OK /tg/ can someone clarify something for me?
Cause I talk to people about these two words and what I gather is:
Narrativist indicates your game follows principles set down by the ideas of the genre it is attempting to emulate while simulationist indicates your game follows principles set down by ideas of the setting it's in and that these two are intrinsically opposed to one another.
But isn't a good narrative something consistent with the rules established by the setting anyway? And isn't a good setting one that understands its genre and creates its rules in accordance with it?
If you followed purely simulationist philosophy then the rules of your setting would be completely chaotic and nonsensical. You could just make up whatever crap you wanted, say "it's like that because the setting is like that its to emulate the settings rules" and make something that's just weird and random and not particularly well thought out. You could just throw down random numbers and say "It's like that because it's like that" and arbitrary decide how 90% of the conflict resolution goes in your game with no indication as to why it's like that.
It seems like these two elements should ideally be working with one another. Genre and narrative providing the guiding principles of the setting while the setting exists to provide context to your action. Trying to remove one of these from the equation would just lead to random nonsense.
And this obviously not accounting for setting agnostic systems which have to basically pull double duty of providing both in general assumption.
it's a real fucked-up state of affairs when I see a civil and relatively well-thought-out statement like this and my gut reaction is "this is probably someone trying to bait people into a screaming match"
>>44220379
>>44220379
>And this obviously not accounting for setting agnostic systems which have to basically pull double duty of providing both in general assumption.
but this is generally where the "intrinsically opposed" part comes in, so I'm leaning slightly with >>44220466 here.
In GNS theory Simulationist means "game I don't like" Narrativist means "Game I like" and Gameist means "Game I don't really like but I'd be ruined if I insulted"
Most games have a combination of these elements, its a spectrum not a binary divide. That said, there are bigger differences in how its played then just what you've said.
Narrativist systems tend to allow the players to make moves that are not entirely the actions of their character, whereas simulationist tends to make the players only actions relating to the actual activities of their PC.
For example, mechanics like fate points or hero points that alter the environment or once a story resources you can employ are narrative-based, whereas a system based entirely on the concept of 'what you can do is what your character could do, nothing else' is more simulation.
In a narrative game you may have a way to call in a character mentor or keep fighting past the point of death or survive something you shouldn't JUST because you spend a narrative out of character resource, because it fits the genre.
In a simulation game, those mechanics are less prevalent, and non-genre things are more likely to happen. Personally, this is one of the appeals of RPGs to me, is that you get stories that are more 'real' in that someone can easily fuck up and die pretty quick, or a few people can take on a far more powerful threat through a good strategy or just bull-rushing.
Not that you cannot do that in narrative systems, but those tend to have more mechanics to keep the story "on the rails".
GNS theory (Gamist, Narrativist and Simulationist) is a somewhat old idea in RPG design, and you're correct in that all games need elements of each.
However, they're still useful in that different games will have different focuses. I prefer to use the terms 'World Emulation' and 'Genre Emulation' these days, as they more accurately describe the different approaches in my experiences.
Genre emulation is my preferred style of roleplaying, where abstract narrative/meta mechanics have a place and in general the world revolves around the PCs and their actions. This doesn't necessarily mean that you can't run gritty or darker games in this style, but that even then the PCs are the center of everything.
World emulation strives, at least from my understanding, to provide rules that simulate and describe a world that exists regardless of the PCs, eschewing narrative meta-mechanics for what would actually happen in that event.
An example of this is the mechanics for failure/defeat in battle. In a genre-emulation style game or system, losing isn't the end of the story, it's just another branch events can take where the characters are disadvantaged by it somehow. In a world emulation set up, if there's no reason for the opponents to spare you, then game over, you all die, the story ends. Some people see the latter as a purer way of roleplaying, with less handholding and more real consequences, but I prefer allowing the story to continue through failure.
>>44220569
What do you mean by that?
Like GURPS arguments or something?
>>44220379
Narrativist is Story>Reality
Simulationist is Reality>Story
Narrativist says "I don't care how many arrows you're holding in your quiver" because it's irrelevant to the story at hand. Sometimes eating and sleeping for adventurers is dropped by the wayside because they add nothing to the story until it's decided a feast is necessary for the plot.
