Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist

[Consonant Dude]

I'm still bewildered that after all this time, people elaborate on that confusing theory, then invariably, someone will come and correct them on a term. "No simulationist doesn't mean what you think it means, it means X and Y". Then another person will correct the correcter. "No, no. Simulationist means X and A but Y is covered under narrativism". And it goes on and on, with new funny names being added like "Step On Up" and new meaningless and divisive jargon.

Like, if nobody can even agree on what the very basics are, what's the point? (I'm being rhetorical, there is none)

I guess I could understand the fascination with the GNS theory if Ron Edwards and his closest acolytes had kickass gaming resumes. But their credit lists read pretty much like the answer to a question such as: "Hey guys, I'd like to know about really boring RPGs and failed experiments that have been forgotten or relegated to LGS bargain bins".

 

[JonWake]

I'm still bewildered that after all this time, people elaborate on that confusing theory, then invariably, someone will come and correct them on a term. "No simulationist doesn't mean what you think it means, it means X and Y". Then another person will correct the correcter. "No, no. Simulationist means X and A but Y is covered under narrativism". And it goes on and on, with new funny names being added like "Step On Up" and new meaningless and divisive jargon.

Like, if nobody can even agree on what the very basics are, what's the point? (I'm being rhetorical, there is none)

I guess I could understand the fascination with the GNS theory if Ron Edwards and his closest acolytes had kickass gaming resumes. But their credit lists read pretty much like the answer to a question such as: "Hey guys, I'd like to know about really boring RPGs and failed experiments that have been forgotten or relegated to LGS bargain bins".

At least they're trying new things.

GNS theory is a tool, nothing more. It has tolerances, like any tool.

 

[Savage Wombat]

When I first heard someone use "Right to Dream" I couldn't help but think of those "Right to Work" states where the term means almost the opposite.

Clever jargon is still jargon.

 

[El Mahdi]

By gamist do you mean meta-game? Hostile to immersion? That's not really what Gamism means in GNS...

To be honest, I've never read those essays, so perhaps I have the wrong definition in mind as to those terms. I see them this way:

• Narrativist - Focusing on Story and Character (not mechanics). The Role Playing aspect of Role Playing Game.
• Simulationist - Focusing on mechanics that model and support a certain feel or environment, whether real world or a specific genre.
• Gamist - Focusing on mechanics that support the Game aspect of Role Playing Game.

So, I see the editions using those definitions. I hope that adds light to my earlier descriptions.

I definitely don't see 4E as meta-gamey or hostile to immersion. I just see it as focusing more strongly on mechanics meant to support the Game aspect of Role Playing Game, and less on the mechanics as a model for a type of simulation (be it real world or genre). But, I don't see that focus or lack of focus as affecting Narrativist aspects either negatively or positively. As far as Narrativist aspects, I see 4E as neutral.

 

[JonWake]

Well there's your problem right there.

GNS is more of a metatheory of how players and the rules system interact during play. You can't necessarily look at a game system and say, 'ah yes, this is a Gamist system', because the system in and of itself only has life when its played around the table.

Narrativist, or "Story Now" play emphasizes the dramatic (as in, traditional drama) aspects of play. A game system that encourages Story Now play places greater emphasis on the premise behind the play. So if the premise is "only the good die young", the mechanics might be built around rewarding selfish action in the short term and making life difficult for virtuous characters.

Fiasco is built around to encourage Story Now play. But that is all a system can do: encourage.

Gameist, or "Step on Up" play is all about using the players intelligence and wits to make victory happen. It emphasizes tactics and resource management, and a system that wants players to Step on Up will make their tactical choices the most important aspect, sometimes to the extent of breaking the game if the players don't think tactically.

The Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits mechanic is definitely about Step on Up gameplay.

Simulationist, or "Right to Dream" is all about exploring the setting and tropes therein. It has nothing to do with 'realism' or 'verisimilitude', it has everything to do with having the freedom to poke around the edges of a game world. The systems of simulationist encouraging games try to make the game world as consistent as possible.

Call of Cthulhu encourages a simulationist bent, but so does Marvel Superheroes Diceless.

I don't think 3e and 4e have differing creative agendas. I think they put the emphasis in different places. 3e gameplay was definitely about Stepping Up, but in the context of play it led to a weird kind of Simulation: the cart went before the horse. People started treating the game worlds as if the strangeness of the system logically led to bundles of Wands of CLW, half-dragon half-faerie ninjas wandering the realm, and 15 minute workdays. The rules were deeply about a coherent simulation, but it was of an absurd world.

