Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist

[SensoryThought]

I agree the model is flawed as it is exclusionary rather than recognizing all elements contribute to a great game.

As a side note, I can't believe how many votes Johnny is getting. Hey, I consider myself a heavy narrativist, but I don't think your teenage creation of a unique 1/2 pixie 1/2 hill giant sorcerer barbarian with tourettes and war flashbacks makes you the next Tolkien (or even RA Salvatore).

 

[steenan]

I can't call myself a gamist, narrativist or simulationist. That's not a good way of classifying people. In general, I enjoy all these styles of play.

But I use D&D when I seek gamist play. I want dangerous exploration, tactical combat and hard negotiations; I want to be challenged in various ways during play and try hard to overcome what the DM throws in my way.
In my experience, D&D was never good at supporting narrativist or simulationist play and I don't think it will change in the future. I use different games for this.

 

[Libramarian]

It's strange that gamism is the least popular one for D&D. Methinks gamism still has an unfortunate stigma.

I consider myself a gamist. At least in the sense that D&D is my favorite RPG, and I think it's mostly gamist in its design.

But I'm not really a powergamer. I'm not incapable of roleplaying or drama, or the appreciation thereof. And I'm not the type to immediately discount any attempts at realism in D&D, like "realism makes no sense in a game about monsters and magic". I hate that argument. I think fantasy elements and realistic/gritty elements provide a nice contrast together that make both more interesting.

What gamism means to me is that I don't whine when my character dies before I've had a chance to express myself artistically through them.

And if realism straight up conflicts with playability, then I will choose playability every time.

 

[Number48]

I seriously cannot answer this poll. I look at one option and say "I'm that" then the next and say "I'm that" etc. I seem to be 50/50/50. The only redeeming factor of this theory is that you can tell a broad-appeal game by it being similarly difficult to categorize.

BTW, if you want a couple of excellent story-driven games try Don't Rest Your Head and Fiasco. Fiasco is so story-driven and rules-light that it's practically just freeform acting.

The funny thing about this post is that I am designing a roleplaying game, and my design theory has more to do with cake than anything else. Everyone likes cake.

 

[Mokona]

At least in the sense that D&D is my favorite RPG, and I think it's mostly gamist in its design.

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.

 

[El Mahdi]

Not enough options.

I'm equal parts simulationist and narrativist, with a smattering of gamist. I want the campaign to be story driven (narrativist), but adhere to realistic expectations through mechanics and adjudication (simulationist). I do enjoy the tactical (gamist) aspect of the game, but only as an element of combat and conflict, but a realistic story remains paramount.

 

[El Mahdi]

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.

I agree.

OD&D/Basic D&D were just that - Basic, and therefore provided equal support for all styles as it didn't specifically support any style.

I think the mechanics and rules of AD&D (both editions) were more complex and a bit more gamist, but the mechanics were meant to support certain styles of characters, not certain styles of play. I think they still equally supported all play styles.

3E was even more complex mechanically, and tried to support absolutely any style of character, but became a much more simulationist type game. I don't think 3E made a significant attempt at class balance, but this was addressed with 3.5E.

The revisions in 3.5E added some fairly strong gamist elements to the 3E mechanics, but ended up fighting itself because of this.

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.

I hope 5E can equally support all play styles, but we shal see. I hope for just the reason that 5E may not completely succeed at this, that at the least they maintain the 4E portion of DDI intact (I would also like to see the same added for all editions of D&D to DDI, but that's probably unlikely).

But, I am very hopeful that 5E can pull it off. So far, it sounds really good. And the underlying philosophy sounds almost perfect. However, before the release of 4E, I thought the underlying philosophies being expressed about it sounded perfect also...until I had it in may hands and actually read the finished product.

So, we shall see...

 

[Ahnehnois]

Of course, all three perspectives are important.

My focus is on story, so I answered narrativist. Simulationist would be a close second, because I like verisimilitude but don't want to get bogged down in details. Gamist a distant third because I think it's a relatively small part of the D&D experience, but still an important one.

 

[Sunseeker]

Narritivist leaning Gamist.

 

[Bobbum Man]

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.