GNS - does one preclude another?

[mxyzplk]

I don't figure anything. I'm quoting WotC's research results. You may explain them as you like.

Yeah, I find that study fundamentally flawed in that it did not ask or include anything about most of the normal simulation elements including game world, exploration, etc. As it doesn't ask about any "S" elements, they don't show up in their survey.

 

[mxyzplk]

I'm going to take a stab at how I understand GNS-

Gamist - the mechanics are the focus of the game. Every, at at least most, elements in the game are dealt with through various mini-games conained within the rule set. As was mentioned, Magic The Gathering is pretty much 100% gamist, at least when played competitively. You can move away from that in casual play, but, in competitive play, you build your deck to win, not to evoke or examine a particular emotional response or to explore a particular imaginary space.

Narrative - The goal of the game is to evoke or explore an emotional response or theme. The events in the game and the mechanics for resolving that event are less important than the players interaction with that response or theme. Searching for the princess or killing the dragon take a back seat to an examination of the emotional impact of being kidnapped by a dragon. Narrative game would as often cast you as the victim (the princess in this case) or the dragon (the villain) as the hero. My Life with Master is a good example here.

Simulationist - exploration of the imaginary space is the goal of the game. Actions are taken in game within the context of this imaginary space and everything should be underpinned by that. 3e D&D relied heavily on Sim play with a rule for everything that attempted to create a logical whole. GURPS is probably an even better example.

This is the most accurate definition yet IMO. When people say "tell a story" instead to describe narrative it kinda begs the question of "why." This explains why people think genre-sim games like Buffy fall into N or S camps - because they kinda fall into one based on your intent; are you trying to tell a story in the emotion-generating sense, or do you just want to emulate genre tropes? (Similar to "Is it a horror movie because it's scary, or because it has a common horror element like zombies in it?")

And remember, the terms can be used to describe entire games (in terms of what they generally promote) and also gamers (in terms of what they generally, or maybe just at this moment, are trying to get out of a game). Like I tend towards Sim play but sometimes will make a decision based on what makes the story more touching.

 

[Umbran]

I believe its because even if its the tactical games part that they primarily enjoy, the other aspects are fun too. Imagining the events as a story and playing out their characters is fun too, even if that isn't the focus or very deep.

The WotC market research results support that - as a generalization, gamers who like a thing don't want just that thing. They want the other stuff that they can get from RPGs, too.

 

[Ariosto]

Also, are there any good examples of narrativist/simulationist games out there? I can't think of many that would be both (they seem sort of antagonistic).

"Narrativist", in the Forge GNS sense, seems sometimes to come down rather literally to what Hussar described above: exploring an emotional response or theme. Such a narrow focus is unlikely to satisfy my "simulationist" desires (or interest in a replay).

Broadening the scope to include more than one emotional response, and at the least a very wide-reaching and flexible premise, opens up more possibilities. Here are a couple of candidates in my mind:

Call of Cthulhu very rarely, in my experience, actually produces the affect of horror. (Lovecraft's fiction does not do that for everyone, either, but the game's tendency is I think due to a different tenor.) However, there is a continuous thread -- conveyed partly via the Sanity rules -- of standing against what is in the end irresistible, a sacrifice that yet is not futile in that it stays a while the hand of doom.

King Arthur Pendragon has rules for Character Traits and Passions that seem the epitome of Narrativist tools. The focus is on the Warrior's role, in the context of an emerging code of Chivalry that sometimes pits pagan and Christian virtues against each other. The bigger picture is really big, a generation passing and another being born as the saga plays out. It's also 'narrativist' in the (more common, I think) interpretation of being about "telling stories". There are a great many stories woven into the epic tapestry of the Arthurian myth, and players generally cannot help but be conscious of their roles in a "twice-told tale" even if their characters are not.

Both games employ variations on Chaosium's Basic Role Playing system, which is a favorite of mine for its emphasis on 'simulationism' in both senses (Forge and 'common').

 

[BenBrown]

BTW the Forge GNS model was based on the older usenet Gamist-Dramatist-Simulationist model, which unlike GNS actually makes sense. GDS distinguishes between the primary play goals (1) Game - challenge players; (2) Simulation of setting/environment, and (3) Drama - creation of a compelling story. GNS pushes Drama into Sim and blows up a particular narrow kind of play based on exploration of Premise, which they call Narrativism, into a favoured one of the Big Three.

GDS, unlike GNS, can be applies to a broad range of RPGs. Using GDS it's not hard to see that the design of eg Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG is primarily D, that Twilight: 2000 or Runequest are primarily S, and that OD&D is primarily G. Whereas GNS declares that Buffy and Twilight 2000 are both Sim games - one simulating a post-apocalypse environment, the other simulating the TV show.

