Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist

[Bedrockgames]

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?"

I would actually have to crack open my 3E dmg to see if that is true. In 2E it wasnt in the DMG, but they had a whole line of blue books that addressed things like playstyles. But that is beside the point. What I am trying to say is these things were widely discussed by gamers, in supplements, in other rpgs, etc, etc well before the forge or the indie movement. The fact is the question at the end of your post has been asked and answered multiple times iver the last three decades. The forge has a very specific answer to that question, but plenty of other answer (imo most much more viable) have been offered.

If anything 4E seems to have taken a page from the forge by catering to a very specific style of play.

 

[JonWake]

I would actually have to crack open my 3E dmg to see if that is true. In 2E it wasnt in the DMG, but they had a whole line of blue books that addressed things like playstyles. But that is beside the point. What I am trying to say is these things were widely discussed by gamers, in supplements, in other rpgs, etc, etc well before the forge or the indie movement. The fact is the question at the end of your post has been asked and answered multiple times iver the last three decades. The forge has a very specific answer to that question, but plenty of other answer (imo most much more viable) have been offered.

If anything 4E seems to have taken a page from the forge by catering to a very specific style of play.

I agree with you on all counts. Back in 2e, it was the settings books that determined the playstyle. Someone playing Dark Sun versus Dragonlance probably were playing totally different types of games. I think there's a definite value, however, in making it explicit how rules interact with play to make different types of games easier or harder. That's what's been missing.

GNS is limited to describing potential collisions when the rules hit the table. Used this way, it has pretty good predictive value. Any other use is just contemplating your navel.

I'd love to hear other theories of RPG design, but the ones I've encountered seemed to be based on card games or board game design.

 

[Libramarian]

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

GNS is literally not even presented as a comprehensive theory. It's only part of the "Big Model". A lot of the other stuff you describe fits in elsewhere in there. (Maybe not all). The reason why you don't see the other Big Model terms around as much is they're not as useful as GNS.

I think GNS lets you talk about something that's actually really slippery otherwise: how radically different two identical "transcripts" of play can feel during play, depending on the real-world, real-people goals and feedback going on.

At least I strongly feel that exposure to the theory has sharpened my own sensitivity to this a great deal. Like, being able to look at two different game mechanics that ostensibly do the same thing (e.g. Fate Points and player-DM negotiation), but feel different, and not confuse them. It helps to have the thought: maybe they're for different creative agendas.

If I feel like I've found GNS terminology useful in formulating my thoughts, then I want to use it when expressing them. Otherwise it feels kinda dishonest. Like pretending I did some math problem without a calculator.

 

[JonWake]

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?

We're not in normal conversation. We're talking about RPG theories. Artists don't talk about 'me like pretty pictures'. You don't hear: 'oxygen? what kind of hipster crap is that. It's air, fool.' It's jargon because it refers to something very specific.

GNS has a specific meaning. It has a very specific meaning, and that is the types of interaction people have with rules system. It's iterative, it's situational, and it changes from person to person, moment to moment. These three styles of interaction are mutually exclusive.

GNS does not mean 'I like stories' or 'I like tactics'. That has no meaning with GNS, and vice versa.

The reason you have people use them like that is simple: they don't understand them. They've probably heard them second or third hand and never read up on what the theory actually states.

Then they go on message boards and talk about what nonsense the theory is.

 

[pemerton]

It's strange that gamism is the least popular one for D&D.

Agreed. My impression of these boards is that some version of Gygaxian play - "skilled play" with a fairly robust simulatinionst chassis underpinning it - is the most common approach. And 3E tended to reinforce this approach, I think. (Though seems to be have been easily drifted in more simulationist directions.)

Methinks gamism still has an unfortunate stigma.

Agreed. Also, on these boards by "gamist" most people mean something like "metagame mechanics heavy" rather than "step on up".

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 won't comment on 2nd ed, but have a read of the last few pages (before the appendices) of Gygax's PHB. It would be harder to find a clearer gamist manifesto than Gygax's advocacy of, and explanation of, "skilled D&D play". His DMG is also written with the same sort of playstyle firmly in mind.

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.

I agree with what you say about those features of 4e that militate against gamism. I would add to that it's XP award and treasure acquisition guidelines. But [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] has made clear to me that there is a different sort of gamism that 4e supports well (I call it "light gamism") - showing off to your fellow players by doing cool things with your PC (that reflect cleverness of build and of play), using the "perfectly balanced" situations that the GM has constructed as a reliable arena in which to do this showing off.

I'm not sure if this is what the designers had in mind or not, but it seems to me a very straightforward application of the game (I'm not even sure I'd call it drifting).

I've also found that 4e is very easily drifted to narrativist play (basically, just use the guidelines from a game like Burning Wheel to guide you in introducing story elements into encounters, and use the guidelines from HeroWars/Quest and Maelstrom Storytelling to frame skill challenges, and use the guidelines from those games plus BW to make decisions about the consequences of successful or failed checks in a skil challenge).

Provided that you enjoy the gonzo fantasy tropes of D&D (I do) and want the thematic content of your game to be the sort of stuff that those tropes can support (again, I do - we're not talking about My Life With Master at my table!) then 4e does narrativism fairly well in my experience.

