Hmm, this reply got kind of long, but I hope it is of some interest.
Quoting Roger Burton West :
> Umph. You can have tactical conflict simulations without narrative:
> that's your basic dungeon-bash. Can you have something that involves actual
> role-playing?
Wargaming has no role-playing, you are just manipulating game pieces. Most
dungeon-bashers that I've met do indeed identify with their character, and in
achetype games like D&D have sharply defined functional roles. IMO role does
not require a separate fictional persona; role can also be "what would I do?"
> To me, narrative is the structure that gives you a reason to play a
> role; it may arise from player or GM actions, but essentially it is the
> larger story of a character's progress.
The way I see it,
characters + situation => story
[---"simulation"-----]
That is, put characters in an interesting situation and you get a story. It
may or may not be a _good_ story. Furthermore, you can run the equation
backwards: given a desired story-output, you can work backs to determine what
inputs you need to get there.
The interaction between characters and situation is the simulation, and
usually is carefully defined and governed by rules, mechanics, or reason. The
story narrative is just a record of simulated events.
A ROLE playing game focuses on quality inputs: player decisions (expressed
through characters). The story output is not important, except to the extent
it recounts an enjoyable play experience. The play itself is its own reward.
What little story is produced tends to take the form of anecdotes (the time I
did this, or when Joe died humorously, etc), and even these reflect the
quality of play more than any sort of dramatic quality. Witness the many "I
guess you had to be there" anecdotes.
- direct ("what will I do") vs indirect ("what would my character do")
- quality play may mean "winning", "immersion", etc.
- seeks to guarantee play at the expense of the story
A STORY playing game focuses on quality output. Inputs are malleable and
unimportant, except to the extent they produce quality output. A story game
starts with story goals and works backwards to construct events that meet
those goals. Simulation cause-and-effect can be modified or ignored. Events
are only described in enough detail for story needs, no more.
- quality output means the story is dramatic and follows narrative conventions
- seeks to guarantee story at the expense of simulation
In practical terms,
Gamism (including dungeon crawling) is pure RPG. It is entirely
character-focused, and the emphasis is on tactical decision-making and clever
play. Player roles are usually direct, and actions follow player goals
(metagame) rather than any sort of IC goals. This is a form of simulationism,
in that the characters and situation are usually governed by tightly-defined
rules.
Simulationism comes in at leats two other flavors. One is "indirect
exploration" where the players create a fictional persona and seek to
simulate that character's life as accurately as possible. The other is
"direct exploration" where the players do whatever they feel like doing,
without a strong focus either on playing a persona or on overcoming
challenges; this latter is probably the most common in my experience, living
vicarously in a fantasy world and doing things you cannot normally do.
Narrativism is a hybrid between RPG and SPG. It focuses on story, but seeks to
use simulationist methods to produce that story. That is, it plays like a
normal RPG except that either characters (players), situation (GM), or both
are deliberately making decisions based on story rather than simulation.
Setting stakes is a perfect example, as the players and GM make decisions
based on desired outcomes rather than what would really happen, modify the
simulation to produce those results, but then (typically) resolve using
simulation mechanics. Fudge points are another example, allowing re-rolls
based on desired outcomes.
Another form of narrativist game builds story mechanics into the simulation,
so that players play normally (as it if were not narrativist) but ideally get
a quality story output. IMO this is very difficult to do without wrecking the
"reality" of the simulation, and such games generally only produce ONE kind
of story because it is programmed in mechanically rather than being
consciously controlled. A possible example here is DITV, which sacrifices
almost all sim detail in order to produce story output, and also tells only
one story: judgement. The details vary but the story is the same. Other
examples are Paladin (which produces a story about purity and corruption),
TSOY with its influence pools and "bringing down the pain", and ironically
AD&D with its rags-to-riches progression and class archetypes.
Pure SPG would create the story directly. Baron Munchausen is a pure SPG
although pretty thin on "game" mechanics. (What it lacks in quality play
though is made up for in beer!) Donjon is a step in this direction in that
players can pretty much make up whatever they think is cool and justify it
later, although it uses simulationist terms. Primetime Adventures sounds like
a nearly pure SPG in that it only has mechanics for controlling the story and
does _no_ simulation; still it is a hybrid insofar as it has a character
focus. I think a pure SPG would look rather like the greek gods playing chess
with mortal pawns, where all characters are merely playing pieces to be used
and discarded. Aria Roleplaying came close to this concept.
The ideal seems to be a game that always provides quality interaction (with
sim) AND always produces quality story. This is elusive because if you focus
on the former without attention to the latter, you lose control; if you
program it in mechanically you are limited; if you pay attention to the
latter you lose immersion and compromise the fidelity of the sim, and also
lose play quality (ie tactics).
Some forge designers seem to be moving in the direction of providing quality
play through *story* mechanics rather than sim, possibly dispensing with RP
altogether. Forge games are thus often very gamist and mechanical, providing
needed play quality and challenge but moving away RP.
There is a way to pull it off (quality play AND quality story), and that is to
appoint a god-like third party to be responsible for story, so the players can
play 100% sim but still have someone watching out for the story. To maintain
immersion, the god-like storyteller should manipulate the story indirectly,
ie by the actions of freewilled NPCs or by adding/removing elements offstage;
the river flows where it will, none the wiser, but God puts mountains and
valleys where he wants.
Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