Simulationist wants to know, because the story exists with reality and people cannot wander a tundra for two months without food or sleep and knowing how many arrows are in your quiver means you know how long you can fight for.Narrativists are what broke 3.x Wizards by handwaving what's in their component pouches.
>>44220616
>Narrativists are what broke 3.x Wizards by handwaving what's in their component pouches.
You mean... like the rules tell them to? Are you suggesting there was even 1 serious narrativist on the design team for D&D three point "roll craft checks to the silver piece" five?
Basically, you are mostly right OP.
The divide, as I understand it, comes from two things.
In a situation where, something should happen because it is the logical consequence of what has happened previously, but the group (Or sometimes just the GM) would think that it would make a "less interesting" story. More simulation minded players don't care, and think it should still happen, while more narrative minded players think that the rule of cool/funny/drama/interesting story should take effect instead.
The other thing is rules. The stereotype is that narrativivists like lighter rules and simulationists like heavier rules, but I don't think that is quite accurate. Narrativists like rules that let them control the fiction, while simulationist like rules that provide order and logic to the world, these aren't really the same thing as rules light and rules heavy, but they often do tend to play out that way.
Just my $0.02
>>44220678
Rules heavy narrative/genre emulation systems exist. My favourite example is Legends of the Wulin, a deep and complex game about Wuxia storytelling and combat, but all based on fundamentally narrative principles. The marriage of compelling combat mechanics and a genre focus really appeals to me, and I want to see more games explore that design space.
>>44220614
>>44220379
When you use/design a system with no particular setting in mind, there will by and large be incompatibilities.
Besides which, if you use a premade setting, the genre you have in mind may not mix well with the setting anyway.
>>44220616
>That spoiler
It's explicitly stated in the rules that a Wizard has all of his components as long as they don't cost more than 1GP.
>>44220713
>When you use/design a system with no particular setting in mind, there will by and large be incompatibilities.
That's what setting rules are for, genius.
>>44220379
narrativist is when the rules of the story can override the rule of dice. Simulationist is the reverse.
>>44220967
>Simulationist is the reverse.
That's gamist.
Simulationist is when maintaining internal logic overrides the story and the dice
>>44220645
>>44220788
Just because the rules tell you to doesn't mean those rules aren't narratively focused.
>>44221318
That doesn't take away from the fact that enforcing spell components doesn't actually balance wizards and fighters AT ALL.
GNS theory is a model to analyze why people play games, any games, not RPGs. It concerns itself with psychology. And it falls short of its stated goal. As such it has little scientific relevance today.
The whole fad of classifying RPGs according to that model is not scientific. It's beer and pretzels talk. And while it does offer a mode of distinction that can explain some details of game mechanics, it is in no way a solid categorization.
RPGs work on different levels. They have mechanics, they have a story which entails characters, tension, and themes, they have symbolism and a tone, a genre in the context of other works, and a target audience. All of these things connect to each other, and there's many more like it. Now each of these can focus on simulating a model of reality, on dramatic tension and character development, or on its own dynamic. But whatever it puts front and center, the other dimensions are governed by the same game at least implicitly. There is no 'pure' game in GNS terms. Even chess figures have story attached, even good night stories have a formula, and even reenactments have unknown factors.
>>44222015
GNS is still talked about because it's the closest thing there is to RPG genres (in the sense that First-person Shooters and Real-time Strategy are video game genres). GNS is pretty awful, but at the same time, GURPS and Dungeon World are two different things in a similar way that Counter Strike and Monkey Island are. As soon as an alternative that can easily categorize games comes along, people will probably start to use that.
>>44222276
So you could say that while it does offer a mode of distinction that can explain some details of game mechanics, it is in no way a solid categorization?
So...is Savage Worlds the best system according to this...theory?
Sounds like GNS theory normally says that systems that try to hit all three aren't too great, but Savage Worlds has a heavy Narrative focus while having the combat itself be "Gamist" as hell, and thus only missing out on the simulation part particularly during combat since combat's like an action movie with the best fights ever.
