Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist

[avin]

Favorite? Simulationist.
D&D? Narrativist/simulationist...

 

[TrippyHippy]

I honestly believe that much of the schism created in the D&D community and broader gaming community, over the last decade or so, largely stems from this theory (along with 'system matters') and the arrogance of it's proponents. I vote none of the above.

 

[Consonant Dude]

I honestly believe that much of the schism created in the D&D community., and broader gaming community generally, over the last decade or so, largely stems from this theory (along with 'system matters') and the arrogance of it's proponents.

Nah. That's using the theory as a scapegoat and giving it an importance it never had.

I can tell you exactly when this so-called schism happened: it's when a second roleplaying game came to existence

People argued in this hobby before the popularity of personal computer and the internet. They do so today. They will continue to do so well after this theory has been forgotten.

 

[Quickleaf]

This may be a mean thing to say, but I don't think the majority of Enworld posters can meaningfully discuss this model of RPG theory after reading a single wikipedia entry. Or taking a poll.

I'll take that as a compliment.

 

[Argyle King]

If I had to apply the terms to myself, I'd say I'm somewhere around the following:

Simulationist 40%
Narrativist 40%
Gamist 20%



Reading the definitions linked to by the OP, I feel my interests would be evenly divided between S & N. While I'm not a huge fan of the gamist mindset, I am willing to accept some of it, and I understand that there are times when sacrifices have to be made in the name of playability.

 

[Tony Vargas]

These should be check boxes. I don't see why I can't have at least two of the three.

 

[Libramarian]

I agree, it isn't a good game design tool in my opinion. Also, lots of people feel using it as a guide is why 4e didn't do so well.

I actually think the reason 4e didn't do so well is because it's in like a null void between all the creative agendas. It's got very little to facilitate narrativism, it's immediately off-putting to simulationists, and the gamism it provides is pretty weak-sauce, because the battles are balanced to make it a near mathematical certainty that the PCs will win and suffer few lasting consequences. 3.x provides better rules-heavy gamism (i.e. CharOp and mechanics-based Gordian knot-cutting), and old school D&D provides better rules-light gamism (i.e. MacGyvering).

4e is like simulationism of itself, or something.

I think GNS is a good game design tool. It's not a grand unifying theory, but it's a useful and interesting way to think about RPGs. As long as you "fact check" the conclusions you get from it with your own intuition coming from lots of actual play.

 

[Blackwind]

I put down gamist. But I did so with a reservation.

I'm only gamist if you're going to make me spend time playing a game.

I can play Og: Unearthed with a purely narrativist style (jokes are valid narrative if they're funny!). But this is because combat in Og takes like... 10 seconds?

If I'm going to spend an hour in combat, that combat had better be gamist. Since I feel safe in assuming that any edition of D&D is going to have a lot of emphasis on fighting monsters, and on fighting monsters in various ways depending on your character class, and spending a lot of time fighting monsters when you do it... I need fighting monsters to be gamist. Otherwise its just mind numbing. Because you can't fit all that much narrative into ten 6 second intervals played out across two hours.

I totally get the desire for gamist combat. Personally I'm not a fan, but I get that some people are.

That said, narrativist combat doesn't usually take 2 hours Or, more properly, combat in "Story Now" games tends to go pretty fast compared to 3.x and 4E.

 

[Savage Wombat]

OK, I keep seeing this theory discussed, and I don't see why everyone gets so worked up pro- or anti- it. Why does it bother you?

If someone could link me to the relevant 26 page ENWorld discussion thread on the subject I'd appreciate it.

 

[Consonant Dude]

OK, I keep seeing this theory discussed, and I don't see why everyone gets so worked up pro- or anti- it. Why does it bother you?

I wouldn't say I am "anti-it" but the theory is deeply flawed and not very helpful.

GNS is a poorly thought-out model that was derived from various sources such as the original Threefold model (search John Kim's site for info) and the fantastic game Everway (By Jonathan Tweet).

The problem is, GNS tends to come off as divisive while its sources were inclusive of all styles of play. A perfect example is the above poll, where I am asked to choose one option when the beauty of roleplaying is precisely that it's not just a game, it's not just a story and it's not just simulating things.

If all I wanted is a story, I'd read a freaking book or write one. If all I wanted was a game I'd play one of the infinitely less time-consuming Euro board games that are much easier to set up. If I wanted the ultimate realism, I would get a real sword, go kill a bear in the woods and take its stuff.

OK, maybe not the last one but you get the point.