Remembering that I'm only jumping in without having read this particular thread from the beginning...
This exchange right here? This is why I don't believe in simulationism, gamism, or narrativism. Nobody can agree on what the terms mean because they DON'T. MEAN. ANYTHING. Each one is a collection of unrelated ideas that Ron Edwards dumped in a bucket. There is no core meaning to any of the three and I wish the RPG community would quit pretending there is.
My usage of the terms doesn't necessarily correspond to Mr. Edwards' usage, and in some cases it intentionally differs. I read his stuff and it was thought provoking, and then I went from there where my own mind took me. So the real issue is merely, "what do you mean when you use those terms?"
Ron Edwards had a good idea. He had some insights. He got the ball rolling, and then he got out of the way. The terms
do mean different things to different people, because they have escaped into the wild and we are allowed to use or abuse (hopefully not the latter) the ideas as we wish, just like other theories or philosophies. I don't see how there is any more reason to shun using these poorly defined terms than there is regarding any other poorly defined terms. And if we stop using poorly defined terms, we'll have to stop communicating with anything other than mathematics and formal analytical logic. Maybe I can learn to speak in binary.
The point is that we have to use words to communicate, and these are a good choice for a starting point. Like philosophical jargon, they are also useful in theorizing once the immediate group of participants can define how
they are using them.
For me, I apply the terms to an RPG first as an overall impression of the game rather than to specifics manifestations. The same term can apply differently in entirely different areas of the game.
For example, simulationism (I prefer the term "Explorationism") can manifest in a desire to have action resolution systems emulate physics in some manner, or it can manifest as a desire to represent an explorable world that moves along on its own without PC intervention, or it can refer to a rough sense of believability. A game can be simulationist in one way and not in another, as I said.
Narrativism can manifest as rules systems that produce results consistent with dramatic narratives rather than consistent with physics or probability, or it can manifest as giving the GM encouragement to design everything around the story, ignore the rest of the setting if it isn't relevent, and fudge things as needed, or it can manifest as a shared authorial control, perhaps even breaking down the concept of players and GMs.
Gamism is represented by anything that defines the play experience by a quantifiable challenge. It can manifest in a scene by scene narratively structured story where the goal is for the players to overcome a challenge in each scene via in-character role-playing, allowing them to advance to the next scene. It can manifest in the character creation minigame, when the goal is to make an effective character with the resources allotted. It can manifest in a system designed with a high degree of balance between characters, or with a strong set of resources for determining the precise degree of challenge presented, or which rewards player tactics over character tactics, or any number of manifestations.
So I'm primarily looking at an "overall picture," rather than the particulars, and I freely admit that anyone can validly disagree with my categorization of the editions of D&D based on giving more or less weight to particular elements. I do think I have something of value to add to understanding, and I'm not attempting to be obscure or unclear here.
You can only make that claim because you have no oD&D and limited BECMI experience. oD&D is the most finely tuned and playtested gamist RPG in the history of RPGs, and was destruct-tested by hardcore wargamers. AD&D 1e (pre-Dragonlance and pre-Lorraine Williams) is largely gamist - with the simulation in service of a better game. D&D has been hard on the spectrum - hard gamist.
Again, no comment on OD&D.
My experience with BECMI was Red Box, Rules Cyclopedia and Wrath of the Immortals. While I agree it it primarily gamist, I can't call it hard gamist. There is too much world simulation in there that has nothing to do with the game, arbitrary restrictions that make some options purely better than others for simulation considerations more than game consideration, and undefined areas that the DM needs to make rulings concerning, for me to count it as hard gamism. That said, I don't think there are many RPGs that qualify as hard gamist. Most role-playing games hardly qualify as games.
On AD&D...sure, you could say that Gygaxian-style* AD&D is gamist in the sense of a player vs. DM competition to see whose characters can survive falls into gamism. But there are a lot of elements that are much more simulationist than gamist. Take weapon and armor lists. They are designed to emulate (sometimes flawed) impressions of historical armaments, rather than to provide a variety of meaningful yet equivalent options. That's why there are so many obviously sub-optimal choices. The Wilderness Survival Guide (and her subterranean brother) has the right to claim bragging rights for simulationism. Random wilderness encounter tables are very much world simulationism (though they might be used in some situations as gamist tools).
I agree that Dragonlance made a change, throwing in more narrativist high fantasy sentiment.
Wow. I strongly disagree with this. AD&D 1 is pretty much purely gamist with maybe a tiny veneer of simulation going on. The rules are almost entirely gamist in nature. What about AD&D 1 would you point to to consider it a simulationist bent game?
See above.
It bears mention that I personally put
a lot of weight on world simulation in my estimations--probably much more so than many others--and I don't consider physics emulation at all necessary for simulationism, as long as results are within believable bounds and aren't overridden by gamist or narrativist goals.
Based on the overall impression my experience has given me of the various editions, I have to stand by my assessments.
* Dungeons designed to kill the players make
great one-shot games, though not really my style for long term campaigns.