>>44222681
Yes, SW is the best system.
Happy now?
Congratulations for making this all about your fetish.
>>44222736
Kinda missing the point here, love. SW pays little to no heed at all for simulationist stuff but does the other two very well. Combining that with my research showing that generic rpg systems aren't usually well received using GNS theory, where does that put a system like Savage Worlds? Best? Worst?
>>44222871
Why don't you make a tier chart and post it in a new OP?
>>44222907
Of all the ways to bait, you picked that post and to do it this way? Kinda lame if you ask me. Of course here I am giving you the benefit of the doubt of not being stupid and realizing this has nothing to do with system supremacy.
>>44222944
>this has nothing to do with system supremacy.
>>44222681
>Savage Worlds the best system
Keep talking. White noise relaxes me.
>>44222959
>White Noise
>Noise coming from words
What the fuck are you talking about?
Yeah it seems you're being purposefully ignorant. Quite pathetic.
>>44222681
No.
One thing that people often forget about GNS theory is that there's no "right" answer. It's just three posts by which you can measure games.
Simulationist games wish to model reality in the tabletop.
Narrativist games seek to tell engaging stories.
Gamist games attempt to provide enjoyable gaming experiences.
People can PREFER regions of the spectrum, but GNS theory by default doesn't preference them. It merely states that these are three common goals of games, and games lean in specific directions.
Here's a relatively brief example:
Drowning.
In 3.5, they take a moderately simuationist approach to drowning. You can resist it based on Constitution and Fortitude based on specific numbers tied to relatively normal goalposts(showing a trained body's ability to hold their breath)
But once it starts, it incapacitates you very quickly, and finally (too finally, since they actually forget to include rules for CPR/resuscitation techniques.)
GTA, on the other hand, takes a more gamist approach: in many games, if you enter the water, you die. Don't go here. The game isn't here. In others, they include some simple mechanics for it, because people wanted to play there. So there are boats, and swimming, and the potential to drown if you stay down too long. (The latter games also dabble in simulationism, with sufficient swimming making you more fit.)
Narrativist games tend to not have rules for drowning, instead treating it like a resistance challenge where you either succeed or you don't, and only if it's interesting to the story. An example here would be (despite it not being a game) Beowulf. Beowulf doesn't talk much about his need to breathe while fighting the sea serpents that beset him in his swimming challenge, because that's not the interesting part of the story.
>>44222973
He's probably hoping you and the other poster will be drawn into an extended argument, wherein most of your points will be functionally meaningless "white noise".
>>44222681
The original GNS guys believed a game should try to be one of the three, and only one of the three, exclusively. So it would not be well-received by them.
THIS IS JUST LIKE THE INTROVERT VS EXTROVERT THEORY, WHICH IS TO SAY IT IS A BULLSHIT FALSE DICHONOMY
NO PERSON IS ONE OR THE OTHER, ITS FLUID, IT SHIFTS
GAMES SHIFT TOO, NOTHING IS AS YOU PERCIEVE
SALAMALAKEM
>>44223044
I like the analogies. They're bretty gud.
>>44220379
You forgot to say that the GNS theory is a sales pitch for N games.
>>44220379
Simulationism is incompatible with narrativism because it does not attempt to create a story, it lets the logic of the setting dictate what will happen. A narrativist might decide to have the heroes encounter a dragon in its cave and barely defeat it at the last second (GM fiat) by exploiting some convenient weakness that shows itself at the right moment, because that's cooler than a party wipe. The simulationist version has the party roasted when they fuck up the fight because that's what would actually happen according to the logic of the setting.
Oh, a versus thread. What you want me to do this time, guys? Should I praise PbtA and Fate or damn them? Should I defend GURPS or shit on it? Should I try to thread hijack into D&D version wars?
Simulation is the backbone of everything else.
>>44224111
>to have the heroes encounter a dragon in its cave and barely defeat it at the last second (GM fiat) by exploiting some convenient weakness that shows itself at the right moment
And here lies the problem. You just stole the players the personal reward of having beaten the dragon by themselves with that move. They are all aware that they didn't kill the dragon, that you actually did it.
