GNS - does one preclude another?

[Ourph]

If I understand GNS right, 4E would be heavily "simulationist" as it uses the term; its design goal is to simulate cinematic combat

There are a few nods to cinematic style in the 4e combat system (minions), but most of the design choices are clearly gamist; e.g. - giving all characters something useful to do every round, eliminating "instant win buttons" that circumvent the standard HP-depletion mode of overcoming combat challenges, institutionalizing team synergy as a method for success. All of those are clearly involved with shaping the challenge aspect of the game, which puts them clearly in the camp of gamist priorities.

and (through its skill challenge system) cinematic dramatic situations (though it is still a bit underdeveloped on the last point just yet).

I think the skill challenge system is even further removed from simulationist sensibilities than the combat system. The idea of formalizing the process of overcoming an out-of-combat challenge into a combat-like, systematized procedure (where system elements level the playing field and make it more likely that all players have something to contribute each round) is much more a gamist priority than a simulationist one.

"Gamism" as GNS uses it is about actually balancing players against each other so that they can be challenged in game. Magic the Gathering strikes me as more of an example (though not an RPG) of this.

Gamism isn't necessarily about balancing as much as it is about having strictly defined win/lose conditions. With narrativism the goal is some kind of emotionally appealing resolution to a situation (subjective), with simulationism the goal is exploring and fiddling around in a situation for the sake of exploring and fiddling around (somewhat subjective), whereas with gamism the goal is to definitively win or overcome a challenge with predefined criteria for doing so (totally objective).

@ the OP: There are a lot of games that are what the Forge people call "incoherent" where no one particular agenda is prioritized. In most cases, the unfocused nature of an "incoherent" game just means that it is open to being used for any of the creative agendas with a little tweaking by the players.

I also think it's possible for a game to have individual systems that are focused on different creative agendas (like a heavily gamist combat system and a heavily narrativist skill system). However, the prevailing thinking at the Forge seems to be that such a game would have a very limited appeal because people who liked the combat system would tend to be frustrated by the skill system and vice versa.

IMO, the strength of the GNS model isn't necessarily in the conclusions that people draw from it, but just the fact that it's a decent jumping off point for people to think about whether the mechanics that they are using are actually serving their gaming needs (and if not, what mechanics might be more appropriate). The simple act of reminding designers that all mechanics won't necessarily serve all agendas equally well is a large part of the GNS model's value, IMO.

 

[howandwhy99]

The three areas are somewhat contradictory, but they can be included in any one single activity called a game. The term game itself though is an umbrella term for multiple activities that do not necessarily bear resemblance to each other.

Narrativism is about creating a script. Making up a story.
Gamism is about following a script. Following the rules of the game, not making them up.
Simulationism is about puzzle solving. It's about learning the script, or code in this case, through trial and error and good judgment abilities.

Roleplaying Simulation is about learning how to perform a social role by puzzling out another's understanding. Roleplaying as it was originally conceived was the opposite of this: not conforming, but creating our own patterns of behavior.

The act of game play is by it's very design, script following, an act of conformity. To make an RPG we often use rules as agreements about what not to do, rather then what to do. In other words, it isn't script following, but script avoidance. RPGs, basically storygames, have no objective. They objective is to participate like in a game of catch. This is a catch 22 as "to tell a story" is a goal met simply by taking action. Therefore, they fall under a different category of activity, which also happen to fall under the term game: like a social ice breaker exercise/game.

A traditional RPG, which are from military simulations, is puzzle solving. It is breaking the code of the hidden ruleset to learn how the situation operates. That is why the majority of the hobby's games can be made more functional by using them in a situational puzzle game. They are more about reasoning, than about creative thinking. But as they include the ability to unknowingly create more rules (with the "Irrelevant, so yes" rule), they are also unconfined activities. But instead of focusing on creating a story, they are about reaching the goal set up by the puzzle designer.

Most computer simulation games are actually puzzles. Whenever a computer game uses turn-based time rather than real time, it is likely a puzzle. The game element for most console and computer games comes in solely when manual dexterity is tested.

 

[Dausuul]

The three areas are somewhat contradictory, but they can be included in any one single activity called a game. The term game itself though is an umbrella term for multiple activities that do not necessarily bear resemblance to each other.

Narrativism is about creating a script. Making up a story.
Gamism is about following a script. Following the rules of the game, not making them up.
Simulationism is about puzzle solving. It's about learning the script, or code in this case, through trial and error and good judgment abilities.

Roleplaying Simulation is about learning how to perform a social role by puzzling out another's understanding. Roleplaying as it was originally conceived was the opposite of this: not conforming, but creating our own patterns of behavior.