4e, on the other hand, decided it would simulate a particular experience of Step on Up play. Which is sort of ground breaking for a mainstream RPG.

The friction occurs from the people who never bought into 3e's implied setting or gamestyle, or who want to tell a different kind of story than 4e's structure allowed.

5e seems to be on the right track: make a generic base game that can accommodate any agenda (within the middling bounds), and add modules that tweak it this way or that. Hell, Monte is even talking about making the game table discuss what kind of game they want to run before play starts. That's straight out of the Forgie handbook.

 

[Consonant Dude]

3e gameplay was definitely about Stepping Up, but in the context of play it led to a weird kind of Simulation: the cart went before the horse. People started treating the game worlds as if the strangeness of the system logically led to bundles of Wands of CLW, half-dragon half-faerie ninjas wandering the realm, and 15 minute workdays. The rules were deeply about a coherent simulation, but it was of an absurd world.

I played 3rd edition for a decade and it never approached anything you describe. Maybe if you weren't caught up in trying to attach hipster labels to versatile games, you'd see more possibilities?

None of the campaigns I ran could have been pigeonholed the way you do. Filling your descriptions with jargon doesn't make it any less insulting, BTW. It just makes it more difficult to understand what exactly are your issues.

 

[Bedrockgames]

5e seems to be on the right track: make a generic base game that can accommodate any agenda (within the middling bounds), and add modules that tweak it this way or that. Hell, Monte is even talking about making the game table discuss what kind of game they want to run before play starts. That's straight out of the Forgie handbook.

If any thing, 5E seems to be a move away from anything approaching the forge. Talking about the kind of game you want to run is classic advice that has been around since well before the forge. I really dont think cook (particularly based on what I have read from him) is thinking about agendas here or anything to do with the forge.

 

[JonWake]

Hey, your defensiveness is showing.
And 'hipster labels'? Seriously? Way to raise the tone.

The vast, vast majority of people never bought into that playstyle. But some did, shouted on message boards about '15 minute workdays' as if that was inevitable, and as such, the designers of 4e decided to 'fix' those things. Yes, they were broken, but most people never payed them any mind so it didn't come up in our games.

That's not to say 3e was a great game for every experience. Try to run it with something like Ravenloft (not a setting well suited to AD&D in the first place) and you'd end up spending most of your time fighting the system's action-centric approach.

 

[JonWake]

If any thing, 5E seems to be a move away from anything approaching the forge. Talking about the kind of game you want to run is classic advice that has been around since well before the forge. I really dont think cook (particularly based on what I have read from him) is thinking about agendas here or anything to do with the forge.

It's still a huge change from 3e or 4e. People played that way, sure, but there was never any guidance in the PHB or DMG about accommodating different play styles. It was just 'this is D&D. Play it.'

Hell, you could reasonably say that all indie game design theory is based around answering the question "Why don't any two D&D groups seem to play the same game?"

 

[Consonant Dude]

Hey, your defensiveness is showing.
And 'hipster labels'? Seriously? Way to raise the tone.

The vast, vast majority of people never bought into that playstyle. But some did, shouted on message boards about '15 minute workdays' as if that was inevitable, and as such, the designers of 4e decided to 'fix' those things. Yes, they were broken, but most people never payed them any mind so it didn't come up in our games.

That's not to say 3e was a great game for every experience. Try to run it with something like Ravenloft (not a setting well suited to AD&D in the first place) and you'd end up spending most of your time fighting the system's action-centric approach.

Jon, I'm not trying to raise the tone but... seriously... "the right to dream"? "Step on Up?" Do you really not understand how these labels sound ridiculous and obfuscate a normal conversation? What happened to "I like the fun to roll dice", "I like playing my character and talking with funny voice", "I like a challenge", "I like the sweeping story arcs" and a multitude of other facets inherent to the DnD experience?

You probably think I reject anything theory-related outright but I don't. I think there were interesting observations back when these discussions originally happened (at the Gaming Outpost). But clearly, the codification into an actual theory failed.

It doesn't mean I don't think anything interesting came out of it. I just think surveys setup like that are totally unhelpful. Have an actual forthright survey allowing multiple answers. You'll see a better representation of what people get out of DnD, which is all three things... and a LOT MORE