Traveller and gamism/ narrativism/ simulationism

[Malenfant]

I moved this from the Trade thread so it wouldn't derail that discussion, cos it's an interesting topic...

A reasonably digestible explanation of GNS for those unaware of these definitions. I do wish Ron Edwards would write in plain english instead of throwing tons of obscure jargon around - and he does go on and on and on for ages sometimes (but not in these articles, thankfully).

originally posted by Cad Lad
Back to the overall issue at hand, narrativist rpg-ing is a big part of this hobby and T5, along with the current forms of Traveller, need to keep this in mind. Some of you grognards not dismissing that style of play would be a good start. It's interesting, but whenever anyone writes about other, successful, games on this board no one ever mentions White Wolf. Love it or hate it, White Wolf is probably one of the (I'd guess second) most successful companies produceing rpgs at present, and they are solidly in the narrativist camp. I think Traveller could learn some needed lessons from WW and their products and wonder why there doesn't seem to be that many people who are fans of both.

Funny, I mention WW a lot.

But you raise an interesting point. What sort of gaming style does Traveller naturally lend itself to? Accepting that these are fairly arbitrary labels, is it gamist, narrativist, or simulationist?

The biggest part of this hobby is gamist. D&D - in its default form - is all about killing monsters and taking their stuff and getting gold and xp and going up levels. Sure, it can expand way beyond that, but that's the key, basic concept of the game for most people.

In second place is White Wolf, with its Storyteller system that encourages more narrativist play. Though I think a lot of people actually play it as a gamist munchkin fest where they want to get as many dots as possible on the character sheet

. It's nowhere near as narrativist as some of the indie games out there (and the largely incomprehensible (to me) stuff that comes out of the Forge)

Then we have things like Rifts and GURPS. Not very narrativist. Rifts is gamist/simulationist, and GURPS is mostly simulationist.

Now, speaking for myself, I'm actually more narrativist in play - but I like my universes to feel real. I don't believe there's anything preventing one from having a story-driven game focussing on specific issues or morals in a realistic universe. That way, you can have consistency and realism while maintaining a good story.

Does Traveller encourage narrativism? Actually, no - I don't think it does at all. It tries to encourage a realistic universe, but as a game it gives you no mechanical support or encouragement for narrativism at all. There's no 'hero point' system, there's no 'character trait' system or 'beliefs' system. The CT lifepath system (and world generation, for that matter) is basically just "roll a bunch of random stuff and make something of it if you can" - this is not a narrativist approach, this is just foisting randomness on people. There's no specific moral premise or emotional theme to Traveller.

Traveller seems like a game that encourages a very simulationist approach to me. You may be struggling against the current to try to force it into a more narrativist approach.

 

[Michael Schulz]

Also quickly/crudely moved (with the original deleted) in order to quit derailing the trade thread.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Malenfant:
A reasonably digestible explanation of GNS for those unaware of these definitions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the article, I hadn't actually seen the terms defined with that precision before. For the record, I am kind of narrativist-lite in my stance. I need some simulationist elements, but not that many. And I strongly recommend the classic Cyberpunk Referee's guide 'Listen up you primative Screwheads' for any ref who needs to deal with disruptive (not all of it is) gamism in their campaign.

And honestly, WW's system seems geared towards developing characters who can do just about anything, whether the players want them to or not.

Ok, so bear with me for a minute, but I think the beauty of Traveller, at least by the time I was introduced to it, is that it had abundent room for nearly all of the points along the GNS spectrum. Now granted I am--and probably always will be--a fan of TNE, which, with a few house rules, may lend itself to a more narrativist style of play, but I think earlier editions of Traveller also had room for all three kinds of players.

If you wanted to build equipment or worlds from the ground up (in excruciating, for me, detail) then you merely had to buy WTH, WBH, or FF&S. If you wanted to incorporate wargaming one could pick up Striker or one of the many other products that operated on a similar scale. But by at least MegaTraveller, one also had an incredibly detailed universe/setting, complete with multiple factions, meta-plots, hooks, yadda, yadda, things that facinated me personally, yadda.

So, while I may be swimming upstream rules-wise, I think the OTU actually lends itself to some great more narratively oriented playing. And really, I think one of the challenges that T5 (and T20 and GT) face is in appealing to that segment of the increasingly small gaming community. If we can expect each edition of Traveller to support umpteen wargames, economic development models, and engines for building realistic stars and starships, then I think we can make room for some supplements that push the other way.