The act of game play is by it's very design, script following, an act of conformity. To make an RPG we often use rules as agreements about what not to do, rather then what to do. In other words, it isn't script following, but script avoidance. RPGs, basically storygames, have no objective. They objective is to participate like in a game of catch. This is a catch 22 as "to tell a story" is a goal met simply by taking action. Therefore, they fall under a different category of activity, which also happen to fall under the term game: like a social ice breaker exercise/game.

A traditional RPG, which are from military simulations, is puzzle solving. It is breaking the code of the hidden ruleset to learn how the situation operates. That is why the majority of the hobby's games can be made more functional by using them in a situational puzzle game. They are more about reasoning, than about creative thinking. But as they include the ability to unknowingly create more rules (with the "Irrelevant, so yes" rule), they are also unconfined activities. But instead of focusing on creating a story, they are about reaching the goal set up by the puzzle designer.

Most computer simulation games are actually puzzles. Whenever a computer game uses turn-based time rather than real time, it is likely a puzzle. The game element for most console and computer games comes in solely when manual dexterity is tested.

I... think... that what you're saying amounts to: Gamism is about playing a game with known rules, Narrativism is about making up the rules as you go, and Simulationism is about discovering an unknown ruleset in play. Which is an interesting set of definitions, although not one I've ever heard before.

I don't know where "script" comes into it, since "script" is very different from "rules," nor why "puzzle solving" can only be done in a situation with an unknown ruleset (as opposed to working through the complex implications of a known ruleset in a given scenario), and the assertion that most turn-based computer sims are about discovering unknown rulesets is plainly false. And the stuff about how this applies to RPGs... yeah, I just have no clue where you're going with that.

 

[Umbran]

Narrativism is about creating a script. Making up a story.
Gamism is about following a script. Following the rules of the game, not making them up.
Simulationism is about puzzle solving. It's about learning the script, or code in this case, through trial and error and good judgment abilities.

I'd say... no to those, in my own humble perspective.

Gamism is more about puzzle-solving. You have a goal (say, killing a monster) and a set of rules (the combat rules). The puzzle is how to best construct a character and use that character within the rules to reach the goal. The rules are definitely not a script - scripts don't allow you to make choices, and playing a game is all about making tactical and strategic choices.

Simulationism is about making or being part of a plausible representation of something - be it a culture, a political or economic system, a weather pattern, or a set of fantasy physics rules, or what have you. This is the thing that is perhaps most like following a script - the simulation is restrictive, and being plausible often doesn't leave you many choices.

Narrativism is about furthering the dramatic or thematic growth of the developing story.

 

[nedjer]

I coped up to the D&D figures. GNS, the Big Model, the D&D segmentation and Puff the Magic Dragon are, with the possible exception of Puff the Magic Dragon, completely scientifically unreliable and lacking in test validity. They're not based on any theoretical framework, they don't measure what they claim to measure and whatever they do measure isn't measured consistently.

People's thoughts do not slot into static, easily defined categories presenting clear cut or consistent behaviours among individuals, let alone under the vastly different dynamics of group interactions.

Such 'theories' and 'data' are maybe OK for marketing courses but take them into a science lab and they're about as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

 

[nedjer]

To be fair the WotC post says what it is: "It's a market research study, not a psionic blueprint of the gaming populations."

But it begs the question why would you pay for market research instead of paying for some scientists? A psionic blueprint of the gaming population is relatively easy science. People want good games so they're motivated to give good information.

 

[Henry]

The WotC market research from back in 1999 revealed something interesting - they found empirical data grouped not three ways (as GNS/GDS), but four - which they dubbed "Thinkers", "Character Actors", "Powergamers" and "Storytellers". They also found a fifth data grouping, that appeared to be a moderate mixture of the four.

If one person can have multiple agendas and not go stark raving mad, I expect two people with different agendas can work things out so they all have a good time.

In truth, Robin Laws' thoughts on this map much more closely to WotC's data than GNS does -- his are (or were, back in 2000) tacticians, specialists, powergamers, method actors, storytellers, and "casual gamers". GNS tries to categorize what a game's intent is; Robin Laws tried to categorize what a PLAYER's intent is. The two don't necessarily overlap, even though they should. In my personal opinion, a GM should only care about what a game can and can't do in as far as whether it helps him get the players what they want. If he can't make his "power gamers," or his "method actors" or what have you, happy with they way he runs a certain game, then he's better off trying a different game, I would suppose. But if he can find a way to give his most "storyteller" players their "emotional kick" with Star Fleet Battles, then more power to him.

