativism, if it allows you to raise the stakes of the conflict. I am not quite sure how Second Wind works though.



Again, only in certain circumstances or contexts, but I suspect ones that will come up fairly often. As I understand it, Second Wind will be a swift action (ie a free action, but one which precludes taking another such action in the same turn), able to be taken only when bloodied, which restores (half?) one's hit points taken.

Thus, prior to using one's Second Wind one has a strong buffer against PC death. Once it's taken, PC death is definitely put on the table. But equally, choosing to forego using Second Wind when one could, in order to perform some other swift action is a way of putting death on the table. Of course this all feeds into gamist goodness, but (similarly to what I was trying to explain about RM's combat mechanics) I think it also has the potential to support a type of (again, thematically somewhat narrow) narrativism via meaningful choices which constitute a statement, by the player, about thematically important matters such as courage, loyalty, honour, sacrifice, selfishness (do I Second Wind, or use a swift action that would aid my ally?), etc. Core 3E really has no mechanics that support this sort of play.



			
				apoptosis said:
			
		

> Now the metaphor of combat is interesting but does seem to be in disagreement with maybe the earlier ideas that the themes should not be so concrete before the game begins (meaning that it is out of control of the players).



Well, most RPGs introduce a finite set of themes to be explored (eg The Dying Earth isn't really going to explore the same themes as HeroQuest, is it? It's far more whimsical).

Perhaps we're not using "theme" in exactly the same way, but it seems to me that as long as the game leaves it up to the players how they resolve the themes, or leaves them free to make their own statements bout those themes in the course of play, we're talking about (again, perhaps "low concept") narrativist play.



			
				apoptosis said:
			
		

> I think though that the choice of combat options should have some meaning to the character besides just winning the combat.
> 
> <snip upwards>
> 
> My feeling is that narrativist mechanics should be addressing WHY they are in the combat. Or should allow the player to determine what are the stakes of the combat (though that is also merging narrativism and conflict-resolution)



I agree with your first sentence, and have tried to explain how I think this is the case. As to the second sentence, I think in a game like D&D there isn't really a WHY to combat, anymore than there is a WHY to the X-Men getting into a punchup every issue. Combat is the default situation, if you like (I'm simplifying a little bit, because as my earlier post noted I think social challenges might be an important addition to 4e and its narrativist potential - in this case conflict is inevitable, but part of the WHY might be the choice of social challenge rather than combat challenge - but bear with me).

The narrativist play therefore has to take place within a presupposition of combat (just as, in The Dying Earth, it takes place within a presupposition of wandering from wierd township to wierd township). The thematic content has to emerge within the context of the combat - ie what answer to the thematic questions is the player able to give by the way they resolve the combat? Hence the need for multiple approaches to combat resolution, by way of sophisticated mechanics.



			
				apoptosis said:
			
		

> In this manner i feel that that the dropping of alignment is better at not being "narrative"-destroying.



In terms of D&D, I see this as a really big step. Given that the sort of themes I think can be put into play in the game are themes like courage, loyalty, etc, alignment is completely fatal to narrativist play in respect of them, because it already answers all the interesting questions.



			
				apoptosis said:
			
		

> possibly some of the kits from 2E had some advantages in narrativism if you think that they choice of kits (the ones that were more about the characters history and background) impacted choice of future actions. But this last idea is mostly just armchar theorizing.



I'm a bit of a kit skeptic, because in many cases they seemed to either give HERO/Paladin style personality limitations, and/or licence GM use of force against the character (or at least this was how I tended to experience them). I can see how they could be used to provide a built-in bang, though - do you know if many 2nd ed players/GMs used them in that way?



			
				apoptosis said:
			
		

> More options in character creation seem to be much more gamist or simulationist unless they are directed to some theme or goal of the character.



Which they can be, _if_ what those options do is give the player the tools to offer different sorts of thematic answers to questions posed in combat. Not having seen the 4e power suites yet, I can't judge - but if at character build you get to choose between a power that only works when flanking (eg some sort of sneak attack variant), and a power that only works when you are in melee with a foe but no ally is likewise (eg a pointblank cone that would scorch your allies were they there), then character creation is empowering the player to make choices which will then be relevant to addressing such thematic questions as whether self-reliance (and perhaps, ultimately, selfishness) and heroism are consistent or at odds.



			
				apoptosis said:
			
		

> I am not giving up on your theory, but it is not coming together for me yet.



If none of the above helps, maybe it's just a bad theory. But I must confess, the more I try to explain it the more my belief in it is being reinforced, because it does gel with experiences I have had in my own gaming.

There's also the question of whether 4e will really satisfy the sorts of design constraints my theory imposes (eg what will the final power suites look like?). Reading W&M made me midlly optimistic, as have some remarks from some of the designers, but I can't say anything stronger than that.


----------



## marune (Jan 30, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> nice theory




Even if I may begin to acknowledge some part of it, there is a fundamental issue here.

The reward loop won't support narrativist play : XP is given for overcoming challenges regardless of the "theme choices". If the theme make you don't use ranged power because they are for cowards and you lose the challenge, you won't level up (and maybe die).

However, gaining levels = more power choices, so more possible answers in your "tell me how do you fight and I'll tell you who you are" theory. (Take that last one with a grain of salt).


----------



## pemerton (Jan 30, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Even if I may begin to acknowledge some part of it, there is a fundamental issue here.
> 
> The reward loop won't support narrativist play : XP is given for overcoming challenges regardless of the "theme choices".



I think you're partially right about the XP issue - but this is where the Quest rules may come in, as they do provide an alternative XP mechanic. I think it will be very interesting to see what is said in the DMG about who gets to determine what counts as a Quest (players, GM or both?). But Quests will still link to overcoming challenges, which leaves your main issue of the disconnect between rewards and thematic choices untouched:



			
				skeptic said:
			
		

> If the theme make you don't use ranged power because they are for cowards and you lose the challenge, you won't level up (and maybe die).



I don't know that you're fully right, because if (as the designers have suggested) all builds are equally viable then it may be that not using ranged powers won't necessarily inhibit one's ability to overcome the challenge (provided that you do effectively use the powers you do have - I never denied that my theory draws only a pretty thin line between narrativism and gamism).



			
				skeptic said:
			
		

> However, gaining levels = more power choices, so more possible answers in your "tell me how do you fight and I'll tell you who you are" theory. (Take that last one with a grain of salt).



I think you're suggesting this as something consistent with my theory - assuming that is so, I'm in full agreement. In the sort of play I'm trying to describe highly metagamed character build is a big part of it. The new magic item rules also fit in here (magic items being a core part of D&D character build) as the end of the "Big 6" leaves much more room for players to use magic item choices as thematic statements.

I should finish by adding - part of why I'm interested in my theory (besides intellectual vanity) is that where D&D goes, so goes the bulk of the RPG world (players, that is, not necessarily designers). If D&D finally offers the potential for narrativist play (either as written, or with easily undertaken drfit), I think this could have a big impact on the future of RPGing.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 30, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Even if I may begin to acknowledge some part of it, there is a fundamental issue here.
> 
> The reward loop won't support narrativist play : XP is given for overcoming challenges regardless of the "theme choices". If the theme make you don't use ranged power because they are for cowards and you lose the challenge, you won't level up (and maybe die).
> 
> However, gaining levels = more power choices, so more possible answers in your "tell me how do you fight and I'll tell you who you are" theory. (Take that last one with a grain of salt).



Well, that's where the DM needs to tweak the reward loop, as you call it.  If the challenge requires you to use ranged power but you choose instead to hold your theme and find another way around (stealth, withdrawal, diplomacy, whatever) then ExP should still be awarded for the challenge.  Also, keep in mind that not every challenge is going to fit in with everyone's theme; sometimes your theme will take precedence, leading you to essentially sit that one out and lose out on some ExP - so be it, and it'll all balance out in the end.

Lanefan


----------



## marune (Jan 30, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I think you're partially right about the XP issue - but this is where the Quest rules may come in, as they do provide an alternative XP mechanic. I think it will be very interesting to see what is said in the DMG about who gets to determine what counts as a Quest (players, GM or both?). But Quests will still link to overcoming challenges, which leaves your main issue of the disconnect between rewards and thematic choices untouched:
> 
> I don't know that you're fully right, because if (as the designers have suggested) all builds are equally viable then it may be that not using ranged powers won't necessarily inhibit one's ability to overcome the challenge (provided that you do effectively use the powers you do have - I never denied that my theory draws only a pretty thin line between narrativism and gamism).




Quest/Goal rewards and details about ranged weapons are irrelevant, the problem is still there. If you make decisions not according to the best strategy/guts decision available but according to the theme you want to develop, you are penalyzing yourself vs the challenge to overcome. Doing so, your chance to succeed at the quest/goal are reduced, the next level is further away, etc.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I think you're suggesting this as something consistent with my theory - assuming that is so, I'm in full agreement. In the sort of play I'm trying to describe highly metagamed character build is a big part of it. The new magic item rules also fit in here (magic items being a core part of D&D character build) as the end of the "Big 6" leaves much more room for players to use magic item choices as thematic statements.
> 
> I should finish by adding - part of why I'm interested in my theory (besides intellectual vanity) is that where D&D goes, so goes the bulk of the RPG world (players, that is, not necessarily designers). If D&D finally offers the potential for narrativist play (either as written, or with easily undertaken drfit), I think this could have a big impact on the future of RPGing.




I understand your dream to have a narratavist layer on top of D&D gamist character progression / combat rules, I had the same some years ago.


----------



## marune (Jan 30, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Well, that's where the DM needs to tweak the reward loop, as you call it.  If the challenge requires you to use ranged power but you choose instead to hold your theme and find another way around (stealth, withdrawal, diplomacy, whatever) then ExP should still be awarded for the challenge.  Also, keep in mind that not every challenge is going to fit in with everyone's theme; sometimes your theme will take precedence, leading you to essentially sit that one out and lose out on some ExP - so be it, and it'll all balance out in the end.
> 
> Lanefan




The reward loop idea is simple : reward players when their actions are helping them reach the goal of the game and be sure that the reward will help them pursue that goal further.

D&D : you get XP when overcoming challenges, with XP you get levels that make you able to overcome bigger challenges up to the final ones (the campaign finale).

That is one of the most basic assumption of D&D since it's beginning, not a easy thing to change.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 30, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Well, that's where the DM needs to tweak the reward loop, as you call it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Also, keep in mind that not every challenge is going to fit in with everyone's theme; sometimes your theme will take precedence, leading you to essentially sit that one out and lose out on some ExP - so be it, and it'll all balance out in the end.



I agree with what Skeptic said. Also, as soon as you have to sit out on XP, the you are (in effect) having to sacrifice fun in play in order to pursue your thematic goal. At that point, the system is neither facilitative, nor neutral, but an obstacle. And what I'm hoping for (and trying to articulate) is a notion of 4e as largely obstacle-free, and mildly facilitative, of narrativist play.



			
				skeptic said:
			
		

> If you make decisions not according to the best strategy/guts decision available but according to the theme you want to develop, you are penalyzing yourself vs the challenge to overcome. Doing so, your chance to succeed at the quest/goal are reduced, the next level is further away, etc.



The question is - can the gamist elements be narratively unified, such that making the best thematic decision does _not]_ disadvantage one's chance of success? If not, you are right and my theory falls over. I'm hoping that the design goal of "equally viable builds" will do the job here - that the equal gamist viability will also be coherent thematic viability.



			
				skeptic said:
			
		

> I understand your dream to have a narratavist layer on top of D&D gamist character progression / combat rules, I had the same some years ago.



I take it that you think it's a pipe dream?


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 30, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> The reward loop idea is simple : reward players when their actions are helping them reach the goal of the game and be sure that the reward will help them pursue that goal further.



Not quite.  Change "players" to "characters", however, and you're bang on.







> D&D : you get XP when overcoming challenges, with XP you get levels that make you able to overcome bigger challenges up to the final ones (the campaign finale).
> 
> That is one of the most basic assumption of D&D since it's beginning, not a easy thing to change.



Here's where 1e has something to teach: you get ExP for avoiding a challenge just as if you had defeated it.

If the goal of the moment is Z and to get there your path ultimately has to go: (non-Z letters represent challenges, and it doesn't matter here about anything else; let's just assume a simple situation)

Start ==> A ==> B ==> C ==> D ==> E ==> Z

Then it makes no difference to anything including ExP whether you outright defeat all 5 challenges; or whether you defeat A, intentionally avoid B and C via stealth, then defeat D and E; or find ways around all 5 and go safely to Z...as long as Z gets accomplished.

As for whether a character's theme will help or harm it in actual gameplay, all I have to say is this: many's the time as a player I've found myself (or put myself) in just such a situation, that to stay in character I as player have to make a wildly sub-optimal choice - examples include a below-average-party-level Knight deliberately seeking out the toughest foe in melee where there were others better suited for it, and predictably dying; or pulling a character out of a party that I as player would prefer to stay in because there's good in-game reasons for the character to be elsewhere - and I take it as just a natural part of a *roleplaying* game.

Lanefan


----------



## marune (Jan 30, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Not quite.  Change "players" to "characters", however, and you're bang on.Here's where 1e has something to teach: you get ExP for avoiding a challenge just as if you had defeated it.




I'll tell you a big secret : characters doesn't exist, so you can't reward them, players do


----------



## marune (Jan 30, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> The question is - can the gamist elements be narratively unified, such that making the best thematic decision does _not_ disadvantage one's chance of success? If not, you are right and my theory falls over. I'm hoping that the design goal of "equally viable builds" will do the job here - that the equal gamist viability will also be coherent thematic viability.
> 
> I take it that you think it's a pipe dream?




