Re: Singing 10%, Snooker 85% (was: stuff)

From: Ian Cooper <ian_hammond_cooper_at_...>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:02:30 -0000

wrote:
> I've long been deeply suspicious of the "simulationist v. narrativist"
> distinction in games (personally I increasingly think the distinction
> is driven from the war game roots of the hobby; RQ still has aspects
> of old fashioned miniature wargaming, HQ2 doesn't).

Well the terms are really out-dated but come from the Three Fold model or GNS and describe the main objective of play. My simplification would be:

Gamist: Beat the challenge
Simulationist: What would it be like to live in...? Narrativist: This is the story of...

The design principle is that it is easier to design a game if it tries to support one model only. As an example a Gamist game might want concepts like character classes, levels, increasing hit points and spell books because it wants to set appropriate challenges and reward success. A sim game would not like such 'artificial' concepts its success is in modelling how the world might work: how hard is to climb Kero Fin, does a demi-bird run faster than a horse, can a man survive a 30' fall. A narrativist game focuses on story, so it cares that your father was killed by the Empire and you have sworn revenge and that such burning hatred powers your sword arm to cut the enemy down in swathes.

Coherence is simply a technical term that implies that it is difficult to support all these models, they end up in tension with each other. Levelling up doesn't help us understand your hatred for your father's killer better. Knowing that you can't survive a 30' fall without injury doesn't help us reward the guy who has just earned 10th level.

Remember the debate about the meaning of Running numbers in Anaxial's Roster, how tough an Orlanthi weaponthane is, how a secret is useless at 14? These are all problems created by trying to apply simulationist (Anaxial and Orlanthi play) and gamist play (you can level up to lean the secret) goals to a narrativist system.

GNS recognizes that play may involve many of these aspects, but that systems need to prioritize and be clear about their priorities so that we can understand them.

Knowing that in HQ numbers are 'what the story says they should be' makes it a lot easier to play. To be fair Greg has been saying that about HQ all along.

So I really believe that an HQ2 that was just an 'improved' HQ1 would be a creative failure.