Further Digging into the 3-way tension
Not long after my last post, I read this article called "The Coin Don't Have No Say", there's some interesting stuff in the piece, even if if does take a while to get there. It kind of reflects a few of the ideas that we had a long time ago, but I'll get to that shortly. First a continuation of the Three-Way Tension.
The GM/Narrator
The GM/Narrator facilitates the session. In traditional play, this participant chooses the scenario that the players will progress through, or establishes the sandbox that they will explore. As an individual, they probabaly have the most influence over the direction of the session's flow and it's a role that many players are intimidated to step up to. Diegetically, this participant generally describes what everyone else sees hears and otherwise senses, they set the scene for the players to react to. They provide actions and motivations for the supporting characters and antagonists in the story, and react to the actions of the protagonists. Non-diegetically, the participant tends to be the final arbiter for the rules, often interpreting when they need to come into play, and interpreting the rules and how they might impact the ongoing flow of the session. It should be noted that a decent GM/Narrator will be able to shift their style according to the type of game they are running, or in response to the players they are facilitating a session for (although many I've encountered over the years have become specialists in a certain agenda and have been very rigid in the way they run their games).
Let's break down the GM/Narrator types according to the agendas. (Remembering that these are generally stereotypes, and most players will be a blend of two, perhaps all three, but they'll typically have a tendency to fall into one of these categories).
The Gamist GM/Narrator
...tends to remain on the non-diegetic side of the fence. They are running the game, and often do this by providing puzzles to face and antagonists to overcome, or by remaining neutral in the conflicts between characters, while arbitrating the rules and making sure the rules governing the play of the game are properly adhered to. If there are random tables to roll on, this GM/Narrator typically does this themselves, often behind a screen, and usually with a knowing grin on their face. They often see all of the characters as pawns in a larger game, and strive to keep things balanced or at least an interesting competition designed for regularly testing the capabilities of the characters.
The Narrativist GM/Narrator
...tends to remain on the diegetic side of the fence. They do voices for the supporting characters, describe mannerisms, and provide plenty of in-world descriptions. They provide lures and hooks for the characters, but rather than relying on die rolls or binary right/wrong solutions, they'll simply follow the protagonist characters and provide repercussions and ramifications for their actions. This GM/Narrator accepts the characters portrayed by the other players as the protagonists of the story and gives them the agency they need to lead the story in their own intended direction. They tend to guide their sessions according to the rules of drama and fiction, providing opportunities for interesting character choices that reveal depth and interest among the protagonists, and enhancing drama to keep things interesting and moving.
The Simulationist GM/Narrator
...tends to straddle diegetic/non-diegetic elements in their duties. They have a specific setting that guides their choices and understands where there might be soft barriers that can be crossed but might cause issues, as well as where there are hard barriers that simply cannot be crossed. They work to give the other players the most authentic experience of the world they have in mind, they may have a specific sttory in mind and are often willing to limit a characters agency if it might bend or even break their intended verisimilitude. They tend to pull the game back toward their vision of the setting, and react to the actions of the players according to their understanding of the setting and the powers the guide the setting.
The Players
The players aren't a solid monolithic entity. Every player will have their own aims within the session, and the players will often be pulling tensions against each other as much as they will be pulling against the GM/Narrator or the Rules. Diegetically, players will typically attempt to guide the story through their characters by making choices, or by reacting according to the way they believe their characters might act.
The Gamist Player
...tends to treat the whole session as an opportunity to test the build of their character (Have they optimised their character effectively? Have they successfully mitigated any weaknesses? Are they up to the challenges posed by the GM/Narrator, other players, or whatever situation they find themselves in?). The gamist player is probably the epitome of the "Roll player", their specific goal for winning can vary and this can make it hard to detect a gamist player in some situations. Some will aim for diegetic "winning" in the form of vanquishing opponents, overcoming a wide variety of problematic situations, or even dominating other player characters. Others will aim for non-diegetic "winning" in the form of dominating the screen-time in the session, or the most memorable moment in the session. They aren't as interested in who their character is, but more interested in what their character can do.