Agreed. It is a crying shame that Ron Edwards took the terminology from a perfectly good model, and warped it to the point where nobody can talk about the original working model any more without setting off a fight.

I have argued that "Narrativism" has nothing to do with narrative. Other people have taken similar exception to the term "Simulationism", and I've even seen one guy argue against "Gamism" as a term because it's inaccurate.

Go ahead and use the model if you like, but don't ask about the terminology, because it's meaningless.

 

[Wik]

I somehow knew there'd be a "What is GNS?" debate. But someone mentioned the fact that you could graph a game on a triangle, which is sort of where I was going with this - because to place a game on the triangle is essentially saying "if a game is strongly X, then it is by nature less Y and Z".

Which kind of makes an interesting thought exercise. If a game can be rated from 1 to 5 in each of the categories, and all three categories have to add up to 9, how would you rate some of your favourite games?

(as an example, I'd say 4e is Gamist 4.5, Narrativist 3, Simulationist 1.5... 2e would be more like Gamist 2, Narrativist 4, and Simulationist 3... while Shadowrun would be maybe Gamist 1.5, Narrativist 3, Simulationist 4.5 - but that's just a quick assessment).

 

[Hussar]

I somehow knew there'd be a "What is GNS?" debate. But someone mentioned the fact that you could graph a game on a triangle, which is sort of where I was going with this - because to place a game on the triangle is essentially saying "if a game is strongly X, then it is by nature less Y and Z".

Which kind of makes an interesting thought exercise. If a game can be rated from 1 to 5 in each of the categories, and all three categories have to add up to 9, how would you rate some of your favourite games?

(as an example, I'd say 4e is Gamist 4.5, Narrativist 3, Simulationist 1.5... 2e would be more like Gamist 2, Narrativist 4, and Simulationist 3... while Shadowrun would be maybe Gamist 1.5, Narrativist 3, Simulationist 4.5 - but that's just a quick assessment).

I could see that, without getting into the specifics of where you happen to plot the points. I think the triangle graph goes a long way towards painting a fairly broad picture of a given game.

There should be some care taken though. For one, placement of a given game might be heavily colored by the experience of the player. Just because a game might be placed at one point, doesn't mean it is necessarily played at that point.

At best, we're using a pretty broad brush.

 

[Ourph]

2e would be more like Gamist 2, Narrativist 4, and Simulationist 3

Out of curiosity, what about the 2e rules makes you think it deserves such a high ranking in the Narrativist category? I will agree that Narrativist play certainly had an upsurge during the 2e era and many people used the 2e rules in games that were heavily Narrative focused, but is there really anything about the 2e rules that specifically facilitates Narrativist play?

 

[Wik]

Out of curiosity, what about the 2e rules makes you think it deserves such a high ranking in the Narrativist category? I will agree that Narrativist play certainly had an upsurge during the 2e era and many people used the 2e rules in games that were heavily Narrative focused, but is there really anything about the 2e rules that specifically facilitates Narrativist play?

Mostly the way the rules were presented. The narrativist approach was pretty often described as the "ideal" way to play the game - and I could dig up specific page references, if I was willing to take the time. Regarding the rules themselves.... not so much. Although there were a fair number of items in character classes and whatnot (not to mention non weapon proficiencies!) which seemed to suggest that building an interesting character background was vital.

There should be some care taken though. For one, placement of a given game might be heavily colored by the experience of the player. Just because a game might be placed at one point, doesn't mean it is necessarily played at that point.

At best, we're using a pretty broad brush.

Oh, absolutely. For example, going back to what I said about 4e - one of my big goals is to make 4e more conducive to what has been called "Simulationist"... in this case, the idea that the game rules reflect the world a bit more. And for the economy to be based on "reality" of a fantasy world, as opposed to what is ideal in a game situation. Because, when all is said and done, I am primarily a "simulationist" style of GM, and probably always will be.

 

[BenBrown]

I somehow knew there'd be a "What is GNS?" debate. But someone mentioned the fact that you could graph a game on a triangle, which is sort of where I was going with this - because to place a game on the triangle is essentially saying "if a game is strongly X, then it is by nature less Y and Z".

There almost has to be, since unless people can agree on what the terms mean (and nobody ever does) we can't really answer the question fairly.

AD&D 2e certainly isn't "Narrativist" in the specific Ron Edwards sense. It's more likely dramatist, but I honestly think it's too scattered in its construction to be squarely anything.