Yeah because I think this unification can't be done, but that's *IMHO*, *IME*.

However that doesn't mean you couldn't build a game with the basic idea of your theory : "tell me how you fight and I'm gonna tell you who you are".


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 30, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> I'll tell you a big secret : characters doesn't exist, so you can't reward them, players do



True.  However, those players should be earning the rewards through the actions of their characters, and receiving the rewards the same way.

One of my biggest peeves is a DM who would give out in-game character ExP for out-of-game player actions (e.g. bringing the beer to the game or writing a 5-page backstory for a new character where none such was asked); thus you'll find me harping on the "ExP are a character reward" theme whenever the chance arises. 

Lane-"I neither expect nor demand ExP for writing this post"-fan


----------



## marune (Jan 30, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> True.  However, those players should be earning the rewards through the actions of their characters, and receiving the rewards the same way.




Do we agree if I say : players should be earning the rewards for the actions they make through their characters ?



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> One of my biggest peeves is a DM who would give out in-game character ExP for out-of-game player actions (e.g. bringing the beer to the game or writing a 5-page backstory for a new character where none such was asked)




I agree on that.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 30, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Yeah because I think this unification can't be done, but that's *IMHO*, *IME*.



Fair enough. I find it easy to believe you're right. But Ron Edwards' comments on Marvel Super Heroes (and also, if to a lesser extent, Tunnels and Trolls and Champions) keep me from giving up all hope.



			
				skeptic said:
			
		

> However that doesn't mean you couldn't build a game with the basic idea of your theory : "tell me how you fight and I'm gonna tell you who you are".



Unfortunately, that game would not have WoTC marketing it and so would have no impact on how RPGs are played (btw, I like your summary of the basic idea).


----------



## pemerton (Jan 30, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> True.  However, those players should be earning the rewards through the actions of their characters, and receiving the rewards the same way.



That makes it sound like the pleasure in playing, for the player, is seeing their character develop within the gameworld. And that sounds to me like simulationist play. Which would then be one of the obstacles to other sorts of play that I was hoping 4e would eliminate.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 30, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> That makes it sound like the pleasure in playing, for the player, is seeing their character develop within the gameworld. And that sounds to me like simulationist play. Which would then be one of the obstacles to other sorts of play that I was hoping 4e would eliminate.



Seeing as I seem to be simulationist all the way here, given the definitions I've been given based on what I want from a game, then it only makes sense I agree at least this far: the pleasure *partly* comes from seeing the character (and the story, and the game) develop.  The rest of the pleasure comes from time spent with friends playing the game, from in-game entertainment and amusement, and from tales told round the fire in years to follow. 

And if you see these as obstacles, we're on pages different enough that we're not even reading the same spellbook.

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton (Jan 30, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Seeing as I seem to be simulationist all the way here, given the definitions I've been given based on what I want from a game, then it only makes sense I agree at least this far: the pleasure *partly* comes from seeing the character (and the story, and the game) develop.  The rest of the pleasure comes from time spent with friends playing the game, from in-game entertainment and amusement, and from tales told round the fire in years to follow.
> 
> And if you see these as obstacles, we're on pages different enough that we're not even reading the same spellbook.
> 
> Lanefan



Naturally, I don't see the social aspect as obstacles! I like hanging out with my friends as much as the next person.

The obstacles I'm talking about are those which assume that the peculiar pleasure of playing an RPG (as opposed to, say, a boardgame, which still lets me hang out with my friends) is immersion into the gameworld. I'm hoping that 4e will allow pleasure to be derived by using play to make statements about a theme - RPGing as (mostly pretty lightweight) literary/dramatic creation. The gameworld (including the PCs) is a vehicle in which this artistic activity is carried out - it's a device, not an end in itself.

Whether that's a different page or a whole different book I'm not sure!


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 30, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Naturally, I don't see the social aspect as obstacles! I like hanging out with my friends as much as the next person.
> 
> <snip> I'm hoping that 4e will allow pleasure to be derived by using play to make statements about a theme - RPGing as (mostly pretty lightweight) literary/dramatic creation. The gameworld (including the PCs) is a vehicle in which this artistic activity is carried out - it's a device, not an end in itself.
> 
> Whether that's a different page or a whole different book I'm not sure!




OK, here is where I have a problem, why is your creation a literary/dramatic creation and the story that falls out from the simulationist play not the same?


----------



## marune (Jan 30, 2008)

ardoughter said:
			
		

> OK, here is where I have a problem, why is your creation a literary/dramatic creation and the story that falls out from the simulationist play not the same?




Not every RPG session transcript can be considered a story (lack of a theme). Gamist and Sim play can produce a story, but only in particuliar circumstances, including some luck on the dices, etc.

With a narrativist play style, the transcript is "guaranteed" to be a story (maybe not always a good one).

That doesn't mean that stories created through nar play are necesserly better than stories produced through gamist play, only that that the latter will show up rarely.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 30, 2008)

Craw Hammerfist said:
			
		

> Why, thank you.  That is the most cogent explanation for the sim-gamist issue I have heard.  It does, however, raise a problem with point of view.  You are assuming that a fireball would catch things on fire.  If all of the players have that same assumption, then you can go forward in the sim experience.  I don't assume a fireball would do more than scorch the walls.  I worked in the oil field years ago and saw a handfull of small explosions.  Those that were natural gas related typically did not catch things on fire.  The fire was hot, but it was over fast.  Most of the damage was concussive.  An exploding gasoline can catches all kinds of things on fire, however because it throws fuel all over.  What if fireball is more akin to the former?  Does that mean 1e was gamist for me, but 3e is a sim?




No.  To extend your discussion a little, a true high explosive like TNT or PETN almost never catches anything on fire directly because it is over even quicker than a fuel air explosion like natural gas.  All of the damage is concussion and fragmentation.  But think about that for a second.  If it is the intention of the rules to portray fireball as an explosion, shouldn't most of the damage be concussive rather than heat?  If we change 'fireball' to 'explosion', should a good portion of the damage be 'bludgeoning'?  But in both editions, most of the damage was described as being of type 'fire', and in fact in 1st edition the 'fireball' was explicitly not a high explosive explosion since it was described as exerting negligible pressure on the surroundings - it expanded and engulfed, but it didn't 'blow up' things and create shrappnel.

Ok, then, suppose its still the intention of the designers for it to be literally an expanding ball of flame and not an explosion, and that the heat while damaging is so brief that it doesn't cause secondary fires.  But there is a limit to that in simulationist thinking.  As your experience indicates, it's quite alright to have a fire that only scorches the walls and the furniture (and a characters armor) without starting a secondary fire because those things are particularly inflamable, but in the rules as written in 3rd edition a fireball going off in a room of gasoline soaked straw doesn't start secondary fires.  I don't think anyone has a reasonable expectation that an open flame would do lethal damage to thier person, but not set gasoline soaked straw on fire.  A set of rules written with some simulationist intent would almost never say, 'fireball does no damage to objects', or 'fireball doesn't start secondary fires', even if it wanted to avoid the mechanical complexity of secondary fires.  Rather, it would say something to the effect of, 'Fireball may start fires in inflamable objects', a phrase you actually here somewhat regularly in the description of fire spells in the first edition PH.  A more sophisticated system might define what 'inflamable objects' were (probably with some sort of materials list) and what the likelihood of thier catching on fire would be for a given quantity of flame.         



> Granting that the fireball is just a single example, I'm sure that there are any number of instances where the natural consequences of a spell or action do not get tracked in D&D.  However, for any given scenario, "what is happening in my head" is different, to varying degrees, from "what is happening in your head."  How does this get rectified in a sim based game? (or is that the game itself?)




People who care about this sort of thing look for a game system that has a reasonable level of suspension of disbelief.  Then the referee tends to fiddle with (house rule) the areas that don't quite jibe with his understanding, possibly with the input of the players.  After that, it pretty much depends on the implicit social contract of the group.  Some groups then percieve the literal reading of the rules to be the description of the 'physics' of the game world.  Assuming that the rules are fairly solid, that will probably hold until a situation comes up which produces really illogical results.  Afterwhich, usually with the input of the players, the referee will do some more fiddling with the rules to try to 'improve' the system.   Other groups would give the referee latitude to override the rules in the middle of the game where they didn't seem to fit the groups logical expectation of event.   

In my first edition games, you typically say a combination of both sorts of resolution going on.  It works pretty well so long as your gamist players are willing to confine the overcoming of challenges to in game means.  If you have a gamist motivated player (he wants to 'win') who percieves working the metagame to be easier than winning within the rules, that is, he percieves manipulating the DM into changing the rules to produce favorable interpretations of any of his actions is easier than overcoming the challenges under the current rules, then it can be a problem.  To a lesser extent, it can be a problem where the setting the referee wants to simulate doesn't correspond to the setting in which a narrativist wants to conduct his story.  You typically see this problem when the narrativist player wants to play a character that does dazzling stunts, and the referee wants to simulate 'gritty realism', or conversely (and I've been in this situation), you want to play a 'gritty' realistic character and the game system encourages over the top cardboard technicolor characters who do three impossible things every day before breakfast.



> Is simulationism v gamism a purely subjective viewpoint?




Since in GNS, we are dealing with a description of human motivation, its all somewhat subjective.  It's hard to climb in peoples heads and see why they are really doing something.  It's hard to climb in your own head and see that.  

But there are clear cases of 'gamism' vs. 'simulationism' that can be demonstrated.  One of the most obvious is if in a game session, the players are asked to play chess or sodoko or solve a riddle.  In purist simulationism, the players themselves are part of the metagame and don't really exist.  Therefore, in a game from a purely simulationist perspective, puzzles within the game should never be solved by player skill, but rather by character skill.  The thing theoretically being simulated is the character solving the puzzle, and this should be done according to the characters skill in 'Knowledge (enigmas)' and not the players.  There is never a case were asking the players to solve a riddle is more simulationist than gamist.

Incidently, I believe that a certain amount of simulation ought to infuse a good game system (not to be confused with the belief that a certain amount of realism ought infuse a good game system), but that's where I draw the line.  Ultimately, the game is about player enjoyment.  Pure simulationism tends to end up reducing the role of the players (player and referee alike) in the game to the extent that it becomes unfun and purely mechanical.  You might as well let the computer play the PC's too and just watch the game.

You can see this in other contexts too.  Games like SimCity are very far out on the end of the 'simulationist' perspective.  In fact, prefers people to refer to his games as 'digital toys' rather than as 'games', because there isn't alot of 'gamist' elements to them.  His games are the thought experiment made real, more than they are games.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 30, 2008)

ardoughter said:
			
		

> OK, here is where I have a problem, why is your creation a literary/dramatic creation and the story that falls out from the simulationist play not the same?




The difference lies in _creating theme_ vs. _reinforcing theme_.  Nar play demands that you answer a thematic question in your own way; sim play demands that you answer a thematic question in the same way the source material did.


----------



## marune (Jan 30, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Incidently, I believe that a certain amount of simulation  ought to infuse a good game system (not to be confused with the belief that a certain amount of realism ought infuse a good game system), but that's where I draw the line.  Ultimately, the game is about player enjoyment.  Pure simulationism tends to end up reducing the role of the players (player and referee alike) in the game to the extent that it becomes unfun and purely mechanical.  You might as well let the computer play the PC's too and just watch the game.




Simulationist play is when Exploration (+- what many call "roleplaying") is the main focus.

Of course Exploration is needed and welcome in Gamist and Narrativist play, because without Exploration, you don't even have an RPG! 



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> You can see this in other contexts too.  Games like SimCity are very far out on the end of the 'simulationist' perspective.  In fact, prefers people to refer to his games as 'digital toys' rather than as 'games', because there isn't alot of 'gamist' elements to them.  His games are the thought experiment made real, more than they are games.




Civilization is a game that went from a very "sim" style to a more gamist one in recent editions


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 30, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Not every RPG session transcript can be considered a story (lack of a theme). Gamist and Sim play can produce a story, but only in particuliar circumstances, including some luck on the dices, etc.
> 
> With a narrativist play style, the transcript is "guaranteed" to be a story (maybe not always a good one).
> 
> That doesn't mean that stories created through nar play are better than stories produced through gamist play, only that that the latter will show up rarely.




I understand why you'd think that, but that's not my experience.

First, it involves a very narrow definition of 'story'.  It is true a gamist or simulationist game often has very few of the formal dramatic elements of a story - rising action, denoument, epiphany, conclusion, or whatever - but it almost always has the one essential element of a story - conflict.  Without the formal elements of a story we expect a story to have, it might not be a very enjoyable story in the telling of it, and it might notably lack a meaning, but it will still be a story.

And in defence of that, you could point out that in real life, very few peoples lives follow classic narrative arcs, and even when they appear to do so, we often find that it is because the biographer has taken some dramatic license with the person's life in choosing what events to emphasize or leave out, according to the needs of the story that the biographer formulated.

I have certainly been in simulationist games where stories evolved into being.

I've also been in narrativist games where the failure of the participants to compose a story, led to the same sort of meandering narrative that you would expect to be composed by a simulationist or gamist game.  This is particularly true of games that are played in weekly sessions, such that the participants tend to focus entirely on the current scene and not its place in the larger story to the extent that eventually there is no story - only a series of (hopefully) emotionally cathartic scenes.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 30, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Not every RPG session transcript can be considered a story (lack of a theme). Gamist and Sim play can produce a story, but only in particuliar circumstances, including some luck on the dices, etc.
> 
> With a narrativist play style, the transcript is "guaranteed" to be a story (maybe not always a good one).
> 
> That doesn't mean that stories created through nar play are necesserly better than stories produced through gamist play, only that that the latter will show up rarely.




