Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cam Banks" data-source="post: 3690822" data-attributes="member: 3817">These are terms used to describe design styles, and the concept has often extended to play styles also. Most people are a combination of the three types.Narrativist play is focused on the story, the drama, the act of creating a specific narrative (hence the name). Rules and/or the setting itself don't need to be particularly realistic or detailed, but should serve the needs of the story and little else.Gamist play is focused on the rewards of play, the experience of playing a game with rules that can be understood and eventually mastered. Gamist goals often stress the development of a character sheet over the character in the story, especially true in campaigns that feature interesting new rules, classes, races, and so forth to try out.Simulationist play looks more toward a realistic or at least believably immersive experience in which the course of the game reflects the expectations of the players. Simulationist RPGs aren't the same as tactical board games or war games, and can in fact be heavily slanted toward intrigue or social conflict, but the rules and the setting itself must promote that in a manner that simulates those things, without lack of verisimilitude or logical consequences.Unfortunately people have used one or more of these definitions, or versions of them, to slam or downplay the importance of various games and play styles. I think the truth is often that this is best as theory and not truth in practice. It's possible to meet all three styles in the same game, which I believe is often where criticisms of heavily-weighted gamist, simulationist, or narrativist games stem from.Cheers,Cam</blockquote>

Verification