Personally, that's my gripe with T4's Pocket Empires. Loads and loads of interesting rules for running a tabletop or computer game, but it gives absolutely nothing to a ref who isn't interested in having their PC's run one or more empires. Where is its section on what a PE's spaceports are likely to look and smell like? Where does it support refs' interested in using PEs as a setting for free traders, star mercs, or just 'down on their luck' adventurers. It's all rules, no soul (with the exception of its genaology section, which I dug a lot).

Honestly, that's why T5 doesn't thrill me at all. It seems like Marc is currently trying to cater to a piece of the gaming market that doesn't include me. I don't care if it's statistically valid, I want it to be compelling. And quite frankly, I think the gaming community has gotten small enough that it is foolish to really cater to one end of the GNS spectrum over others. And really, I think it is a small enough hobby at this point that we should be supporting one another instead of saying 'my way is better than yours.'

 

[Jeffr0]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
There's no specific moral premise or emotional theme to Traveller.

Some of the classic traveller adventures had strong moral/thematic elements-- especially the Solomoni Rim stuff:

"Save the Whales!"

"Help the Scientist Defect from the Oppressive Soviet Regime"


Though I much prefer... "Zhodoni Commandos... WHERE!?" to such egregious attempts at 'relevancy.'

 

[Jeffr0]

"The referee simply administers the rules in situations where the players have an incomplete uncerstanding of the universe. The results should reflect a consistent reality."


Wah! That's a tall order-- especially given the scope of the 3I and so forth. The way I cope with that is to stay as close to the gamist side of the spectrum as possible-- linear stories. The days are gone when we could round up 5 or 6 gamers at once anyway, so sequences of more-or-less balanced scenarios is about all I can do anymore. (The old CT Broadsword adventure is an example of this.)

 

[Malenfant]

Thanks for copying your post over here

.

Thanks for the article, I hadn't actually seen the terms defined with that precision before.

Well, that was written by the guy that came up with the whole GNS concept

.

If you wanted to build equipment or worlds from the ground up (in excruciating, for me, detail) then you merely had to buy WTH, WBH, or FF&S. If you wanted to incorporate wargaming one could pick up Striker or one of the many other products that operated on a similar scale. But by at least MegaTraveller, one also had an incredibly detailed universe/setting, complete with multiple factions, meta-plots, hooks, yadda, yadda, things that facinated me personally, yadda.

Yeah, but these have nothing to do with GNS. It just means that there are many aspects to Traveller, which is why it's so many different things to so many people. Personally I think that actually detracts from the game, because it makes it unfocussed.

So, while I may be swimming upstream rules-wise, I think the OTU actually lends itself to some great more narratively oriented playing.

Maybe, but you have to find that yourself. There's nothing in CT at least that helps you in that regard. I do agree that TNE is a bit more narrative though.

And really, I think one of the challenges that T5 (and T20 and GT) face is in appealing to that segment of the increasingly small gaming community. If we can expect each edition of Traveller to support umpteen wargames, economic development models, and engines for building realistic stars and starships, then I think we can make room for some supplements that push the other way.

Well, for starters the gaming commmunity is growing all the time, not decreasing. Most of it is pretty gamist because most gamers are into D&D., but there's still plenty of room for other styles of play both within D&D and outside it.

Though again you touch on an interesting point - if people expect Traveller to support the wargame, world design, economic system, alien design, ship and tech design, and god-knows-what-else aspects then any new edition that rewrites all that is going to be a hell of a lot of work. Having to support all of those aspects dilutes the game a hell of a lot, because you can't really do that in a reasonable timescale.

Personally, that's my gripe with T4's Pocket Empires. Loads and loads of interesting rules for running a tabletop or computer game, but it gives absolutely nothing to a ref who isn't interested in having their PC's run one or more empires. Where is its section on what a PE's spaceports are likely to look and smell like? Where does it support refs' interested in using PEs as a setting for free traders, star mercs, or just 'down on their luck' adventurers. It's all rules, no soul (with the exception of its genaology section, which I dug a lot).

I've not seen PE, but that sounds a lot like the problem with CT and what's been done of the T5 playtest draft. There's more to a game than just tables and rules.