I take it then that in this context story and theme have a narrow technical meaning. It is not just an account of the heros and their doings.


----------



## Psion (Jan 30, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Given that the sort of themes I think can be put into play in the game are themes like courage, loyalty, etc, alignment is completely fatal to narrativist play in respect of them, because it already answers all the interesting questions.




I don't buy that. The presence of a right or preferred answer does not mean that a character knows or agrees with this "cosmic rightness". And what happens when the cosmos thinks what your character is doing is wrong? Are you evil? What if the cosmos doesn't reign in.

Further, to invoke a little philosophy 101 here, alignment is traditionally _agent evaluation_ and _act evaluation_ (and I feel that some 3e authors really muddled and damaged this by more explicitly defining good/evil acts). Taken in this light, interesting question might take the form of "what would a _good person_ do in this situation" more than "what is right"?


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 30, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> The question is - can the gamist elements be narratively unified, such that making the best thematic decision does _not]_ disadvantage one's chance of success? If not, you are right and my theory falls over. I'm hoping that the design goal of "equally viable builds" will do the job here - that the equal gamist viability will also be coherent thematic viability.
> 
> I take it that you think it's a pipe dream?




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.  

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


----------



## marune (Jan 30, 2008)

ardoughter said:
			
		

> I take it then that in this context story and theme have a narrow technical meaning. It is not just an account of the heros and their doings.




Take a look at theme's and fiction's definitions on Wikipedia.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 31, 2008)

Ardoughter, I'll defer to skeptic's reply for an affirmative account (espcially of theme) - but in short, yes, story and theme isn't just an account of the heroes and their doings.

Apoptosis, I don't want to (and don't know that I could) shoot holes in your examples - at least not in a close-reading, line-by-line refutation sort of way.

But I would note that Champions, which you flag as Sim, is one of the games that Ron Edwards talks about drifting into narrativism. (He also discusses drift of T&T from gamism to narrativism.) And I can see how that happens (for Champions, not T&T) - it has many of the same features as RM (in terms of complex character build, choices in action resolution etc) which allow the mechanics to be used as vehicles for players to make thematic statements.

I'm not just focusing on player choice (because D&D always allowed choice of hair colour for a human PC, for example, but whether that narrative control is there or not is almost always peripheral to narrativist concerns). I think that 4e really does open up a few places where those choices can matter: the approach to confict, the control over the outcomes of conflict that more sophisticated mechanics give, the PoL stuff about adversity, etc.

In the end, if you don't buy my theory that's fair enough: it's pretty speculative and perhaps generalises dangerously from my own play experience. But it really was what struck me when I read the 4e pre-release info and started to discuss it on these boards (starting with the hideous nightmare of the "Why is it important?" thread) - that finally D&D might have crated room for people to try to do something with an RPG that (as Ron Edwards says) I think they reallly might enjoy, without the mechanics (and the GM who is applying and adjudicating them) getting in the way all the time.

At the moment the main thing pressuring me to abandon my theory is Skeptic's point about XP.


----------



## pemerton (Jan 31, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> The presence of a right or preferred answer does not mean that a character knows or agrees with this "cosmic rightness". And what happens when the cosmos thinks what your character is doing is wrong? Are you evil? What if the cosmos doesn't reign in.



I think it is very difficult to play a PC in a certain way, and affirm the validity of that choice at the gaming table, when (i) the gameworld decrees that PC evil, with no chance for narrative intervention by the player in that determination, and (ii) the rulebook (PHB, ch 6) describes those alignment mechanics in such a way as to presuppose that there are no evil PCs (as defined by that rulebook), only evil antagonists.

It's not necessarily impossible, and Kamikaze Midget posted some ideas (although I wasn't really able to follow all of them) in the Blood War thread from a week or two ago.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Further, to invoke a little philosophy 101 here, alignment is traditionally _agent evaluation_ and _act evaluation_ (and I feel that some 3e authors really muddled and damaged this by more explicitly defining good/evil acts). Taken in this light, interesting question might take the form of "what would a _good person_ do in this situation" more than "what is right"?



I don't fully follow you here. Part of the problem (not with your post, I don't think, but with alignment) is that different things get run together.

Thus, alignment is sometimes apparently a virtue theory (the good person = the virtuous person; the neutral person = the person who appreciates the importance of virtue but doesn't instantiate it in his or her own life; the evil person = the amoralist).

But sometimes it seems to be a deontological theory of action (a good action is one that is right/permissible, an evil action one that is not - there are no neutral actions on this account, and superogatory actions can be labelled "extra good" or "paladinesque").

At yet other times it seems to be a type of consequentialism, whether utilitarian (from memory, either the DMG or PHB in 1st ed AD&D defined LG by reference to the Benthamite maxim "the greatest happiness of the greatest number") or some other sort (sometimes it seems that to be good means minimising the amount of evil actions performed by onself and others).

However we understand it, though, it is hard to imagine coherent affirmations of the following: "This is what a good person would do in this situation, but doing that is not right". Not impossible (eg Michael Walzer on so-called "dirty hands") but hard.

And if the in-game alignment labels "Good" and "Evil" are to be divorced from their ordinary moral meanings of "good" and "evil" - so that doing Good is not necessarily good, and likewise for evil - then the point of those labels completely vanishes. We may as well call them Team A and Team B and be done with it, and let the players and GM form their own opinions on whether or not Team A is good or bad. (At the moment a paladin in my RM campaign is in the process of forming the view that Team A - his team until now - is probably not good at all, or at least rather too ruthless for his taste.)


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 31, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Take a look at theme's and fiction's definitions on Wikipedia.





So  does narrativist systems work? From my experience of rpgs I have seen stories emerge from campaings and they are consistient with the definitions of fiction (not very good fiction mind you, the dialogue is usually quite cliched) but theme would be lacking, or a best emergent in the story. The players and DM have to work for it though.

So in narrativist play do they agree on theme or does each player explore whatever theme suits them and do you get a single story or layered one for each character?


Now I can see how a high sim where the party wander about and sees what happens, would not yield much of a narrative.


----------



## Roman (Jan 31, 2008)

There is a lot of excellent discussion going on here. I have a number of concerns about the game and I agree with those who say gamist concerns should not take precedence over other concerns. 

Since this thread is filled with people well-versed in the theory of various gaming styles, I would like to ask whether my concerns about 4E fall into the simulationist camp or something else entirely. I think they are mostly simulationist, but you have a better understanding of what those terms mean. 

I don't care for names such as "Golden Wyvern Adept" and the like although I presume 'evocative names' like this might be considered simulationist though I do not oppose them as strongly as some on these boards. I am concerned, however, about the referencing of durations and frequency of action use to gamist councepts such as 'encounters', about the removal of non-combat powers from monsters, about the inability to be bad in a skill and the like. Given these facts, am I primarily a simulationist or something else? (Of course, I like elements of all gaming styles in my games, so the operative word here is 'primarily'.) 

Further info on my motivations and opinions (may be relevant to whether I am a mostly a simulationist or something else): 

The referencing of durations and frequency of action use to gamist councepts such as 'encounters': It just does not make logical in-game sense to me to have frequencies and durations tied to something so arbitrary and non-existent in the game world. On top of that, I cringe at the thought of players artificially prolonging or cutting short encounters for the sake of their encounter-based powers. Also, I wonder how one should adjudicate the use of such powers outside of encounters. 

The removal of non-combat powers from monsters: I want to be able to see what monsters can and cannot do also out of combat and to have it supported mechanically. Furthermore, I don't want my workload as a DM inordinately increased by having to design this myself and it would take a huge amount of work to do so... 


The inability to be bad in a skill and the like: I want to be able to create characters, both as a player and as a DM, who follow the rules, yet are not good at certain skills. A couple of examples: A burly fighter from the plains who cannot 'climb', a paladin that is always slow to act, a wizard that commands vast magical might yet cannot walk up the stairs without panting.... the examples abound.


----------



## Derren (Jan 31, 2008)

Seconded.

That describes my stance (and concerns) on 4E very well.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 31, 2008)

Roman said:
			
		

> Given these facts, am I primarily a simulationist or something else?




Hey Roman;

I was thinking about this from before, and I don't think I can tell from what you've said.  A lot of it could just be that you want things to make sense in the game's fiction, but that could be in order to really enjoy or experience the theme.  A good sense of what's going on in-game can "multiply" the impact of a thematic statement, know what I mean?  It could even be because you want to ground the gamist experience - we play RPGs and not chess, right?

The best way to analyze this is to look at your actual play and focus on the choices of the players (including DM) and reactions to those choices.  You also need to look at things for a certain amount of time; I'd say at least over the course of one entire level, though an adventure or module would be better.


----------



## Simon Marks (Jan 31, 2008)

Roman said:
			
		

> The referencing of durations and frequency of action use to gamist councepts such as 'encounters': It just does not make logical in-game sense to me to have frequencies and durations tied to something so arbitrary and non-existent in the game world. On top of that, I cringe at the thought of players artificially prolonging or cutting short encounters for the sake of their encounter-based powers. Also, I wonder how one should adjudicate the use of such powers outside of encounters.




Current thinking suggests that "Per-Encounter abilities requires 5 minutes or so of rest to recharge" or that "Per-Encounter" simply means "Once every 5 minutes".

It's a guess, but based on the Book of Nine Swords I think a reasonable one.


----------



## apoptosis (Jan 31, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Ardoughter, I'll defer to skeptic's reply for an affirmative account (espcially of theme) - but in short, yes, story and theme isn't just an account of the heroes and their doings.
> 
> Apoptosis, I don't want to (and don't know that I could) shoot holes in your examples - at least not in a close-reading, line-by-line refutation sort of way.
> 
> ...




In this regard I agree that hving more player options does allow an orthogonal appoach to narrativism.

I started worrying after I wrote it that indeed, champions with its ability to buy off disadvantages (stating that now this is not something I want my character to focus on, this enemy as dictated by hunted or such is no longer a narrative concern) actually is pretty narratavist. The more I thought about it the reward system (using points you gained while gaming) while not explicity geared that way can be utilized in a very narrativist way.

Hunted was acutally a way to say (this enemy is important to me and my character). Maybe it is that possibly my approach were too ontological and not functionary enough.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 31, 2008)

Roman said:
			
		

> There is a lot of excellent discussion going on here. I have a number of concerns about the game and I agree with those who say gamist concerns should not take precedence over other concerns.
> 
> Since this thread is filled with people well-versed in the theory of various gaming styles, I would like to ask whether my concerns about 4E fall into the simulationist camp or something else entirely. I think they are mostly simulationist, but you have a better understanding of what those terms mean.
> 
> ...




Well I am no expert either, but yes as far as I can tell you concerns are simulationist, in particular purist for system, in so far as I can tell you want the RAW to be the source of everything in the game world and a creature's stat block or a players character sheet is the full definition of the creatrue or character.

As far as I can tell the per encounter powers and so forth are gamist constructs with out any sim justification. Of course we don't know this with out having the text of the rules. But assuming that they are gamist and just there. Then it looks like you will have to invent rules/explaination to justify them if you want to play D&D in your prefered way. 

If you played and/or DM'ed earlier versions of D&D this would not bother you so much since there was so many things not directly covered in the rules that houseruling was necessary and usually based on simulationist concerns. That was probably, inevitable given that many of us were wargamers and were trained by that to think is a sim way anyway.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 31, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Nar play demands that you answer a thematic question in your own way; sim play demands that you answer a thematic question in the same way the source material did.




 

This is in no way accurate, IME.

Both forms of play, so far as I know, require you to answer a thematic question in your own way, based upon the underlying shared assumptions about the game.

RC


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 31, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This is in no way accurate, IME.
> 
> Both forms of play, so far as I know, require you to answer a thematic question in your own way, based upon the underlying shared assumptions about the game.
> 
> RC




I am a little confused, too.

Do you have an example?


----------



## marune (Jan 31, 2008)

ardoughter said:
			
		

> Well I am no expert either, but yes as far as I can tell you concerns are simulationist, in particular purist for system, in so far as I can tell you want the RAW to be the source of everything in the game world and a creature's stat block or a players character sheet is the full definition of the creatrue or character.




I want the same and my primary creative agenda is definitly nar.

Many nar indie-games are also built according to that idea, Soap for instance.

I never understood "Purist for system" that way, so I'll have to examine it again.

From The Forge : 

_Purist for System : A category of design which emphasizes applying a set of simulated physical and other in-game causes to a wide variety of possible settings, characters, and situations._


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 31, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I am a little confused, too.
> 
> Do you have an example?




Sure.  Toss me a thematic question.

RC


----------



## marune (Jan 31, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sure.  Toss me a thematic question.




A classic : Does the end justify the means ?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 31, 2008)

OK, then.  "Does the end justify the means?" is almost always going to be examined by looking at some unsavory means toward a desired end, right?  Coping with the consequences is another important part of this theme.

Both simulationist and narrative play are going to require (1) a desired end, and (2) some unsavory means.  Both a simulationist game and a narrative game, presumably, allow you to determine what end you desire, and, within the shared context of the game, what means are available.

