Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist

[Yora]

Just look at the poll. Even if GNS were a thing, D&D fans are pretty much equally divided between the things they want. That would make it tough to chose between one of the three types to focus game design on.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

D: Both all and none of the above.

Really, though it makes for some interesting water cooler discussions, I wish someone would put a bullet in GNS theory's head when referencing actual games and players. 'Cause no one player or game is all one category or another.

I and my game have elements of all of the categories, and I can do without all the GNS jargon mucking it up.

 

[Bobbum Man]

If I HAD to choose, I would prefer something that leans more narrativist and gamist than simulationist. From my viewpoint, simulation heavy games are lifeless, as well as overly procedural, needlessly complicated, and drowning in minutiae and bureacracy. To me, that severely diminishes the sense of romance, wonder and fun that I look for in fantasy.

However, full disclosure here, I don't really care about D&DN's goal of uniting the player base. All I want out of it is the type of game that I like to run and play...if other styles are left out in the cold, then I'm perfectly okay with that. I suspect a lot of people here feel the same.

 

[MerricB]

I believe that the poll results are probably flawed by people voting thinking that the terms mean what they do in English, rather than Forgish.

I detest the terms, because they actively do *not* mean what they say.

 

[marleykat]

I had always characterized myself as Simulationist. And reading the Johnny /Timmy article I think I fit Johnny the most. Robin Laws says I'm a Storyteller with most all scores landing between 50-60% either I'm confused or doing this hobby all wrong.

 

[Kynn]

GNS is not meant to be a method of dividing up players into categories.

At its best, it can describe certain elements of game play that occur during roleplaying games. But it's not about players' preferences at all.

 

[Bedrockgames]

GNS is not meant to be a method of dividing up players into categories.

At its best, it can describe certain elements of game play that occur during roleplaying games. But it's not about players' preferences at all.

I think preferences are definitely implicit in the concept itself and edwards has dfinitely said he is describing types of players as well as agendas. Also these terms are no longer (nor were they ever) really owned by the forge. Gamers generally use GNS to describe types of gamers.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't believe in GNS, so I didn't vote. Every single RPG I've ever read has elements of all three styles in their mechanics.

That's the point, isn't it? That every rpg is composed of these three principles in varying degrees? All humans are made up of sugars, fats, and proteins, but it can vary as to how much (and that variation is useful information).

That being said, the issue with the GNS theory is that it's limiting, not that it's overbroad. The game is just too complex and diverse to be boiled down this way, and there are any number of facets that don't fall into the GNS categories.

 

[Libramarian]

One of the requests of Gamism is fairness and balance between classes. While 3e failed at this goal I think it made an attempt. Since 4e fairly succeeded at balance it would probably be the most Gamist version of D&D. Might be hard to claim that 1e and 2e were more G than N & S.

Not necessarily.

Asymmetrical balance is compatible with Gamism, as long as the asymmetry is transparent.

If it's known that Joe's class is going to be more powerful than Bob's, then everybody knows to be more impressed by Bob's achievements than Joe's.

It's like two golfers playing together with different handicaps.

 

[Libramarian]

4E is definitely the most gamist oriented edition of D&D bar none, and I believe at the sacrifice of simulationist elements. However, I believe narrativist play is still just as equally supported under 4E as in any other edition.

By gamist do you mean meta-game? Hostile to immersion? That's not really what Gamism means in GNS (I'm about 88% sure--I'm not really a Forgie; I've never posted there, but I have read the three central essays closely). I know what you mean though. Let me try to restate it.

Gamism just means challenge-based play, where beating the challenges garners the players some amount of real-world esteem. The new term is "Step on Up", meaning the real-world players step on up to test themselves in the game. So there has to be some element of player skill involved, and some means of recognizing it.

Simulationism in GNS can mean simulating real-world physics OR it can mean simulating a genre of fiction, or some sort of narrative structure. I think the whole conflict between 3.xers and 4thers generalizing from "WTF no Craft skills?!" is best understood as a conflict between verisimilitude-Sim and dramatic-Sim priorities, not as Simulationism vs. Gamism. Both games are pretty weak-sauce Gamism played with the skill rules and encounter guidelines btb (meaning the challenge-the-player-not-the-character competitive bite is at a low ebb).

As I understand it, the older term Dramatism covered the latter, drama simulating GNS-Sim play. Ron Edwards dumped Dramatism for Narrativism because he wanted to highlight the difference between originality and pastiche. Buuuuuut I don't think it would be so harmful to split Sim into verisimilitude-focused and Drama-focused. Many people certainly do see that as an important distinction. OK. I'll use Dramatism for the latter.

I think of 4e as Dramatist, rather than Gamist, because the point of a lot of the rules structure is to simulate the "perfect D&D game", rather than to provide a foundation for competition per se.

For example in 4e combat, PCs are like 100 to 1 favorites against equal level monsters. The design of the system isn't really about challenging the players (this is not to say that it's completely without challenge, or that you can't make it more difficult; we're talking about priorities here). It's more about trying to simulate the "perfect battle" where the players are getting womped, almost to defeat, but then rally and win the day. Again and again.

And it does that admirably! If we take that as the design goal, then it's actually really, really smart at doing this. My disagreement would be at the level of the design goal, not the implementation.

I think the designers seriously overestimated how much fun it is to have the "perfect" battle/adventure/campaign again and again. They badly missed something here. Letting the "perfect" scenario occur naturally at some smaller percentage of the time isn't just strictly less fun. For at least this reason: the same scenario is more fun than it otherwise would be when it only happens occasionally. It's like a slot machine. It's more fun to have it pay out 200 bucks every 1000 pulls than to have it pay out 20 cents every pull.