In a simulationnist game, they would have escaped (or tried to), taking severe injuries, maybe one character dead in holding the dragon back. The remaining players would have, licked their wounds, trained hard, geared up, hired reinforcements and hunted the dragon again, making way for a way more epic story than "you kill it because I say so".
>>44224271
I mean I hate narrativist fags but I don't think 'escape and revenge' is very plausible in the wake of a defeat against a dragon.
>>44224280
That's probably what Frodo thought when he saw the Balrog. He still escaped trough.
>>44224297
LotR is narrativist as fuck, though. I mean yes it's a novel but it doesn't actually attempt to simulate reality or even abide by its internal logic in any meaningful sense.
>>44224271
>They are all aware that they didn't kill the dragon, that you actually did it.
What if you could hold up a piece of paper that you wrote down before the encounter going "After X% of the dragon's HP have been defeated, the loose scale that covered his weak point is revealed and, from them on, attacks that hit the weak point inflict three times as much damage"?
The trouble with discussing GM fiat is that players are generally blissfully unaware of the amount of fiating a GM has to do.
>>44220986
Gamist isn't the reverse either, they're three far points on a triangle.
>>44224111
And of course, in a gamist system, there's no dragon there if they're not a high enough level, instead there's a more level appropriate encounter.
>>44224322
That's not the point. By "giving out" the victory to the players that easily, you encourage them to be total shitters and jump into the fray unprepared with their dicks out, because your narrative will always save them.
A simulationnist approach would have made them wary of escape plans from start, even the most shady ones where the warrior throw the unsuspecting halfling in the claws of the dragon. In my opinion, the simulationist gameplay here is more interesting than "hitting that bag of HP until it nearly kills us and the DM calls it dead".
>>44224355
Even the starter box dungeon for Pathfinder has a dragon with a weak point that flies out after X% damages. But to know that you have either to ask the goblin "lord" or discover it by chance. Even then, it feels cheap. I know, it's a game device destined to make the game easier if you ranked up your social skills, but this kind of shit is a bit overdone.
>>44220379
>Narrativist indicates your game follows principles set down by the ideas of the genre it is attempting to emulate
No, genre emulation is largely regarded as part of Simulationism. Everything else you wrote isn't worth even responding to if you can't even get the basics right.
>>44224427
I don't understand why you're trying to argue with me. I agree that narrativism is pure cancer and my example was supposed to illustrate that.
Narrativism, Simulationism, and Gamism are not something you pick either or. They are scales which you can use to give you a general overview of what the intended goal of a system is. Narrativism is the dedication a system has towards writing rules for the narrative inside of the game, Simulationism is the dedication a system has towards writing rules for the setting of the game, and Gamism is the dedication a system has to the game element itself.
The amount of rules a system has has nothing to do with where it lies on the GNS scale. There just happens to be a correlation with games focusing on the narrative tending to have fewer rules than games focusing on the setting.
I made a visual aid that I think explains it pretty well. Where the lines end inside of the triangle is where I placed each system.
>>44224111
> it lets the logic of the setting dictate what will happen.
But what IS the logic of the setting? What determines it?
If the settings logic is just "whatever this pasty neckbeard thinks is logical" then that quickly turns into "you were all stabbed in the middle of the night by bandits and died LOL"
A GOOD setting should build its logic based on the principles of a genre and then stick to that genre and build its setting accordingly.
>>44224678
>genre emulation is largely regarded as part of Simulationism.
Then why is it every time I talk to people "genre emulation" is regarded as narrativist dreck?
Do you people just enjoy shifting goalposts like this?
Also I like how everyone in this thread is convinced that all narrativist games are meant to be super high-flying action kung-fu type games where death in inconsequential as if nobody's ever TOLD A FUCKING STORY WHERE PEOPLE DIE BEFORE AND THAT WAS SORT OF THE POINT.
>>44227652
>Also I like how everyone in this thread is convinced that all narrativist games are meant to be super high-flying action kung-fu type games where death in inconsequential as if nobody's ever TOLD A FUCKING STORY WHERE PEOPLE DIE BEFORE AND THAT WAS SORT OF THE POINT.