In general, a simulationist game attempts to make things fit the simulated "world".  So, if the world included an invasion from another region, you can attempt to broker an alliance with your former enemies to stave off that invasion (Deep Space Nine).  Or you could decide that kidnapping the mayor's kid is an acceptable means to gaining the magic item he keeps in his vault.  Either way, you are using the tools available to you to explore/answer a thematic question in your own way, based upon the underlying shared assumptions about the game.

In general, a narrativist game attempts to make things fit the unfolding "narrative".  So, if the narrative included an invasion from another region, you can attempt to broker an alliance with your former enemies to stave off that invasion (Deep Space Nine).  Or you could decide that kidnapping the mayor's kid is an acceptable means to gaining the magic item he keeps in his vault.  Either way, you are using the tools available to you to explore/answer a thematic question in your own way, based upon the underlying shared assumptions about the game.

The rules may determine how much control over the shared world you have, and how you are able to exercise that control, but they don't change the general means available to explore a theme.

IMHO, of course.

RC


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 31, 2008)

I see things differently.  No surprise there! 

Let's say we're playing with a sim agenda in Star Wars d6.  You decide to torture an Imperial agent for information on the Death Star.  Bam!  Dark Side Point.  That is what we want to see, because that's the "Star Wars" answer to the question.  If you do evil acts no matter what your goal, it's wrong and you fall to the Dark Side.

Same thing, nar this time.  We want to answer the question for ourselves, so we drift the mechanics slightly: the only time you get a Dark Side Point is when the player asks for one.  In this case, you decide not to call on the Dark Side, and get no DSP.  Did you do the wrong thing?  Only the other people can say, not the game system.  We each decide for ourselves if you did the right thing or not.

That might not be the best example, because in the drifted SW d6 system, the question posed is "What is worth giving up your soul for?"  Though we do answer "Does the end justify the means".


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 31, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> I want the same and my primary creative agenda is definitly nar.
> 
> Many nar indie-games are also built according to that idea, Soap for instance.
> 
> ...




This is interesting and goes to the nub of the problem I have with GNS. I read a lot of the background articles a few years ago, but never got much out of it. I felt that the terms were not used consistiently. At first blush I would take the above to refer to a kind of simulation, though now that you mention it, I can see how other interpretations can be made.

Like I said before, I am no expert but I think a lot labels attached to mechanics and systems depend too much on where you are standing looking at them from. I think GNS is an interesting first order simplification but something more granular is needed.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 31, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I see things differently.  No surprise there!
> 
> Let's say we're playing with a sim agenda in Star Wars d6.  You decide to torture an Imperial agent for information on the Death Star.  Bam!  Dark Side Point.  That is what we want to see, because that's the "Star Wars" answer to the question.  If you do evil acts no matter what your goal, it's wrong and you fall to the Dark Side.
> 
> Same thing, nar this time.  We want to answer the question for ourselves, so we drift the mechanics slightly: the only time you get a Dark Side Point is when the player asks for one.  In this case, you decide not to call on the Dark Side, and get no DSP.  Did you do the wrong thing?  Only the other people can say, not the game system.  We each decide for ourselves if you did the right thing or not.




Except this is just a dodge.  It's an exploration of what sort of game mechanics might be best used to implement a particular style of play, but it doesn't address in any fashion whether or not a style of play can or cannot explore a theme.

The example that you describe actual can be twisted around to show that.  In the 'simulationist' play you can think of the act of performing the evil act as asking the referee to give you a Dark Side point.  It is just that we have consented before hand to the conditions which equate to asking for a Dark Side point based on some agreed upon standards.   In doing the thing that earns the darkside point, the player is implicitly saying, "My character believes that at this moment the ends justify the means.  It's worth it to do evil, in order to obtain the goal."

It isn't necessary to lack a consensual definition of 'bad means' in order to explore the thematic question, 'Do the ends justify the means?'.   In fact, one could argue that without some working definition of what consituted 'bad means', you are going to have a really hard time exploring that theme in any depth.


----------



## Raduin711 (Jan 31, 2008)

Edit: On second thought, I don't want to get involved in this argument.


----------



## marune (Jan 31, 2008)

ardoughter said:
			
		

> This is interesting and goes to the nub of the problem I have with GNS. I read a lot of the background articles a few years ago, but never got much out of it. I felt that the terms were not used consistiently. At first blush I would take the above to refer to a kind of simulation, though now that you mention it, I can see how other interpretations can be made.




I would add that in a gamist game, I also want that the same, except for "high-level" tactics.

For example, I hate doing puzzle in D&D, but I love to come up with a strategy for using my spells in the better way to beat the bad guy.

Other example, I would like to the one that "solved the mystery" in D&D IF the basic actions I can use to get clues are defined in the rules (social skills, spells, etc.)

Edit : To LostSoul, I'm waiting for your answer to Celebrim before I jump into the "end justify the means" example.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 31, 2008)

Raduin711 said:
			
		

> Edit: On second thought, I don't want to get involved in this argument.





I admit it; you are wiser than I am.    

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 31, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> It isn't necessary to lack a consensual definition of 'bad means' in order to explore the thematic question, 'Do the ends justify the means?'.   In fact, one could argue that without some working definition of what consituted 'bad means', you are going to have a really hard time exploring that theme in any depth.




Exactly so.  Moreover, if the thematic question is "Does the end justify the means?" then dealing with the consequences is part of answering that question.  The "dodge" of avoiding the Dark Side Point also dodges part of the theme.  One could easily argue that the ability to _avoid the consequences_ is actually *damaging* to your ability to explore the theme.


RC


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 31, 2008)

Let me start off by saying that I'm not sure I "get" what you're trying to say.  I'll try to answer as best I can!



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> The example that you describe actual can be twisted around to show that.  In the 'simulationist' play you can think of the act of performing the evil act as asking the referee to give you a Dark Side point.  *It is just that we have consented before hand to the conditions which equate to asking for a Dark Side point based on some agreed upon standards.*   In doing the thing that earns the darkside point, the player is implicitly saying, "My character believes that at this moment the ends justify the means.  It's worth it to do evil, in order to obtain the goal."




Interesting point.  I think (let me bold it... there) that the bolded bit is the important difference between sim and nar.  We've agreed to standards before sitting down to play.  In this example, those standards are what we see in the original 3 Star Wars movies.

I do agree there is a thematic statement there, too; maybe my example was as bad as I thought!  I guess another point of difference is whether or not making that choice is _the point_ of play, or something that comes up now and again.

Hmm... I think it would be better if I could use an example of my own actual play, but I'm drawing a blank at the moment.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> It isn't necessary to lack a consensual definition of 'bad means' in order to explore the thematic question, 'Do the ends justify the means?'.   In fact, one could argue that without some working definition of what consituted 'bad means', you are going to have a really hard time exploring that theme in any depth.




I think that what one relies on in nar play is each player's own idea of what "bad means" are.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 31, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Exactly so.  Moreover, if the thematic question is "Does the end justify the means?" then dealing with the consequences is part of answering that question.  The "dodge" of avoiding the Dark Side Point also dodges part of the theme.  One could easily argue that the ability to _avoid the consequences_ is actually *damaging* to your ability to explore the theme.




I didn't mean to say that, in avoiding the DSP, the player was avoiding the consequences; I was trying to say that the player didn't think he deserved a DSP at all for what he did, because _he did the right thing_.  Maybe I should have tried harder.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 31, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Interesting point.  I think (let me bold it... there) that the bolded bit is the important difference between sim and nar.  We've agreed to standards before sitting down to play.  In this example, those standards are what we see in the original 3 Star Wars movies.




Whereas, I think that systematic standards are a mark of simulationist play because they relate to the goal of simulationist play, but don't agree that conversely a lack of standards is a mark of narrativist play.  You can have narrativist play with or without systematic standards.  The presence or absence of standards doesn't bear directly on the goals of narrativist play.  I can create a peice of fiction with or without 'world building'.  The lack of 'world building' may prove I'm not a simulationist, but it doesn't in and of itself prove that I'm a narrativist.

Again, it is my opinion that what you really need to be looking at is the motivation involved.  Any sort of play can look up close like being any sort of other play if we divorse it from the context.

In RC's example, the difference between the two theme building events is that in Narrativist play, the exploration of the theme was expressedly the goal of the play.  The group got together to explore that theme, and the goal of the play was for each character to examine there own thoughts and feelings about that theme and to partake of the shared story about that theme.  In theory, all the participants are conscious of what the theme is.  Whereas, in the simulationist example, the referee probably didn't create the conflict with the expressed goal of exploring the dramatic theme 'Do the ends justify the means?', but rather that theme evolved based on the conflicts chosen as realistic for the setting and the actions of the players - which probably were not directed toward creating that theme, but either exploring the game universe or 'winning' whatever conflict they were presented with.  None of the participants, including the referee, may be conscious of the theme at all in the simulationist case because exploring thier own feelings or creating a story may not be part of thier goals for play. 

On the other hand, IME, in really well realized simulationist play, eventually you get so absorbed into the universe and the events taking part in it that dramatic exploration becomes highly attractive regardless of what your initial intentions may have been.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 31, 2008)

Hey Celebrim;

I agree with pretty much everything you've said.

I didn't get the same impression from the example RC posted; I thought he was saying that, as far as creating theme goes, there is no difference between sim and nar play.  I think that in both types of play, you can create theme, but in narrativist play it's the point.  I think that's what you're saying, too.

I am reading you correctly?  How about you, RC - did I not get your example?


----------



## pemerton (Jan 31, 2008)

ardoughter said:
			
		

> Well I am no expert either, but yes as far as I can tell you concerns are simulationist, in particular purist for system, in so far as I can tell you want the RAW to be the source of everything in the game world and a creature's stat block or a players character sheet is the full definition of the creatrue or character.



As with Skeptic I also like these things in a game - indeed, they are part of my theory of how RM can facilitate narrativist play to a greater extent than RQ (a superficially similar purist-for-system game engine).

I would add to your specs for purist-for-system at least the following: the total character sheet is a product of the system and of play using the system, rather than a metagamed springboard for play.



			
				ardoughter said:
			
		

> This is interesting and goes to the nub of the problem I have with GNS. I read a lot of the background articles a few years ago, but never got much out of it. I felt that the terms were not used consistiently. At first blush I would take the above to refer to a kind of simulation, though now that you mention it, I can see how other interpretations can be made.



I've reread Ron Edwards articles many times since I first discovered them a couple of years ago. It's only over time that they've really started to make sense to me, as I reflect on my own gaming experiences and also see how some of the ideas play out in message board threads (like this one, and also on the ICE boards - posting any remotely narrativist or gamist ideas there very quickly reveals how hardcore simulationists think!).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 1, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I didn't mean to say that, in avoiding the DSP, the player was avoiding the consequences; I was trying to say that the player didn't think he deserved a DSP at all for what he did, because _he did the right thing_.  Maybe I should have tried harder.




Getting a DSP, though, doesn't mean that the character did the _wrong_ thing.  

RC


----------



## pemerton (Feb 1, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> OK, then.  "Does the end justify the means?" is almost always going to be examined by looking at some unsavory means toward a desired end, right?  Coping with the consequences is another important part of this theme.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



In the two examples, "world" and "narrative" are co-denoting (and acting as synonyms for all intents and purposes, as far as I can see): they both refer to the gameworld elements that constitute the medium of exploration in the game.

Either could be an example of sim play (if the world/narrative is predetermined by the rules, or a module, or the GMs decision, and the players go along for the ride) or an example of narrativist play (if the game elements are able to be used by the players to make thematically pertinent statements).

The presence or absence of rules for sharing narrative control really only goes to the question of whether or not we have pure vanilla narrativism or mechanically facilitated narrativism.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> It's an exploration of what sort of game mechanics might be best used to implement a particular style of play, but it doesn't address in any fashion whether or not a style of play can or cannot explore a theme.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



There is some truth in this, but it also highlights a potential obstacle that some mechanics pose to narrativist play.



			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> I didn't mean to say that, in avoiding the DSP, the player was avoiding the consequences; I was trying to say that the player didn't think he deserved a DSP at all for what he did, because _he did the right thing_.



Agreed. If, before play, we have already agree what counts as bad, then it is hard to see how we can meaningfully explore that in the game - at least, our initial consensus would have to be regarded as preliminary, and up for grabs as play unfolds.

So in the example of the Dark Side Point, either the Dark Side Point has to be optional (as Lost Soul suggested) or else it would have to be up for grabs that drawing on the Dark Side was not necessarily wicked (ie we are no longer playing canonical Star Wars).

If the wickedness of the Dark Side is not up for grabs, that in seems to me that narrowly moral themes (like the proper relationship between ends and means) are to a significant extent excluded. (This goes back to my exchange with Psion wrt alignment in D&D - if the mechanics already answer the moral question, it is hard to explore the moral questions in play.)

What might be explored instead would be something like the inevitability of corruption in human affairs, and in performing an action that earns a Dark Side Point the player would be adopting author stance with respect to his or her PC (and so not herself accepting that the PC's action is right), and making the statement that corruption is inevitable (or something along those lines), which is a thematic statement but not a moral one in the narrow sense of trying to address a question of right or wrong.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> You can have narrativist play with or without systematic standards. The presence or absence of standards doesn't bear directly on the goals of narrativist play



Assuming here that "standards" means "moral standards" then what you say is true, provided that the narrativist play is not intending to explore questions of right or wrong, but some other sort of theme (such as the inevitably of human corruption that I used as an example above).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 1, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I didn't get the same impression from the example RC posted; I thought he was saying that, as far as creating theme goes, there is no difference between sim and nar play.  I think that in both types of play, you can create theme, but in narrativist play it's the point.  I think that's what you're saying, too.
> 
> I am reading you correctly?  How about you, RC - did I not get your example?