The Narrativist Player
...tend to be far more introverted regarding their character. They want to understand how their character would react in a variety of circumstances to see how the drama might unfold, and how their relationships to the people and places around them might change as the story unfolds around them and in my experience tend to be more focused on the diegetic aspects of play. They might have a specific arc that they want to see to it's conclusion, or the might be interested in seeing how their role changes with regard to the character arcs of the people around them. They revel in the flaws that their character might have, and don't shy away from bringing them into play to see how that might change the dramatic tension of the scene. If the Gamist is the "Roll-player", the narrativist is theor counterpoint as the "role-player". They aren't as interested in what their character can do, but more interested in who their character is.
The Simulationist Player
...tends to be focused on experiencing something within the session. It probably won;t be about winning or telling a story, but more about escapist embodiment of something that they can't experience in the "real world". They might be attracted to fantasy games because of the magic, sci-fi games due to the advanced technology or aliens, or something that just lets them break out of the mundane world for the duration of the setting. They aren't as interested in what their character can do or who they are, but more interested in how their character is experiencing the situation they find themselves in.
The Rules
Traditionally, according to Forge definitions anyway, this is where the Gamist, Narrativist and Simulationist terms apply to a game. However, in light of "The Coin Don't Have No Say", the rules seem to produce the part of the tension that is least stable, or maybe the least authoritative. I don;t know if I'm really saying what I mean here. If a group says they're playing "Call of Cthulhu", then there's an obligation that they're following a majority of the rules associated with that system. Simiarly, if they're saying that they're playing a house-ruled or homebrewed version of "Call of Cthulhu", then there's a general obligation that they're following at least half of the rules from that system. If they're just playing a Cthulhu based game, ther might not be any of Call of Cthulhu used, they might be using "Cthulhu Dark" or some other system based around the Lovecraftian Mythos. The basic point here is that the designer (or design team) of the game has done their part, they've encoded their message and now they participants are decoding the message of the rules from their end. They may decode it with high fidelity (playing the game explicitly as written), or may decode it with low fidelity (with whatever degree of house rules they agree to). However, the rules aren't just the text as written. The rules are the accumulated procedures that the group has agreed to. Non-diegetically, this means agreeing to the times when randomisers come into play, what types of randomisers are used (cards or dice), whether the results can be modified at any stage, how those results impact the ongoing session, who has control when there may be confuson regarding the session impact, and other elements I've probably forgotten to list here. Diegetically, this means the systems inherent within the setting, such as which groups relate to each other or to the locations in the world inhabited by the characters, how specific NPC relate to those groups, places or other concepts that exist purely within that world, etc. These are all restrictions on the way the session unfolds, and they evolve over the course of play. These rules might be broken down into procedures (non-diegetic) and lore (diegetic).
Gamist Rules
...focus on the procedures of the session. These rules will often focus on fairness and balance, and will provide specific ways to guide the flow of the session in a way that is detached from any storyline ideas or setting. From this perspective, most "universal" and "generic" rule sets are probably gamist in nature, especially if they focus on methods of task resolution and methods of resolving conflict between characters. Gamist rules may also provide insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the characters to explain how they might compare to one another. Gamist rules often have an end point in mind, a climax where the game can be won. It might be valid to consider this the "Game" part of the roleplaying game.
Narrativist Rules
...focus on the lore of the session. These rules will focus on the objectives of the characters, their internal desires, the obstacles that prevent them simply obtaining their desires, the relationships between characters and the way their think of each other. Narrativist rules often don't cover explicit interactions between characters, but instead show how relationships, desires and goals change and evolve over time. It's about who the characters are, and what their stories are within the setting. They are often open ended, but may draw a natural conclusion when narrative arcs are completed. Australian Freeform gaming might be a strong contender for "pure" narrativist game rules. It might be valid to consider this the "role" part of the roleplaying game.
Simulationist Rules
...focus on the experience of the session. These rules focus on the environment in which the session unfolds, they aren't so much about the characters or the stories, but more about the verisimilitude of the environment. Perhaps trying to be as "realistic" as possible, or perhaps trying to reflect the experience of what it might be like to exist within the environment being simulated. Think about it like children playing "house", "doctors and nurses", "cowboys and indians" or "astronauts", there is no specific win condition, no particular character development, its all about the lived experience of individuals within the parameters of the setting. It might be valid to consider this the "playing" part of the roleplaying game.
When the GM/Narrator, the Players, and the Rules are all following the same agenda, things have a better chance of running smoothly...when they're aiming in different directions, the tension grows tighter and there's more chance something will snap. I'll look at that in the next post.
.png)
Comments