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.

I think 4e can be easily drifted to a light narrativism in the way I've just described - it has a lot of thematically rich story elements (paragon paths, plenty of the classes, plenty of the monsters, etc) and the player-protagonising mechanics (in PC build and action resolution) to let the players rather than just the GM do stuff with these story elements.

I don't think earlier editions do narrativism at all well, because they're full of mecahnical systems that drag play out of the situation and into the exploration-heavy nitty-gritty of operational play. I regard 2nd ed as the poster child for mismatch between apparent aspirations for play and actual mechanics adopted by the game.

And as a long time Rolemaster player (a sim-heavy game that also is surprisingly easy to drift to narrativist play, in a way that superficially similar games like RQ are not), I don't understand at all the apparent attraction of 3E as a sim vehicle that I often see expressed on these boards.

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.

Except when you're playing narrativist 4e! Then combat is where the thematic action is.

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

You asked for it!

 

[pemerton]

The reason you have people use them like that is simple: they don't understand them.

I couldn't XP your post, but here is my impression of how GNS are often used on these boards:

Gamist: metagame heavy, and/or exploration-light (in Forge terms, this is talking more about techniques than about agendas for play).

Narrativist: care about story and/or PC (in Forge terms, this would generally be high concept sim with a ready acceptance of GM force in the interests of "the story").

Simulationist: purist-for-sim mechanical chassis, whether or not exploration is actually the goal of play.​

One upshot of this is that those who play Gygaxian D&D are likely to describe themselves as Simulationist (because of the mechanics that they like) rather than gamist (because Gygaxian D&D is metagame-light and exploration-heavy).

Another upshot is that those who like 2nd-ed style play are likely to describe themselves as Narrativist, although the whole rationale of Forge-style narrativist gaming is to escape from 2nd-ed style (and other, similar, storyteller-style) play.

That's why I agree with [MENTION=83293]nnms[/MENTION] that this poll on this forum is not really going to tell us much that is helpful.

 

[Argyle King]

Even after reading the theory more in depth, I find that it does not accurately portray the way I like to play. I cannot identify with only one of the choices.

edit: I identify with Gamist the least. Generally speaking, I find that I can relate to both Simulation and the Narrativist outlook. However, there are a few key areas in which I agree (or disagree) with one or the other which makes it difficult for me to choose one over the other, and/or fully identify with either.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I like playing because I like the social engagement. Does this make me a Socialist?

 

[Libramarian]

I agree with what you say about those features of 4e that militate against gamism. I would add to that it's XP award and treasure acquisition guidelines. But [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] has made clear to me that there is a different sort of gamism that 4e supports well (I call it "light gamism") - showing off to your fellow players by doing cool things with your PC (that reflect cleverness of build and of play), using the "perfectly balanced" situations that the GM has constructed as a reliable arena in which to do this showing off.

I'm not sure if this is what the designers had in mind or not, but it seems to me a very straightforward application of the game (I'm not even sure I'd call it drifting).

Oh yeah OK. I know what you mean by light gamism. I still want to call it drifting because it seems like it should interact with the XP system (as reward), but it doesn't. I'm also struggling to picture an entire D&D campaign where that literally is the dominant thing. Unless the convention for "light" narrativism/gamism is really like a "one drop" rule-- one drop of metagame agenda and you're out of sim.

 

[Balesir]

Oh yeah OK. I know what you mean by light gamism. I still want to call it drifting because it seems like it should interact with the XP system (as reward), but it doesn't.

I don't see the XP system in 4E as a "reward" system, really - and it was often a dubious one in earlier editions, too, I think. I see it rather as a pacing mechanism; a way to keep characters powers changing and fresh (and thus a continuing challenge to use well) and to provide an outlet for the "character and party building skill" as the game progresses. If players feel incentivised to "step on up" to more encounters in order to get to the next level, that is an added bonus but not really the main function of XP as I see it.

I'm also struggling to picture an entire D&D campaign where that literally is the dominant thing. Unless the convention for "light" narrativism/gamism is really like a "one drop" rule-- one drop of metagame agenda and you're out of sim.

Pulling off coups d'oeil and "cool moovz" in combat is certainly a major focus of intra-player kudos, but there are other elements, too. Tracking how many milestones the party manage to hit before taking an extended rest is one "measure of success"; I stick to the old "daily magic item use" system to make these a bit more mechanically useful. Strategic choices about what encounters to engage with in what order in order to successfully complete the "mission" are also increasingly important.

In general, though, the players seem content for there to be a fairly linear story that they act as an "audience" for as it joins the encounters one to another and lends them some context. Their role in the story, though, is as antagonists, rather than protagonists. They follow the story, rather than decide its direction; as such the story is not really their focus during actual play, since they are not the ones making it happen, they are merely reacting to it.

Outside of actual play, there is story (both in the sense of "tales of what happened when..." and in the sense of "this is what the situation is, and what we have to stop is this plot..."). Inside actual play, though, the focus is on beating the encounter with a minimum of resources (daily powers and healing surges) and preferably using clever tactics to do so (positioning, power combinations, use of terrain and so on).