The theme isn't necessarily the point in narrativist play, nor is it necessarily not the point in simulationist play.  I don't believe that theme is exclusive, or even necessarily more strongly developed, in either narrativist or simulationist play.

If some folks get together and say, "Let's explore the theme of whether the end justifies the means" both styles of play can be used, equally effectively, for this exploration.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 1, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> If, before play, we have already agree what counts as bad, then it is hard to see how we can meaningfully explore that in the game




Ye gods forbid that one can have a game mechanic for "bad" and still explore whether it is "really" bad.

D&D has a game mechanic for "evil"; clearly that precludes all scenarios in which "good" PCs support an "evil" character because they believe that doing so is better for everyone.

I've had PCs discuss religion with evil priests, specifically discussing aspects of human sacrifice.  I can say, without fear that I will not be contradicted, that they certainly explored the theme of whether the end justifies the means -- as well as the nature of evil -- in a simulationist game with a mechanic that defines both "good" and "evil" in game terms.

Is there anyone in this thread who actually imagines that they _*couldn't*_ do this?


RC


----------



## marune (Feb 1, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The theme isn't necessarily the point in narrativist play, nor is it necessarily not the point in simulationist play.  I don't believe that theme is exclusive, or even necessarily more strongly developed, in either narrativist or simulationist play.
> 
> If some folks get together and say, "Let's explore the theme of whether the end justifies the means" both styles of play can be used, equally effectively, for this exploration.
> 
> RC




A theme is not a question but an answer to a premise (Does the end justify the means?).

In Sim play, one explores the answer, the theme.

In Nar play, one explores the premise, the theme is the result of this exploration.

For example, in Sim play a character would be built around one of the possible answer, possibly with a background that justify his choice.

Instead, in Nar play, we are looking for the player's response during play, when the final answer is given, the story is over.

That's why a 2E paladin is a narrativist nightmare, most of the interesting premises' answers are hard-wired into him from the start. Coherently, the player is punished if he goes outside of it (stripped of his abilities).


----------



## gizmo33 (Feb 1, 2008)

In honor of the "death of simulation", here's a transcript of the last time I'll ever play an RPG:

DM:  You walk into a tavern and they're selling soup, you're really hungry and if you don't buy some I'll take away Con points.

Me:  Ok, one bowl of soup it is.

DM:  That'll be 8,590 gp.

Me:  That's exactly how much money I have!  Whassupwitdat?

DM:  Oh - I want to explore the theme of poverty and hunger.

Me:  Well why is the soup 8,590gp?  Is it really soup?  Maybe it's a bowl full of fairies?  Maybe I want to explore the theme of what it would be like to play an RPG that is a simulation.  Hey, DM, are you just too lazy to look up the price of soup in the DMG?  It's not my fault you flunked history.  Are you still angry about that time that someone told you that their character ought to be able to break down that door because they were able to break a board in karate class?

DM:  Ok, so anyway you see a dragon about to eat a halfling to your right, and a cleric stealing money from a sleeping beggar to your left...

Me:  Wait a minute!  Two seconds ago I was trying to buy soup.

DM:  Well that was two seconds ago and this is now.  What?  Do you expect some sort of real world simulation where there's some kind of connection between past and future events?  Next you're going to want me to roll on disease tables or something.  Get with the time Gizmo!  This is 4E!  You can ride gumdrop steeds into battle and if you whistle the song that I have in my head right now I'll give your character a vorpal blade.  Now stop complaining and roll for initiative against the giant version of yourself that's just appeared...

Seriously, I just don't get this narritivist thing.  Just because you don't feel like keeping track of gold-pieces, for example (like in an Arthurian knights game or superhero game) doesn't mean that some sort of basic reality on the subject isn't assumed to exist at some level.  Every RPG I've ever played has assumed that past is connected to present somehow.  Sure, it's nice when a story evolves, but the the story doesn't evolve at the expense of basic plausiblity.  So are we really just talking about handwaving certain details?

And what does it mean to "explore" a theme in a game like this?  So what if my character pays the 8,000 gp for a bowl of soup?  Do NPCs then teleport in and tell me how they feel about it?  Do I spend an hour telling my fellow players how I feel about it?  Do I get to go back in time and change it from a soup to a sandwich?  Change it so that I'm doing the selling?  How much "exploration" can really go on if you're just going to present one set of circumstances and then move forward based on one chosen reaction?

And if a DM is somehow uncomfortable with rules or dice telling them what happens in the game, then how in the world are they doing to deal with players telling them?  IME people that complain about "simulationist" stuff do so because they resent their players telling them how things are going to be (ie. "but the rules say the wall is a DC 15 to climb!").  The exact thing that you should NOT have a problem with if you're now going to run the game on the basis of "whatever the players want."  (And why would the rulebook for such a game be more than a page?)  I guess my confusion or objections are probably conventional, but I don't even recognize the game that's being described with the narrativist thing.


----------



## marune (Feb 1, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> How much "exploration" can really go on if you're just going to present one set of circumstances and then move forward based on one chosen reaction?




Ok, I hope this one is a troll but anyway...

Ever saw a movie or series like 24 ? That's basically what happens in them.

Indeed there is some "narration" between the conflicting scenes (where the rules are used), done by the GM or the players.

Edit : some Nar games have more structured narrative than what I suggested above (Soap comes to mind).


----------



## pemerton (Feb 1, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The theme isn't necessarily the point in narrativist play, nor is it necessarily not the point in simulationist play.  I don't believe that theme is exclusive, or even necessarily more strongly developed, in either narrativist or simulationist play.



This suggests to me that you are using "narrativist" - or, perhaps, "theme" - in a different sense from many of the other posters on this thread.

I think that Skeptic, Lost Soul, Apoptosis and I are all using "narrativism" to mean (roughly) play in which the point of the play is for players to make statements about some thematic premise, which statements develop that theme. (If the premise is thought of as a question, then the statements worked out in the course of play would constitute answers to it.)

This understanding more or less entails that play in which the point is not the theme (ie in which the aim of play is not for the players to engage with and develop the theme through their play) is not narrativist play.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Ye gods forbid that one can have a game mechanic for "bad" and still explore whether it is "really" bad.



I want to know more about the mechanic. Of course the game can take place in a world with a received moral code, and narrativistically explore the merits or limitations of that code. I don't think, however, that this is how alignment in D&D is generally used - "good" and "evil" as used in D&D appear to be intended to carry roughly their ordinary meanings in English, and thus to figure in moral inference in the ordinary way.

Keeping this in mind, contrast two facts of entailment: "X believes that Z is bad" does not entail that Z is bad; "Z is bad" does entail that Z is bad. The gameworld with the received moral code is built up of propositions of the first sort, but the D&D gameworld appears to be built up of propositions of the second sort. If you treat them as really propositions of the first sort, then what we get is that the Seven Heavens are the planes of "so-called" goodness, and the Abyss a plane of "so-called" wickedness (and we might ask - so-called by whom?). At that point, why not just drop "Good" and "Evil" as mechanical descriptors and replace them which such traits as "Blessed by the Heavens" and "Empowered by the Abyss", introduce such propositions into our gameworld as "Most humans think that the Heavens are good, but Orcs think that of the Abyss" and leave the players and GM to work out for themselves the moral truth of the situation. (This is an elaboration of my earlier Team A/Team B remarks to Psion.)



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> D&D has a game mechanic for "evil"; clearly that precludes all scenarios in which "good" PCs support an "evil" character because they believe that doing so is better for everyone.



I don't imagine that it does, unless the PC is a Paladin who wants to remain such. But as I posted in reply to Psion (and also in more detail in reply to Kamikaze Midget on the recent Blood War in 4e thread) I don't see how this on its own allows for thematic development. If what the good PCs are doing, in supporting the evil NPC, is really good, then there was no choice. If it is really evil, then they will (in the long run, at least) lose their status as good. Where is the capacity for players to answer a question about good and evil?

My impression is that, in practice, it is not uncommon in such situations for high-intensity alignment debates to erupt at the gaming table. But a peculiar thing about D&D is that its alignment rules tend to shift all those moral arguments to a non-game space (eg messageboard alignment threads) whereas in narrativist play these arguments would be unfolding within the course of play itself (that being the point of narrativist play intended to develop moral themes).



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I've had PCs discuss religion with evil priests, specifically discussing aspects of human sacrifice.  I can say, without fear that I will not be contradicted, that they certainly explored the theme of whether the end justifies the means -- as well as the nature of evil -- in a simulationist game with a mechanic that defines both "good" and "evil" in game terms.



Does "they" denote the PC and NPC, or does it denote you (the player) and your fellow players (including the GM)? I have no doubt that simulationist play has scope for various characters to debate points of morality and religion. But the point of narrativist play (in the sense in which most of the participants in this thread are using that term) is for the _players_ to engage in the questioning and answering.

I could play a simulationist game in which my character is an Aristotelian quite well, playing my PC and arguing out the merits of Aristotelianism against some Kantian NPC. But if that was all that the game permitted, it wouldn't be a game in which I actually got, through the very act of play, to make a statement about the truth or otherwise of Aristotelianism. For that to be the case, I would have to be able to do something else as a player, like have my PC change opinion, or perhaps (adopting a more authorial stance) to play out my PC as having a non-flourishing life as a result of being an Aristotelian.

But in D&D it would be very odd to have my good PC change alignment and decide that good isn't good at all - the very statement sounds contradictory, and once I put the first "good" inside inverted commas (and thus say that "good" isn't good at all) then we are back in the situation where Team A and Team B would be better labels, and the Seven Heavens are simply so-called good (so-called, presumably, by the dominant human religion).

For similar reasons, it would also be very odd for me to adopt author stance towards my PC and try to show that adhering to good ideals will lead to personal ruin, unless again "good" means simply "so-called good".



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Is there anyone in this thread who actually imagines that they _*couldn't*_ do this?



Well I'm in the thread, and I not only imagine but believe that alignment mechanics of the D&D sort (ie which actually make assertions about what is good and what is evil, rather than simply telling us that some people in the gameworld have beliefs about good and evil) are an obstacle to narrativist play intended to answer moral questions. I have experienced it at the gaming table, I have seen it reported on innumerable message board threads and letters to the forum in Dragon, and I have sketched some of the theoretical explanation for it above.

As I noted in my earlier post, those rules aren't necessarily an obstacle to a different sort of narrativist play - for example, one which takes the mechanically defined moral standards for granted and addresses the question of whether corruption is an inevitable feature of human life. But to be honest I have never seen a published example of D&D play that addresses this question (_perhaps_ some early Greyhawk play is an example of such, but I am far from sure).


----------



## pemerton (Feb 1, 2008)

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

So two comments only: (i) your example (which illustrates overwhelming use of force by the GM and appears to give the player no room to make any statement, in the course of play, about any of the putative themes that are at stake) is of a type of high concept simulationist play, not narrativist play; (ii) your comments about mechanics seem not to distinguish between the players getting what they want (which is the chance to make a statement that develops the theme in question) and the PCs getting what they want (which is, in your example, some soup) - but until this distinction is drawn (and thus the role of the metagame appreciated) it is hard to even talk meaningfully about the difference between simulationsit, narrativist and gamist play.


----------



## Antonlowe (Feb 1, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I didn't check to see whether anyone already nitpicked your nitpick, but in the English system, the pound is a unit of force, which means that it is also a unit of weight.  It goes by different names (poundal, pound-force) depending on the context in which it is used (physics, engineering, etc.). The reason why it is often used as a unit of mass is because in certain contexts there is a unit of mass which is defined in terms of the number of pounds of force a quantity of matter exerts due to Earth's gravity.  So a 1 lb. object exerts 1 lb. of force when on the surface of the Earth.  For clarity, these units are often differentiated as pound-force and pound-mass, but most often the pound is used as a unit of force and other units of mass such as the slug or poundal are used, which provides a better system because you don't need an extra multiplier to provide Newton's second law.
> 
> So if we're using the pound as a unit of force, a ship in a low-gravity environment would indeed weigh nothing and thereby satisfy the restrictions of the Mage Hand spell.




Traditionally, the unit of force in the imperial system is the 'slug' (not kidding) and not the pound force, or the pound.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 1, 2008)

Note: Just finished watching the hockey game - we were robbed!  So if I come across as snarky or harsh, I don't mean to.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Seriously, I just don't get this narritivist thing.  Just because you don't feel like keeping track of gold-pieces, for example (like in an Arthurian knights game or superhero game) doesn't mean that some sort of basic reality on the subject isn't assumed to exist at some level.  Every RPG I've ever played has assumed that past is connected to present somehow.  Sure, it's nice when a story evolves, but the the story doesn't evolve at the expense of basic plausiblity.  So are we really just talking about handwaving certain details?




No, you're right - basic reality has to exist at some level.  You need that plausibility.  You just don't _focus_ on the details at expense of theme.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> And what does it mean to "explore" a theme in a game like this?




Well, maybe you just got back from the dungeon, your pack stuffed with gold, looking to burn it on magic items, ale, and whores.

You're approached by the cleric who's been helping you out since level one.  He tells you that the orphanage burned down and they need some cash to get it back in shape.  What do you do?

Let's say you tell him to get lost - the cleric in your party can cast Raise Dead, you don't need him or his wands of cure light wounds any more.