That's just fa/tg/uys being dumb. Plenty of "narrativist" games kill PCs.
Take Dungeon World, for example. It gives you enough HP to reliably survive maybe two whole fights, sure, but players have a seriously hard time controlling how many fights they'll get in. Things spiral out of control rapidly by design, and when they hit zero, they don't get some nice 10 HP buffer where they'll be fine if someone patches them up, no.
The Last Breath move gives you a 50% chance that your character is just plain dead, gg no re; there's a 25% chance that you can come back if you accept an obligation or change to your character via dealing with Death; and only a 16% chance that your character will be fine.
As long as the GM hits the rules hard, DW plays more like Darkest Dungeon than the freeform game where hugs replace dying that fa/tg/uys seem to think all narrative games are.
>>44228076
Err, typo, that should be "59% chance that you're dead"
>>44223044
>>44223207
These are the answers I was looking for. Thanks guys!
>>44228076
I think what people also forget is that in most narrative games, character death is a part of the overarching story and should be both expected and accepted, compared to other game ideals where survival is a continuous goal.
WoD is an example I am familiar with, as I have seen characters die in unlikely situations based on the narrative and the story that was unfolding, with the mechanics supporting the story as it went along. Hell, even in 40k rpgs, you can choose to not burn fate points to survive fatal situations, and I, and other players, have done so, choosing to let our characters die in the circumstance if it felt that it better served the spirit to do so.
Death can be just as much a choice, and just as much furthering character, as anything else, imo.
>>44224280
Then they all die. And they told an excellent story.
Simulationist games tell the best stories. Because Losing is Fun. You lost, as a result of your own actions, and that is your story. You're not "writers" or "actors" or any other bullshit; you're players. You don't sit outside the game and work out what would be coolest; what you do IS the story.
>>44220986
>Simulationist is when maintaining internal logic overrides the story and the dice
I've never fully understood that, because story has an internal logic of it's own driven by verisimilitude (I know that's a buzzword nowadays).
You don't count the number of arrows in your quiver, but you run out of ammo when drama demands it.
>>44229315
I have never understood that whole concept.
It's not drama if you all sit down and decide to make it dramatic. It's just...passionless. Clinical. You're deciding that now, because "drama demands it", you're going to run out of arrows. Great.
>>44226376
>pure gamism is "a wargame"
>pure simulation is "a spreadsheet"
>narrativism is actual roleplaying
When you do that, it makes it seem like you're trying to support one of these things in particular, particularly considering you actually could conceivably have a simulationism-leaning freeform if everyone was on the same page about what would make sense (would still be more narrativism than simulationism, but still not "pure narrativism" either). I'd recommend making narrativism "writing a book by committee" or something.
>>44229673
You're right, people on /tg/ have shitfits over freeform RP and say it's not an RPG either so I just picked the choice that counts as "not an rpg".
>>44229769
>>44229673
Revised.
>>44229673
>writing a book by committee
But that's just another way of saying roleplaying. Roleplaying is telling a collaborative story together.
>>44229918
Narrativism is not really like reading a book. Because you play a part in the writing of said book, and only *a* part.
A better example would be Drama Club, as everyone plays a pre-defined role and tries to do what feels best. It carries the connotations of self indulgent amateur dramatics with it, too.
>>44230157
I help run a community theater, try to use that experience in my GMing, and I skew narrativisit, so that would make sense.
>>44229918
I think burning wheel might be a good example for a game kind of between narratavist and simulationist.
>>44220379
>But isn't a good narrative something consistent with the rules established by the setting anyway?
You misunderstand the way "narrative" is used by the storygaming-crowd.
>And isn't a good setting one that understands its genre and creates its rules in accordance with it?
Pretty much.
>If you followed purely simulationist philosophy then the rules of your setting would be completely chaotic and nonsensical. You could just make up whatever crap you wanted, say "it's like that because the setting is like that its to emulate the settings rules" and make something that's just weird and random and not particularly well thought out.
You could, but that would just make you a shitty player. A simulationist game seeks to simulate the setting in question. Setting always come first, as opposed to a player's perspective of the setting in storygames.
