G/N/S epiphany
Gamist: "...any dumb two-bit trigger-pumping morons with low hairlines, little piggy eyes and no conversation... ...go around gratuitously shooting people and then bragging about it afterwards in seedy space-rangers bars..."
Narrativist: "I go around shooting people gratuitously and then I agonize about it afterwards for hours to my girlfriend!"
Simulationist: "And I write novels! Though I haven't had any of them published yet, so I better warn you, I'm in a _meeeeeean_ mood!"
Yes?
Narrativist: "I go around shooting people gratuitously and then I agonize about it afterwards for hours to my girlfriend!"
Simulationist: "And I write novels! Though I haven't had any of them published yet, so I better warn you, I'm in a _meeeeeean_ mood!"
Yes?
EXPLAINGIN TEH JO3K!!1!S'mon said:Gamist: "...any dumb two-bit trigger-pumping morons with low hairlines, little piggy eyes and no conversation... ...go around gratuitously shooting people and then bragging about it afterwards in seedy space-rangers bars..."
Narrativist: "I go around shooting people gratuitously and then I agonize about it afterwards for hours to my girlfriend!"
Simulationist: "And I write novels! Though I haven't had any of them published yet, so I better warn you, I'm in a _meeeeeean_ mood!"
Yes?
PLONK!1!!
yes.
Last edited:
Henry
Autoexreginated
Mainly because no one is fully one of the three; every Gamist has a little roleplay and angst that comes out sometimes, every narrativist has an occasional need to blast the living daylights out of something, and every simulationist recognizes the need for fast and loose occasionally. The pigeonholing that goes on with many people who take the theory and say, "oh, you know him, he's a narrativist" or "he's so gamist in his approach" does a disservice to the persons involved.
Now, I can recognize it's use for classifying types of GAMES, and classifying the tendencies of certain gamers, but trying to pigeonhole one person to one style comes out wrong most every time.
At least that's my take on it.
Now, I can recognize it's use for classifying types of GAMES, and classifying the tendencies of certain gamers, but trying to pigeonhole one person to one style comes out wrong most every time.
At least that's my take on it.
Vaxalon
First Post
Well, anyone who follows G/N/S theory knows that.
That's not a flaw in the system, it's a flaw in the usage. If anyone says that a person, a game group, or even a game is ENTIRELY one of the three, they're on crack.
Even Chess is only 99.99% gamist; the fact that the pieces have names out of a feudal hierarchy gives it a slight narrativist influence.
That's not a flaw in the system, it's a flaw in the usage. If anyone says that a person, a game group, or even a game is ENTIRELY one of the three, they're on crack.
Even Chess is only 99.99% gamist; the fact that the pieces have names out of a feudal hierarchy gives it a slight narrativist influence.
Having seen how these terms often get used in actual forum discussions, I get around this problem very easily. Instead of saying "Joe's a gamist, Bob's a narrativist, Andy's a simulationist", I say "Joe's a dickhead, Bob's a wanker, Andy's a twerp". It gets the gist of my intended meaning across quite clearly, and with no potential for misunderstanding.
Hong "no actual Joes, Bobs or Andys were harmed in the making of this post" Ooi
Hong "no actual Joes, Bobs or Andys were harmed in the making of this post" Ooi