The next time you're in town, the streets are full of urchins.  The DM asks for a Spot check - the DC's pretty low, since the 7-year-old commoner who's trying to cut your purse has a low Sleight of Hand skill.  You deal with him however you want.

You sit down at your favourite tavern.  You notice new whores in the back room.  A lot of them are young.  Really young.  What do you do?

etc.

That's probably a pretty common scenario.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 1, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The theme isn't necessarily the point in narrativist play, nor is it necessarily not the point in simulationist play.  I don't believe that theme is exclusive, or even necessarily more strongly developed, in either narrativist or simulationist play.




Hey RC;

I think we're just working from different definitions.  It's probably better to call "narrativist" play "thematic" play.

Now I'm going to head over to the sandbox thread and try and learn how to run that sort of game - I've never done it before, and it sounds like fun.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 1, 2008)

Antonlowe said:
			
		

> Traditionally, the unit of force in the imperial system is the 'slug' (not kidding) and not the pound force, or the pound.



No, the slug is a unit of mass.  It is equal to 14.5939 kg, according to Wikipedia, who cite Shigley, Joseph E. and Mischke, Charles R. Mechanical Engineering Design, Sixth ed. McGraw Hill, 2006.  I'm too lazy to go digging in my basement for my own textbooks, so I'll leave it at that.

edit: Hey, waitaminute.  If you had actually read my earlier post, you'd see that I in fact mention the slug as one of the units of mass used to make the English system coherent...and by coherent I mean that the equation F=m*a is true, which isn't the case if you use the pound as both a unit of mass and a unit of force, as convenient as it is to do so for the sake of certain calculations.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 1, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Ok, I hope this one is a troll but anyway...
> 
> Ever saw a movie or series like 24 ? That's basically what happens in them.
> 
> ...



The best education I ever got in narrativist games was through My Life With Master.  The game system revolves around one die roll per scene, and there are very specific rules regarding what successes and fails entail in broad terms that set up future scenes in much the way that LostSoul describes with the orphanage below.  The game is designed to model a set of dysfunctional relationships that revolve around the player characters, who are hated and feared by the townspeople, and in turn hate and fear their master, but who build real connections to other human beings--which constitutes the conditions for victory.

It might sound totally fruity if you're not used to it, but it works really well and makes for some excellent gameplay, even among gamers who aren't used to a narrativist game and would have no idea what to do without a lot of structure to direct them.


----------



## Reynard (Feb 1, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Well, maybe you just got back from the dungeon, your pack stuffed with gold, looking to burn it on magic items, ale, and whores.
> 
> You're approached by the cleric who's been helping you out since level one.  He tells you that the orphanage burned down and they need some cash to get it back in shape.  What do you do?
> 
> ...





But something like this -- nice scenario/action vs consequences bit there, by the way -- isn't reallt tied to any of the "models" of play, is it?  I mean, this could just as easily be a DM trying to plausibly simulate what happens in a town when the small group of people capable of making a difference -- the PCs -- decide not to.  His intent isn't necessarily to make the PCs face the theme of poverty.  His intent might be to carry the PCs actions to their logical conclusion based on the simulated setting.  Or am I off base?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 1, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> But something like this -- nice scenario/action vs consequences bit there, by the way -- isn't reallt tied to any of the "models" of play, is it?  I mean, this could just as easily be a DM trying to plausibly simulate what happens in a town when the small group of people capable of making a difference -- the PCs -- decide not to.  His intent isn't necessarily to make the PCs face the theme of poverty.  His intent might be to carry the PCs actions to their logical conclusion based on the simulated setting.  Or am I off base?



Well, is the focus on having a realistic set of consequences for their actions, or to make them face up to the consequences of their actions?  Depending on which aspects of the situation the DM and players choose to focus on, it could go either way, but each would make for a different sort of game.


----------



## Reynard (Feb 1, 2008)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Well, is the focus on having a realistic set of consequences for their actions, or to make them face up to the consequences of their actions?  Depending on which aspects of the situation the DM and players choose to focus on, it could go either way, but each would make for a different sort of game.




I'm all for the first; not so much for the second (just as a matter of preference, mind).  This is due mostly to the fact that there's nothing in the world you can do to make a player "face up" to the consequences if they are not interested in doing so, whereas as DM you can always show those consequences.


----------



## apoptosis (Feb 1, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I'm all for the first; not so much for the second (just as a matter of preference, mind).  This is due mostly to the fact that there's nothing in the world you can do to make a player "face up" to the consequences if they are not interested in doing so, whereas as DM you can always show those consequences.




That is true. Narrativist play is DEFINITELY not for players that are not interested in playing it.

This goes back to the fantasy toolbox idea. No game is well suited to do a lot of different things. I would not play a game whose strength is about exploring themes with players who arent interested. I wouldnt play a sim game if I wanted to have mechanics that explore themes either.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 1, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I'm all for the first; not so much for the second (just as a matter of preference, mind).  This is due mostly to the fact that there's nothing in the world you can do to make a player "face up" to the consequences if they are not interested in doing so, whereas as DM you can always show those consequences.



Right, but remember that in a narrativist game, it's not just about what the DM does.  The players have to be playing along too.  Whether it's easy or hard to keep them "on task" in that regard depends on an intersection of the game mechanics and the participant expertise.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 1, 2008)

Reynard said:
			
		

> But something like this -- nice scenario/action vs consequences bit there, by the way -- isn't reallt tied to any of the "models" of play, is it?




You're right on base.  That could be an example of narrativist, simulationist, or even gamist play, but you can't really tell from just a little snippet like that.  All the social stuff going on around the table is absent, for example.

I do think it shows how narrativism can be, and that it isn't some totally crazy thing that wouldn't be recognized as role-playing.


----------



## gizmo33 (Feb 1, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Ok, I hope this one is a troll but anyway...




Wasn't a troll.  I was serious.  I haven't seen 24 but I suppose there are no other examples?  Narration where the character tells you how they feel about something would be like you telling your fellow players at the table?  And that's what is meant by "exploration?"  I'm surprised, not only that this makes sense to somebody, but that it makes so much sense that you'd expect anyone who doesn't get it to be a troll.


----------



## marune (Feb 1, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I haven't seen 24 but I suppose there are no other examples?  Narration where the character tells you how they feel about something would be like you telling your fellow players at the table?  And that's what is meant by "exploration?"  I'm surprised, not only that this makes sense to somebody, but that it makes so much sense that you'd expect anyone who doesn't get it to be a troll.




Where did you get the "character tells you how they feel about something" idea ?

I give the movies or fast-paced tv-series example because they usually skip much details between the important scenes which depict a conflict (that's called scene framing*).

exploration (with a minus e) in my previous post only means "that's what we will be doing in the game".

In Nar play, exploring the premise (the question) means that the GM will throw at the players conflicting situations where the players will have to give an answer.

That could be done as much in a monster-infested dungeon as in any complex political setting.

Let's elaborate the dungeon example.

In Gamist play, the encounters in the dungeon are opportunities for player to shine at overcoming challenges through tactics and guts decision, to take risks, etc.

In Sim play, the encounters are there to show at the players what it is to explore a dungeon, what kind of creatures you can meet there, what kind of dangers you can face there and how adventurers can survive them. (Other variations are possible).

In Nar play, the encounters are there to address the premise in a specific context. For example, the "end justify the means?" question can be asked when the adventurers capture an monstrous (but minimally intelligent) inhabitant of the dungeon, torturing him to save their asses from the other creatures or giving him a quick death ?

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.


*scene framing can also be done in gam/sim play.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 1, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Wasn't a troll.  I was serious.  I haven't seen 24 but I suppose there are no other examples?




What did you think about my example?



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Narration where the character tells you how they feel about something would be like you telling your fellow players at the table?




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


----------



## gizmo33 (Feb 1, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 1, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> 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.  



			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 1, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 1, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 1, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 1, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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."



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 1, 2008)

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 (Feb 1, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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?"



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 1, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 1, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## marune (Feb 1, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 1, 2008)

Bastoche said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Bastoche said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Bastoche said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 1, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 1, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 2, 2008)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 2, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 2, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 2, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 2, 2008)

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 (Feb 2, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> 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


----------



## marune (Feb 2, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> 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.




You still can have nar play even if you start with a set outcome known by both the GM and the players (some poster pointed out a Sorcerer's supplement that does it).

All you need is a premise that is not already answered by this outcome.

Of course, that's not the same as "plot-base railroading".

I'll try an example, don't worry to destroy if needed :

Introduce the players to the Ravenloft setting in this way : You have been brought to the dark, mysterious, inescapable, dread land of Ravenloft through the mists. In less than a year, you will all have been either killed by a horde of zombies, gone insane, or worse turned into an undead yourself. How will you spend the time you have left ?

When a player decide that he as done what must be done to give his answer, he can narrates how it ended for his character.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 2, 2008)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> 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.




I think that's why they _can't_ exist in harmony.  One of the most powerful rewards in this little hobby of ours is the social one; positive reinforcement from other players validating your choices (even if it's in a "man, you really hosed me there, nice work" way).  When the people that you're playing with don't even notice the really cool thing you just did, I don't think it works so well.

I shouldn't say that it can't work, just that I don't think it works as well.  When everyone has the same agenda, and you're all "grooving" on each other's choices, it's awesome.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 2, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> 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.




I think that's probably because "narrativism" is a poor choice of words.  "Thematic" sounds better to me.

edit: A poor choice by those who came up with the term.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 2, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> 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.



OK, sorry for the mis-attribution and thanks for the reply.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 2, 2008)

Batoche, interesting posts. I agree especially about the "problem player" threads and GNS incompatability.


----------



## marune (Feb 2, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> Batoche, interesting posts. I agree especially about the "problem player" threads and GNS incompatability.




Bastoche was one of my D&D player and he brutally introduced me to RPG theory some time ago, I asked him to come play with us on this thread


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Feb 2, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Simulation has been eliminated as a design goal in 4e.
> 
> This is a fact.
> 
> D&D 4e is not ideally suited to sandbox play or rules-emergent world building.




Eh. Let me get my hands on the actual rules, and then I'll see what I can do with them and Urbis.

I see no need for unwarranted pessimism as long as the final version of the rules is not yet available.


----------



## Victim (Feb 2, 2008)

Sim isn't by necessity about emulating real life; it can include what if scenarios and genre conventions (although realistic is probably the most common goal).  You could still have HP and such; it's just that those would be built into the internal logic of the world.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 2, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> I see no need for unwarranted pessimism as long as the final version of the rules is not yet available.



Who said anything about pessimism?!


----------



## Bastoche (Feb 2, 2008)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> 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




The point in nar play is not to determine *what* happens but rather *how* it happens and more importantly at what cost. It may be with a plot agreed upon beforehand (heroquest IIRC 3e) or it could be a bit more "open-ended" like in burning wheel. In the later, the players give "hints" to the GM but he pretty much take the lead. However, he may not forsee to far ahead where the campaing is heading and he would be ill-advised to railraod his players.

To echo LostSoul's question about the term, I guess it comes from the idea to give more "control" to the PC over the imagined universe. At least all the control of his PC.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 4, 2008)

Bastoche said:
			
		

> The point in nar play is not to determine *what* happens but rather *how* it happens and more importantly at what cost.




The point, as I understand it, of simulationist play is to determine what happens, how it happens, _*and*_ at what cost.

RC


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 4, 2008)

Simulationists don't care about realism, rules simulating real world physics, etc.

Simulationism is only about having an in-game rationalization for everything that happens in the game. If the rules allow the DM to give in-game explanation for everything in the rules, even if it's a poor attempt like "that martial power is per encounter because the enemy won't fall for the same trick again" I'll be happy and satisfied, TYVM.

Characters can't speak or understand "metagamish". If we can't translate that to "ingamish", character immersion is hurt, and the gameworld starts to fall appart.


----------



## Imban (Feb 4, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Simulationists don't care about realism, rules simulating real world physics, etc.
> 
> Simulationism is only about having an in-game rationalization for everything that happens in the game. If the rules allow the DM to give in-game explanation for everything in the rules, even if it's a poor attempt like "that martial power is per encounter because the enemy won't fall for the same trick again" I'll be happy and satisfied, TYVM.
> 
> Characters can't speak or understand "metagamish". If we can't translate that to "ingamish", character immersion is hurt, and the gameworld starts to fall appart.




There are definitely two camps among players who enjoy "Simulationist" play, and it's one of my biggest gripes with the divisions, since people who love it when their games simulate a reality and people who love it when their games simulate a genre are both lumped under "Simulationist", but they rarely would want the same sort of mechanics. There's definitely some overlap, certainly, but there's heavy metagaming involved in genre simulation - characters are expected to *just not do* things that are out of genre. For the genre simulator, "Why can't I use this super attack twice in a row?" can be answered by "Do you see heroes in the source material using their ultimate attacks over and over again in battle, or just once to end the fight? HINT: Not the former.", while there absolutely has to be a non-metagame rationale for the reality simulator.

Note that I say *a* reality, not reality. White Wolf's games, for instance, have always been strongly supportive of reality-simulationist play because they take strong steps to remove solely metagame conceits - heck, several character statistic terms (for example, Blood Points in Vampire: the Masquerade and motes of Essence in Exalted) are also actual setting terms that can be and are analyzed and studied. Heck, scene-length Charms are so common in Exalted - and so much precedent for this sort of thing is given - that experienced Exalts probably have a good idea of what a scene is!