 

[Ariosto]

[The definitions in Wik's OP struck me as more common sense than what I recalled from Forge discussions, so I turned to "The Provisional Glossary".]

http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html

Gamism (Gamist play) One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. The term was first proposed by Mary Kuhner for the Threefold Model; its usage is very similar in the Big Model. See Step On Up.

Step On Up Social assessment of personal strategy and guts among the participants in the face of risk. One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. As a top priority of role-playing, the defining feature of Gamist play.

Narrativism (Narrativist play) One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. See Story Now.

Story Now Commitment to Addressing (producing, heightening, and resolving) Premise through play itself. The epiphenomenal outcome for the Transcript from such play is almost always a story. One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. As a top priority of role-playing, the defining feature of Narrativist play.

Premise (adapted from Egri) A generalizable, problematic aspect of human interactions. Early in the process of creating or experiencing a story, a Premise is best understood as a proposition or perhaps an ideological challenge to the world represented by the protagonist's passions. Later in the process, resolving the conflicts of the story transforms Premise into a theme - a judgmental statement about how to act, behave, or believe. In role-playing, "protagonist" typically indicates a character mainly controlled by one person. A defining feature of Story Now.

Simulationism (Simulationist play) One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. See The Right to Dream.

Right to Dream, the Commitment to the imagined events of play, specifically their in-game causes and pre-established thematic elements. One of the three currently-recognized Creative Agendas. As a top priority for role-playing, the defining feature of Simulationist play. See Simulationism: the Right to Dream.

[That's a dead end. Back to Google. Ah, here we are.]

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/

[Ladies and Gents, the amazing Ron Edwards]

Simulationist role-playing has a great deal of power and potential. In the previous essay, I wrote that it "... is expressed by enhancing one or more of the listed elements [Character, Setting, Situation, System, Color]; 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."

Pound for pound, Basic Role-Playing from The Chaosium is perhaps the most important system, publishing tradition, and intellectual engine in the hobby - yes, even more than D&D. It represents the first and arguably the most lasting, influential form of uncompromising Simulationist design.

Q: Can Simulationist design be Abashed?

A: Sure. "Abashed" refers to design that must be Drifted in order to play because incompatible priorities are present among different parts of the rules. It's different from Incoherent design in that such Drift is easy and minor. Technically, an Abashed game is already at least two modes (or sub-modes); e.g. I've said that Little Fears represents Abashed Narrativist design, but it should really be called Abashed Narrativism/Simulationism.

[There's plenty more where those excerpts came from!]

 

[Hussar]

I'm going to take a stab at how I understand GNS-

Gamist - the mechanics are the focus of the game. Every, at at least most, elements in the game are dealt with through various mini-games conained within the rule set. As was mentioned, Magic The Gathering is pretty much 100% gamist, at least when played competitively. You can move away from that in casual play, but, in competitive play, you build your deck to win, not to evoke or examine a particular emotional response or to explore a particular imaginary space.

Narrative - The goal of the game is to evoke or explore an emotional response or theme. The events in the game and the mechanics for resolving that event are less important than the players interaction with that response or theme. Searching for the princess or killing the dragon take a back seat to an examination of the emotional impact of being kidnapped by a dragon. Narrative game would as often cast you as the victim (the princess in this case) or the dragon (the villain) as the hero. My Life with Master is a good example here.

Simulationist - exploration of the imaginary space is the goal of the game. Actions are taken in game within the context of this imaginary space and everything should be underpinned by that. 3e D&D relied heavily on Sim play with a rule for everything that attempted to create a logical whole. GURPS is probably an even better example.

That all being said, I think you could graph most games at some point within that triangle. Very few games, even the ones I listed, would be at the pinacles of that triangle, but most would fall somewhere in the overlapping circles of the Venn diagram. I do think that finding a game that falls dead center would be difficult.

I think that even if the mechanics did fall dead center of the Venn diagram, equally spaced from all points of the GNS model, in play, groups would lean the individual campaign to one direction or another based on the group's preferences. Those preferences would bias the game towards one or two of the GNS ideas, rather than remaining fixed between all three.

 

[Ariosto]

I find the RSP model much more helpful.

As we all know, every good RPG theory has to divide all games into several vague categories. My categories are Retro, Stupid, and Pretentious. Any RPG worth playing will fall into one or more of these categories. Here's a handy chart:

In addition to more a more useful categorization schema, my theory has another leg up on Edwards's: incoherent play is better.

For definitions and examples, see

Jeffs Gameblog: I got your threefold model right here, buddy!