Honestly, that's why T5 doesn't thrill me at all. It seems like Marc is currently trying to cater to a piece of the gaming market that doesn't include me. I don't care if it's statistically valid, I want it to be compelling.

Aye. That's exactly why the OTU - outside of TNE - bores the hell out of me.

And quite frankly, I think the gaming community has gotten small enough that it is foolish to really cater to one end of the GNS spectrum over others. And really, I think it is a small enough hobby at this point that we should be supporting one another instead of saying 'my way is better than yours.'

I dunno, I think it's good to explore different directions and approaches. Fact is, even though the hobby is relatively small, not everyone likes the same thing or gets the same things out of games. It's certainly not a matter of 'my way is better than yours' though, it's just different preferences for different approaches.

I'd say that GT may cater more for the simulationist crowd. T20 may cater more for the gamist/simulationist crowd (largely because it's a d20 system, and it can't really help the gamist aspects even if they have been diluted somewhat). TNE would be more for the narrativist/simulationists - it's especially good for people who want to explore particular issues about morality.

But CT seems kinda directionless by comparison - it's kinda simulationist, but it doesn't really give you any help at all in what sort of stories can be run with it.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Jeffr0:
Some of the classic traveller adventures had strong moral/thematic elements-- especially the Solomoni Rim stuff:

"Save the Whales!"

"Help the Scientist Defect from the Oppressive Soviet Regime"


Though I much prefer... "Zhodoni Commandos... WHERE!?" to such egregious attempts at 'relevancy.' [/QB]

That's not what narrativism is though. Did you read that link I posted to the definition?

It's not just 'do something moral'. It's more about exploring a theme. Stories focussed around the idea of "what is human?" for example would be narrativist. Or "is it right to interfere with a developing culture?". Or "is it right to topple a TED if he has something that we want?" Or "what do you sacrifice by participating in the mercenary life?".

Saving whales or rescuing scientists doesn't really have that sort of focus - they're just tasks that requires resolution. That's pretty simulationist.

 

[Jeffr0]

Read my post Mal. I was talking about something you said... not about narrativism.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Jeffr0:
Read my post Mal. I was talking about something you said... not about narrativism.

Um, what is it that I said that you're referring to?

 

[clementk]

(takes a look at CT books 1-3)

Gamist – chargen, shipbuilding, trade, worldgen minigames

Later on you have TCS, FFW, Pocket Empires, etc. but while they are games they still devote pages to justifying results by the 3I's economy and similar.

Simulationist – RL formulas, dTons, vectors, interstellar/planetary journey diagrams, gravitational degree diagram, deadly and gritty combat, aging, very limited skill growth, etc. .

Later books added vehicle design based on mass/volume and require figuring out or deciding on armor thickness and wattage of lasers, fuel usage, and more. If Fire, Fusion, and Steel isn’t simulationist I don’t know what is!

Narrativist - MT has brownie points but I’ve noticed a trend to not use them and they’re not really drama or hero points IMO. CT has GM fiat all over the place but is still bound by and suggests a very literal and scientific approach. Now you can tweak it to your heart’s desire but you can do that with any roleplaying game.

The OTU setting and storyline does encourage a narrative but the rules don't lean towards it as much as they do towards G/S. And the setting has developed a fairly simulationist bent, what with fleet dispositions and movement et al. Only TNE really is set up for the PCs to have a big role in the setting's narrative.

So if you must define it* IMO Traveller is mostly simulationist with gamist mini-games.


* I’m not terribly fond of the GNS bit but it’s in fairly common usage now with nothing else coming close. That and G/N/S tends to look like either a personal ad or slash fiction category.

 

[Jeffr0]

"There's no specific moral premise or emotional theme to Traveller." -- Malenfant

 

[Jeffr0]

Thanks, Casey.

That sums up the whole GT vs CT controversy for me.

I am a gamist that enjoys simulationist material only if the resulting stats impact a mini-game system in an interesting/relevant/playable way. That's why I prefer CT.

No particular approach is "the RIGHT way to do it" of course, but everybody has their preferences in these matters....

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Jeffr0:
"There's no specific moral premise or emotional theme to Traveller." -- Malenfant

Oh. Then in that case, that confirms you missed the point somewhat.

As I said, to qualify as 'narrative', it's not enough to just have an adventure where you go save the whales or rescue a scientist from an oppressive regime. Yes, there's a moral or theme in there, but it's not a driving theme of the whole game.