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 4, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> There are definitely two camps among players who enjoy "Simulationist" play, and it's one of my biggest gripes with the divisions, since people who love it when their games simulate a reality and people who love it when their games simulate a genre are both lumped under "Simulationist", but they rarely would want the same sort of mechanics. There's definitely some overlap, certainly, but there's heavy metagaming involved in genre simulation - characters are expected to *just not do* things that are out of genre. For the genre simulator, "Why can't I use this super attack twice in a row?" can be answered by "Do you see heroes in the source material using their ultimate attacks over and over again in battle, or just once to end the fight? HINT: Not the former.", while there absolutely has to be a non-metagame rationale for the reality simulator.



I don't know about GNS, but I don't consider "genre simulation" to be simulationism. The logic of the rules, their rationalization are based on the assumption that they are there to create the simulated genre's atmosphere. Rules are there to enforce the game to be just like that movie's stories. What genre simulation has are "metastory" explanations. It lacks in-game rationalization so, IMO, it's not not simulationist.


----------



## marune (Feb 4, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> I don't know about GNS, but I don't consider "genre simulation" to be simulationism. The logic of the rules, their rationalization are based on the assumption that they are there to create the simulated genre's atmosphere. Rules are there to enforce the game to be just like that movie's stories. What genre simulation has are "metastory" explanations. It lacks in-game rationalization so, IMO, it's not not simulationist.




In "Forgespeak" :

"genre simulation" is called "high-concept simulationism" (VtM, CoC, etc.)

Simulationist that cares mainly about in-game rationalization is called "Purist for System" (GURPS, etc).


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 4, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> In "Forgespeak" :
> 
> "genre simulation" is called "high-concept simulationism" (VtM, CoC, etc.)
> 
> Simulationist that cares mainly about in-game rationalization is called "Purist for System" (GURPS, etc).



Yeah I know. I just have diferent understadings. I consider "The Purist for the system" to be simly simulationism, "High concept simulationism" or "genre simulation" is narrativism/cinemativism and what The Forge calls narrativism is not even roleplaying game, it's storytelling game.
But that's another discussion for another thread, and I hope, another forums


----------



## Imban (Feb 4, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> In "Forgespeak" :
> 
> "genre simulation" is called "high-concept simulationism" (VtM, CoC, etc.)
> 
> Simulationist that cares mainly about in-game rationalization is called "Purist for System" (GURPS, etc).




See, the WoD games are full of in-game rationalizations, from my point of view. There are a few things (the Masquerade itself) which receive "plot protection" above and beyond rationalization, but people will usually accept that because it's the premise: "Vampires exist, and control society while being hidden from it."

I just think any system of categorization that lumps *GURPS* and *Wushu* together is pretty clearly doing things wrong.


----------



## Bastoche (Feb 4, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Yeah I know. I just have diferent understadings. I consider "The Purist for the system" to be simly simulationism, "High concept simulationism" or "genre simulation" is narrativism/cinemativism and what The Forge calls narrativism is not even roleplaying game, it's storytelling game.
> But that's another discussion for another thread, and I hope, another forums




IMO, the difference between "genre simulation" and what I believe you call "narrativism/cinemativism" is who says what is "in-genre" and "out-of-genre" (i.e. forbidden during the game, or at least frowned upon). In the former, the genre is built-in in the rules via internal logic while in the later, the genre is hard-wired by the players into the characters/game world (and via game mechanics).

I think the simplest way to define simulationism in it's essence is by the (ideal) absence of metagaming.


----------



## Bastoche (Feb 4, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The point, as I understand it, of simulationist play is to determine what happens, how it happens, _*and*_ at what cost.
> 
> RC




The "at what cost" aspect is paramount to nar play IMO and _quite_ in contradiction to sim play. If you don't think it is, you're not really talking about sim play IMO.

The "at what cost" part _assumes_ and _forces_ acheivement. What I mean by that is that the characters will achieve what they were made up for. It's inevitable. However, the game mechanics will imply a myriad of paths as to how that come to pass.

It goes against sim because in sim, you do not know if the characters will acheive what they want to acheive or not. As soon as you introduce a mechanic that garantee a specific outcome, you're not siming anymore. And if you do not have a garantee concerning a certain "end game event" than the bit about "at what cost" becomes meaningless. It may only bear a meaning if the goal is acheived. And in sim play, you cannot have that sort of garantee else you're not playing a "100%" sim game, whatever that means.

Anyone who tried to "adress premise" in an actual sim game knows that it just don't happen. It turns into "guess work" because the GM gives "hints" to the players that aren't obivous because the players aren't the same persons as the GM and they don't see the imagine universe the same way as the GM do. Skeptic can testify on this. If you want the players to acheive a specific goal in gamist and sim play, you must use railroading. If the players don't mind being railroaded there is no problems. However if you want to give the players and GM a tool or tools to avoid railroading while still going on a "main plot" then you got some nar play going on. At least a certain fraction of it.

It's an out of game agreement about what the players will do. Assuming the GM wants to see the whole plot being resolved, there has to be a mechanic to allow it which either scale down the "challenges" in gamist play or goes against "internal logic" in sim play.


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 4, 2008)

From the latest Design & Development article:

"Finally, it had to be *believable * within the heroic-fantasy milieu of D&D. (*Believability * isn’t the same thing as realism—an error which has ruined more games than I can count.)"

"Despite some quite elegant concepts, none of our radical new ideas met all the criteria necessary, including simplicity, playability, fun, and *believability*."

"It had to be at least as much fun as what already existed, and it had to be at least as *believable * as what already existed."

"Maybe they were playable but too abstract to feel fun or *believable*, or they were *believable * but too complicated to remember."

Simulationism is not dead at all. Let's celebrate!


----------



## marune (Feb 4, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> From the latest Design & Development article:
> 
> ...
> 
> Simulationism is not dead at all. Let's celebrate!




Cough, cough.

Simulationist is defined by a main focus on Exploration.

D&D 4E may be a "high-exploration" gamist RPG, but certainly not a simulationist one.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 4, 2008)

Bastoche said:
			
		

> The "at what cost" aspect is paramount to nar play IMO and _quite_ in contradiction to sim play. If you don't think it is, you're not really talking about sim play IMO.
> 
> The "at what cost" part _assumes_ and _forces_ acheivement. What I mean by that is that the characters will achieve what they were made up for. It's inevitable.





I don't believe that I agree with this.  I mean, I certainly agree that sim play mandates the possibililty of failure, but that possibility of failure is a potential cost of trying.  To say that you must succeed in order to be concerned with the "at what cost" part is, IMHO, frankly limiting to what costs may be incurred.

RC


----------



## Bastoche (Feb 4, 2008)

IMO, in this context, "believability" is kinda meaningless as it should be there in each and every game out there lol. That being said the definition of "believability" certainly is in the eye of the beholder (and not the one with a big central eye and a couple of tentacled others  )


----------



## Bastoche (Feb 4, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I don't believe that I agree with this.  I mean, I certainly agree that sim play mandates the possibililty of failure, but that possibility of failure is a potential cost of trying.  To say that you must succeed in order to be concerned with the "at what cost" part is, IMHO, frankly limiting to what costs may be incurred.
> 
> RC




Tell me at what cost you acheived "Y" when "Y" never was acheived?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 4, 2008)

Bastoche said:
			
		

> Anyone who tried to "adress premise" in an actual sim game knows that it just don't happen. It turns into "guess work" because the GM gives "hints" to the players that aren't obivous because the players aren't the same persons as the GM and they don't see the imagine universe the same way as the GM do. Skeptic can testify on this.




Obviously, both you and Skeptic have experiences that universally apply to all games and all gamers, everywhere.    



> If you want the players to acheive a specific goal in gamist and sim play, you must use railroading.




If you want the players to achieve a specific goal in ANY play, you must use railroading.  Of course, the players may choose to go along with the railroad.  "An out of game agreement about what the players will do" is an agreed-upon railroad, whether you're primarily sim or nar in playstyel.

In a sim game, you can seed thematic exploration, and then allow the players to choose what themes to follow, in the same way as they can choose what adventures to follow.  I fail to see why you believe that this would be at all difficult.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 4, 2008)

Bastoche said:
			
		

> Tell me at what cost you acheived "Y" when "Y" never was acheived?




Tell me why "Y" was never achieved, and I will tell you at what cost you pursued "Y".

RC


----------



## pemerton (Feb 4, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Characters can't speak or understand "metagamish". If we can't translate that to "ingamish", character immersion is hurt, and the gameworld starts to fall appart.



But players speak and understand "metagamish", and they translate it into "ingamish" via the process of running their PCs (and doing whatever else they are permitted to under the rules).



			
				Imban said:
			
		

> There are definitely two camps among players who enjoy "Simulationist" play, and it's one of my biggest gripes with the divisions



I agree there can be a confusion here.



			
				Bastoche said:
			
		

> I think the simplest way to define simulationism in it's essence is by the (ideal) absence of metagaming.



But doesn't high-concept simulationism have at least implicit metagame when the players agree to subordinate their mechanical decision-making to genre imperatives? Or does that only happen in a poorly-designed ruleset - a perfect high-concept ruleset wouldn't permit genre violation (like Pendragon, perhaps)?



			
				ainatan said:
			
		

> Yeah I know. I just have diferent understadings. I consider "The Purist for the system" to be simly simulationism, "High concept simulationism" or "genre simulation" is narrativism/cinemativism and what The Forge calls narrativism is not even roleplaying game, it's storytelling game.



That's a pretty strong thing to say given that narrativist play takes place using RPGs (eg Champions, Tunnels and Trolls, Marvel Superheroes, OD&D - to mention some of the mainstream games that Ron Edwards discusses narrativist play of in his essays).

Maybe what you mean is that it's not how you like to play an RPG.


----------



## Bastoche (Feb 4, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Obviously, both you and Skeptic have experiences that universally apply to all games and all gamers, everywhere.




That contributes to the discussion...



> If you want the players to achieve a specific goal in ANY play, you must use railroading.  Of course, the players may choose to go along with the railroad.  "An out of game agreement about what the players will do" is an agreed-upon railroad, whether you're primarily sim or nar in playstyel.




I strongly disagree. If the players create characters that have a specific goal, the DM can "throw ideas at the players" and vice versa which IMO is not railroading. Railroading is: the DM writes a scenario and the players follow along or a made following.



> In a sim game, you can seed thematic exploration, and then allow the players to choose what themes to follow, in the same way as they can choose what adventures to follow.  I fail to see why you believe that this would be at all difficult.
> 
> RC




My point is that this is NOT sim play anymore. IMO, your first sentence is EXACTLY the definition of my ideal game and it sure ain't no sim game. That's what I'm trying to say. "seed[ing] thematic exploration, and then allow[ing] the players to choose what themes to follow, in the same way as they can choose what adventures to follow" is either nar play or sim drift toward nar play. No matter how you call that game, it has at least a small proportion of nar play thrown in. Because that way, the "plot unweaving" is hardwired in the game via player and GM priorities. They agree out of game or meta gamingly to do *something* (specific). Then they collectively "work" on/toward a plot. That's not sim play IMO.


----------



## Bastoche (Feb 4, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Tell me why "Y" was never achieved, and I will tell you at what cost you pursued "Y".
> 
> RC




It was never question of _pursuing_ "Y". But rather of _achieving_ "Y". In sim, you may not acheive while in a given nar game about the "costs of acheiving "Y"", you KNOW beforehand that "Y" _will_ be acheived.

In a sim game, you may in retrospec dicuss about the costs of acheiving "Y" when "Y" did happened. But it's not the GOAL of the game. It's color. An added or bonus feature. In nar game, it's the very goal so the rules are such that Y will happen no matter the costs. And the costs is what the players are exploring.

I'm not saying that what comes out of a nar game never come out of a sim game. I'm just saying that the player's source of "fun" in either game is different and therefore requires different rules.


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 4, 2008)

skeptic said:
			
		

> Cough, cough.
> 
> Simulationist is defined by a main focus on Exploration.
> 
> D&D 4E may be a "high-exploration" gamist RPG, but certainly not a simulationist one.



Maybe yes, maybe no. Who knows?
All I care now is that my worries are gone and I can peacefully and happily wait for 4E.
"simplicity, playability, fun, and believability" are my key words when DMing. I'm more then satisfied. 4E won't let me down.
LET THE BABY DANCE!


----------



## Bastoche (Feb 4, 2008)

pemerton said:
			
		

> But doesn't high-concept simulationism have at least implicit metagame when the players agree to subordinate their mechanical decision-making to genre imperatives? Or does that only happen in a poorly-designed ruleset - a perfect high-concept ruleset wouldn't permit genre violation (like Pendragon, perhaps)?




I believe you cannot entirely eliminate metagaming in any form of play. Just having the players calling each other, decide on a meeting place and a time frame for the game to happen is metagaming in itself. Just like ordering pizza or whatever lol. However I think that simulationism have as a design goal the minimization of metagaming.

For example, in a computer game, you may only select character options from the menus. You couldn't, for example, play an elephant in NWN. I believe that in sim play, the players expect the other players to "just get it" although it is safer to talk about it first to make sure which is a form of metagaming IMO that is unavoidable in coherent play.

For example, in sim play, you'll see players "hiding" their character sheets from other players as "in-game" they wouldn't have any way to get such information. The numbers on the paper serves as an abstraction of the imagined universe. In gamist play, it's a measure of character power. In nar play, it's a medium to tell the other players "I want this game to be EXACTLY about *that*". And at this point, it must be part of the rule that each players know what the other players want to extract from the game.

I'll try to rephrase it another way:

In all types of gaming, the players must agree on their definition of "fun" and we assume a given group of players are after the same source of "fun". What happens at the metagaming level is having the players agree on their source of fun. For gamists, the source of fun is "gambling". For sim players, the source of fun is the "exploration of character/system/game world". For nar players, it's a specific "theme" or "premise".

Now, the "gambling" in gamist play may sit at the "in-game level": 

Steve playing bob the fighter: Gursk, let's get to the sea of spikes dungeons. I heard there's a dragon laying there with a legendary treasure
John playing Gursk the barbarian: Sure Bob! I'm sure we can survive this dungeon!

Or at the metagame level:

Steve: Hey John, think our 13th level warriors can tackle the red dragon?
John: Dunno but I'd like to see it's treasure. Let's find out if we can down that beast!

The exploration in sim play can sit at the in-game level too:

Steve playing Bob the fighter: Gursk, I gotta get revenge from the dragon that hails in the sea of spikes dungeons. It killed my mommy when I was 6. Will you help me?
John playing Gursk: My Lord Bob, I'm bound to you by honor and will follow you anywhere.

Or at the metagame level:

Steve: My character needs to get revenge on the red dragon. It has acquire the dragon slaying blade and is now ready to tackle the dragon.
John: Since my barb failed his slave roll, I'm enslaved to your character and my guy will follow your guy until the end of the duration of the curse.

And finally the "premise" thing in nar play at the in-game level can certainly sound like the in-game level of a sim game. However, the metagame level is quite different:

Steve: I got a rank 2 destiny score: Slaying dragons Wouldn't it be fun to kill the red dragon?
John: I spent my fate point on being enslaved to your character. It should give me bonus when helping your guy. Let's go!

My example might not be perfect, but I'm trying to illustrate that the PLAYER priorities toward to game to get fun doesn't sit at the same level despite the in-game event being the same or almost.


----------



## Bastoche (Feb 4, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Maybe yes, maybe no. Who knows?
> All I care now is that my worries are gone and I can peacefully and happily wait for 4E.
> "simplicity, playability, fun, and believability" are my key words when DMing. I'm more then satisfied. 4E won't let me down.
> LET THE BABY DANCE!




fair enough lol

All it boils down to is: If you're having fun playing the way you play, keep doing it that way!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 4, 2008)

Bastoche said:
			
		

> It was never question of _pursuing_ "Y". But rather of _achieving_ "Y". In sim, you may not acheive while in a given nar game about the "costs of acheiving "Y"", you KNOW beforehand that "Y" _will_ be acheived.
> 
> In a sim game, you may in retrospec dicuss about the costs of acheiving "Y" when "Y" did happened. But it's not the GOAL of the game. It's color. An added or bonus feature. In nar game, it's the very goal so the rules are such that Y will happen no matter the costs. And the costs is what the players are exploring.
> 
> I'm not saying that what comes out of a nar game never come out of a sim game. I'm just saying that the player's source of "fun" in either game is different and therefore requires different rules.




Jeez, now I'm confused.

In a nar game, you can explore the costs of achieving Y, but not the costs of _attempting_ to achieve Y?!?

So, a sim game is the one in which, when you explore a theme, you can fail, but a nar game is the one in which, when you explore a theme, you can never fail?    

Sorry, but the nar games LostSoul is talking about seem a lot more like games to me, and what you are talking about seems a lot more like discussing what happened after the fact.  Fun to do with my friends Guiness and Glenfiddich, perhaps, but not so much a game per se.

And, you are right, that in a game where you can fail, exploring themes is often (but obviously not always) not THE goal, but it certainly can be ONE OF the goals.  

Again, there is nothing you are describing that cannot be achieved in a sim game, with the exception of having automatically won, and you can still do that by starting the sim after the win and exploring the simulated consequences of the win.

I simply don't see your argument.

RC


----------



## Bastoche (Feb 4, 2008)

My argument is that in sim game, the emphasis in placed upon exploration (of character, system or universe). What I call "theme" is not what would be called "genre" in sim play (so-called "high concept").

My "Y" example would be better explained via an example game. Let's take dogs in the vineyard. In the game, the PCs are holy gunslingers who brings justice by fighting evil. The game takes place in what is called a "town". There is some people doing bad things in the town which draw God's wrath. For example, crops are dying because some people are doing bad things. When the town event is resolved, the PCs have fought the evil and crops grow again. What the game goal is about is at what cost did that evil was fought? The town will forever be changed from the coming of the dogs (the holy gunslingers) for good or ill, most often ill. Fighting evil comes with a price and what the game is about.

In a sim game, you may still have dogs and town with evil etc. However, the goal of the game is not fighting evil per se. It may be the in-game goals of the characters but it's not the goal of the game itself. It could just be "Let's play in that setting to see what happens?"

What I'm saying too is that if you want to explore a "theme" (not as in "genre" but as in "premise"), if it's not hardwired into the rules, you cannot know if the theme will be explored or not whereas in nar game, you make it happen. You can say a sim bunch of players make sure theme and premise adressing is happening to which I say it's not playing sim.

Another way to put it is that to "hardcore" sim players, if no theme is adressed, the game is still fun (assuming the "sim" part is fullfilled in play) while it's boring to nar players.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 4, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In a nar game, you can explore the costs of achieving Y, but not the costs of _attempting_ to achieve Y?!?
> 
> So, a sim game is the one in which, when you explore a theme, you can fail, but a nar game is the one in which, when you explore a theme, you can never fail?




Hey RC;

I think Bastoche is talking about a game that begins like so:

"The old heroes gathered round one last time before death came calling.

'Fellows, on the eve of our last battle, tell me a story.'

'What would you hear?'

'Tell me of the time you defeated the Dragon of Brestwolk.'"

The Dragon has been defeated, and we learn what the PC went gave up to win that victory.  We already know that he's succeeded, we're just going to learn what it cost him.

I think you could do that in a sim game too, though; the focus would be more on the journey, the world, the different stuff to see there, the ecology of the dragon's habitat, etc.  More like a travelogue; and while theme may be present, it wouldn't be _the point_ of playing through that adventure.

In the nar game, players gloss over all those facts unless they directly impact the theme.


----------



## Bastoche (Feb 4, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Hey RC;
> 
> I think Bastoche is talking about a game that begins like so:
> 
> ...




Yes. And I'd add that MY way of playing nar is to have players and the GM agree before hand on what the game will be about "We're a bunch of low life scundrels trying to build up a thief guild that will one day take control over the king via political leverage". There's few details about how and when all this stuff happens. But the players agree that whatever will happen in-game is purposfully happening toward that goal. The GM's scenes will be framed toward that end and the players are expected to make their character act toward that goal. They may not succeed, but the point of the game is to atempt that and everything that happens in-game should build up toward a climax where the goal of the game is directly adressed.

In Burning Wheel, for example, the "end goal" can change during play because of player priorities changing BECAUSE is in-game events. In sim play, the character priorites may change because of in-game event, but in principles it has nothing to do with the player priorities toward the game. In sim play, player priority should be the exploration itself. Not the object of exploration nor the end goal.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 4, 2008)

Bastoche said:
			
		

> In a sim game, you may still have dogs and town with evil etc. However, the goal of the game is not fighting evil per se.




You had me until here.  Here, my question becomes "Why not?"



> What I'm saying too is that if you want to explore a "theme" (not as in "genre" but as in "premise"), if it's not hardwired into the rules, you cannot know if the theme will be explored or not whereas in nar game, you make it happen.




Sure, if you want to explore a theme in a nar game, you cannot know if the theme will be explored unless the players are willing to make it happen.  And if you want to explore a theme in a sim game, you can only do so if the players are willing to make it happen.

I am suggesting that you are setting up a false dichotomy about what is possible in each game style.



> Another way to put it is that to "hardcore" sim players, if no theme is adressed, the game is still fun (assuming the "sim" part is fullfilled in play) while it's boring to nar players.




Ah, but I am not suggesting that it is incorrect to say that sim cannot occur without theme; I am suggesting that it is incorrect to say that sim cannot handle theme as well as nar.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 4, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Hey RC;
> 
> I think Bastoche is talking about a game that begins like so:




In either a sim or a nar game, the players could focus on what the PC went gave up to win that victory.  A sim game includes more than theme, but theme can be the focus (indeed, _the point_) of playing through that adventure.  A sim game can simulate "This is what is important to the characters and the world" as well as merely simulate the characters and the world.  Theme is a _part_ of a sim game; the importance of that part is a decision made by the players on a campaign, session, and/or adventure basis.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 4, 2008)

Bastoche said:
			
		

> Yes. And I'd add that MY way of playing nar is to have players and the GM agree before hand on what the game will be about "We're a bunch of low life scundrels trying to build up a thief guild that will one day take control over the king via political leverage". There's few details about how and when all this stuff happens. But the players agree that whatever will happen in-game is purposfully happening toward that goal. The GM's scenes will be framed toward that end and the players are expected to make their character act toward that goal. They may not succeed, but the point of the game is to atempt that and everything that happens in-game should build up toward a climax where the goal of the game is directly adressed.




And again, in either type of play this may be the case.



> In sim play, player priority should be the exploration itself. Not the object of exploration nor the end goal.




I think that you are artificially and unnecessarily limiting what sim play can be about, and what sim play can accomplish.


RC


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 4, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> A sim game includes more than theme, but theme can be the focus (indeed, _the point_) of playing through that adventure.




Hey RC;

I would define that kind of play as narrativist.

Somewhat unrelated: We have a little convention going on in TO in a couple of weeks.  Here's some information on that - check it out, if you're interested.

I think some narrativist games will be busted out in the 2nd half of the day.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 5, 2008)

I think we're getting dragged down into definition hell. The way I look at is that pure simulation is imersion oriented. Any exploration of theme is purely accidental once play has begun since the principle goal of simulation is fidelity to character and world. The simulationist player is not trying to make a statement when his character is faced with any given decision - rather he is solely concerned with how his character would react. Likewise a pure simulationist GM does not care about exploring theme when creating game material - rather his primary concern is fidelity with previous material. A simulationist GM does not include orc babies because he is aiming to explore the nature of an orc's violent tendencies - the orc babies are there since orcs have babies.

On the other hand, a nar agenda involves a certain amount of seperation between character and player. While fidelity to character might impact the decisions a nar player makes, he is principly concerned with the best way to make the statement he wishes to make. He will often make decisions that do not have the highest degree of fidelity with what is known about his character. 

Of course the waters are pretty muddy since pure sim and pure nar types are relatively rare. Additionally, examples are usually not that effective unless they actually address player thought process and active communication. There's no way to tell from a story hour if a given game focused on sim or nar concerns.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 5, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In a nar game, you can explore the costs of achieving Y, but not the costs of _attempting_ to achieve Y?!?



These would be two different themes to be explored.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So, a sim game is the one in which, when you explore a theme, you can fail, but a nar game is the one in which, when you explore a theme, you can never fail?



In a good narrativist game, when the players set out to explore a theme, they do not fail to do so (ie fail to explore that theme) - just as, at a good poker night, one doesn't fail to play some poker.

Now, if the theme to be explored is "The cost of achieving Y" then achievement of Y has to be a given. How the RPG actually guarantees the achievement of Y is a different matter, and might depend on what Y is. Maybe the setting has it built in (eg Dying Earth takes for granted that the cost of dealing with wackos will be explored, because towns populated by wackos are build into the setting). Maybe the players have Fate Points which give them force in respect of certain crucial ingame matters on which Y's realisation turns. Or whatever.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sure, if you want to explore a theme in a nar game, you cannot know if the theme will be explored unless the players are willing to make it happen.  And if you want to explore a theme in a sim game, you can only do so if the players are willing to make it happen.



I think that Lost Soul and Bastoche are right - that what you're describing here is the difference between narrativist play and narrativist play ie no difference at all.

If the players all choose to develop a theme, and make that part of their play, they are playing narrativist. (Now maybe what you mean is that the players choose to explore someone else's development of a theme eg they choose to play the DL modules, and to enjoy immersion in the narrative that the novel and module authors have already created. That wouldn't be narrativist, it would be high-concept simulations - but also, it wouldn't involve any development of any theme, because the authors have already done all that.)


----------



## Bastoche (Feb 5, 2008)

I think it boils down to definition hell like someone mentionned. I strongly think that what you refer to RC is nar play. You just coin it a sim name and I fail to see why. Yes theme can be explored in a sim game but unlike nar play, it is not the point. As soon as you _make_ it the point, you slip into nar territory.

All the supplementary conditions you add to sim play to make it adress a theme/premise make it nar no matter if the _rules system_ you actually use isn't.

In other words, yes you can take a sim game (like gurps) and add a layer of theme adressing via players agreement but you've just added a "house rule" to make theme happen which boils down to layering a nar part (via house ruling) into the game.

"Adressing theme in play" is THE definition of nar play. (a)

"Exploring the system/characters/setting" is THE definition of sim play. (b)

You can then imagine a game 100% (a) which would be 100% nar and a game 100% (b) which would be 100% sim. You suggest going from (b) toward (a) and I assume you have more than 50% (b) and the rest (a) and you want to still call it sim. You can certainly continuously go from (a) to (b) and vice versa. I think our disagreement lay on what level of mix you stop to call a game (b) and call it (a) or vice versa. IMO, a 20% (a) 80% (b) I call that a sim-nar game. It IS sim and it IS nar. What I'm saying is that a game that is not 100% (b) cannot be simply described as being a sim game.


----------