 

[Malenfant]

Casey - I think you might be missing the point a bit (but don't worry - a lot of people do GNS. I did when I first encountered it too). You've got to be careful when using these terms. A game is not necessarily simulationist if it has complex, realistic design systems. It's not necessarily gamist to have things that are mini-games. It's not necessarily narrativist to have 'hero points' (though they do tend to show up as concepts in narrativist games). You can't really point to FF&S and so on and say "aha, TNE is simulationist!".

Take a look at this (taken from page 3 of the link at the top of the thread):

# Gamism is expressed by competition among participants (the real people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters, both short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual play strategies. The listed elements provide an arena for the competition.

# Simulationism is expressed by enhancing one or more of the listed elements in Set 1 above; in other words, Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play. The players may be greatly concerned with the internal logic and experiential consistency of that Exploration.

# Narrativism is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The listed elements provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis).

GNS is all about style of play. Gamism is all about 'winning' - racking up points and Stuff, doing your best to outdo opponents, basically playing it like it is a traditional game. Narrativism is about focussing on themes and stories - the story takes precedence over 'reality'. Simulationism is about separating character from the universe, and reality dominating over the story - if you don't beat the clock, the bomb blows up, and drama and story resolution be damned.

Actually, CT chargen is VERY simulationist - the assumption is that the character is basically tossed about by the winds of chance, he can't always get what he wants (and rarely does get what he wants), and ends up being a completely different person to what the player initially envisaged. A Narrativist approach would allow the player to come up with a character concept and build a character from that, without any system constraints beyond that of game balance.

A realistic approach is simulationist. I guess you could argue that FF&S - or indeed, any detailed vehicle or tech design system - encourages this, but it doesn't in itself mean that the whole game is simulationist. That's especially true here, as TNE itself takes a pretty narrativist approach to the setting, but has these simulationist-friendly bits in it like WTH and FF&S.

One example might be what came up on the T5 playtest. I said that habitable worlds can't form around O and B V stars. Marc argued that there should be ways that they could form, regardless of how unlikely that they should be. Now, you could argue that I was being simulationist there (i.e. reality works a certain way, like it or lump it), and Marc was being narrativist (i.e. it'd be cool for stories to have these in, never mind how realistic it should be).

The problem there though is that he seems to be trying to be narrativist while making an entirely simulationist system (i.e. you take whatever the universe throws at you or whatever you roll on the tables, and use that).

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
There's no specific moral premise or emotional theme to Traveller.

Perhaps I missing the point too but for me the following quote has long served as a guiding moral/emotional theme for Traveller

"The Imperium is a government of men, not laws, and it rules space."

That and Noblesse Oblige.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by far-trader:
"The Imperium is a government of men, not laws, and it rules space."[/QB]

That's just the premise of the setting though. It's much the same as saying "the Nazi Regime is a twisted, oppressive government that does despicable things". It sets the scene, but it isn't a specific theme.

A narrativist theme for Traveller might work along the lines of "is it right to perform morally dubious tasks just to get by"? A lot of Traveller games revolve around ekeing out an existence as a trader, while doing things for patrons that could end up being unethical or illegal or have hidden consequences. How far would you go before you decided "no, I'm not doing that"? would you even know where to stop, or would you turn full time - either by choice or blackmail - to a life of crime? A campaign could end up with characters walking a thin line between the law and illegality, or veering toward one side or another.

I can see that in TV series like Firefly (though it didn't get a chance to do anything with the concept). I wonder how many Traveller games really actually focus on that question though, instead of just doing it without question with a cheerful "yay, we're doing Crime!" as if it's perfectly normal.

 

[Jeffr0]

Coming soon from Bleeding Heart Games...

 

[Malenfant]

So I take it you don't really care for narrativism then?

 

[Jeffr0]

No. Not at all.

I'm just concerned about how your character feels after he guns down a half dozen Zhodani proles.

 

[Malenfant]

So to you, they'd just be faceless 'monsters' to kill to 'win'? Given your wargaming approach it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if you were 'gamist'.

Kinda like the argument in D&D of 'who cares if Orcs have a culture? They're the bad guys, they're there to be killed and for their stuff to be taken!"

 

[Jeffr0]

But if the he role plays his remorse well enough, then I always award Breast Beating points.