GNS - which are you?
- Thread starter der_kluge
- Start date
Mercule
Adventurer
I used to be, probably, 45% Simulationist, 40% Narritivist (or vice versa -- I was a Simulationist who fudged dice), and only 15% Gamist.
Now, I'm much more balanced. I find I'm willing to lose some story elements (character deaths, etc.) in favor of running an actual game. But I'm also more willing to hand-wave some "realism" or logic to make a better story. Probably 35% Simulationist, 35-40% Narritivist, and 25-30% Gamist now.
Now, I'm much more balanced. I find I'm willing to lose some story elements (character deaths, etc.) in favor of running an actual game. But I'm also more willing to hand-wave some "realism" or logic to make a better story. Probably 35% Simulationist, 35-40% Narritivist, and 25-30% Gamist now.
Mark Causey
Explorer
PapersAndPaychecks said:
Playing Devil's Advocate, he goes on to state in other articles that System (the rules of a gaming system) do matter. Thus, in a game where 'Gamism' is focused on, like D&D, Gamist values tend to be at the forefront.
I really don't want to attack or defend anybody, though.
I brought this up because my fun in an RPG comes from exploring Simulationist things (how magic fundamentally works, what is it like to be an elf?, etc.) and my group tends to focus on Gamist things (define the objective, do their best to overcome it, etc.). I originally went to the Forge hoping to find solutions to my in-game disappointments. Social Contract came up as the only term that has survived all player scrutiny on my part, and it has been fixed on my end (I explicitly examine what I and others want from their games). Otherwise, Robin's Laws does a much better job defining my group.
Anywho, I'm 70% Simulationist, 25% Narrativist/Dramatist, 5% Gamist (aka I could really care less if my character wins or loses so long as the story is good and goes on, and god I love to explore a world through my character's eyes).
Celebrim
Legend
To begin with, read Gygax's introduction to the 1st edition DMG. In it, he expressly states that his goals in the game are gamist in nature.
Unfortunately for me, Gygax didn't seem to understand that for me 'fun' contained more narrativist and simulationist aspects than D&D had at the time. For me, the fun was not in the gamist aspect of Role Playing - because if that was my primary goal I'd play Chess, Blood Bowl, or whatever expressly competitive game instead of a cooperative game. Moreover, even at an early age I became more interested in being a DM than a player. There are alot of things that attract people to DMing, but more me it's expressly narrativist (I've a story I want to tell) and simulationist (I like tinkering with the rules to make them more realistic, simulating complex societies, and otherwise making the game seem more real) goals.
I'd say that I was probably 45% Simulationist, 35% Narrativist, and 20% Gamist.
I am capable of - depending on the situation - going into fully Gamist mode and treating D&D in a competitive ('Let's see if I can beat the DM') or semi-competitive fashion ('Let's see what sort of devious challenges I can throw at the PC's'). I just long to do more than that.
Unfortunately for me, Gygax didn't seem to understand that for me 'fun' contained more narrativist and simulationist aspects than D&D had at the time. For me, the fun was not in the gamist aspect of Role Playing - because if that was my primary goal I'd play Chess, Blood Bowl, or whatever expressly competitive game instead of a cooperative game. Moreover, even at an early age I became more interested in being a DM than a player. There are alot of things that attract people to DMing, but more me it's expressly narrativist (I've a story I want to tell) and simulationist (I like tinkering with the rules to make them more realistic, simulating complex societies, and otherwise making the game seem more real) goals.
I'd say that I was probably 45% Simulationist, 35% Narrativist, and 20% Gamist.
I am capable of - depending on the situation - going into fully Gamist mode and treating D&D in a competitive ('Let's see if I can beat the DM') or semi-competitive fashion ('Let's see what sort of devious challenges I can throw at the PC's'). I just long to do more than that.
The Shaman
First Post
55% sim / 35% game / 10% nar.
I'm not telling a story - I'm creating the environment from which a story emanates.
I'm not telling a story - I'm creating the environment from which a story emanates.
AIM-54
First Post
It's a game and I treat it as such. But I also love getting into world design and why things are the way they are and exploration, so I have a decent simulationist streak as well. As for the story...well, I like some, but I hate when it overtakes the game aspect of it. For me, it is a game above all and thus story and character elements may need to be sacrificed if they get in the way of game play.
MonsterMash
First Post
Probably about 60% Sim 35% Gam 5% Nar - stories come out of the other stuff really. Gamist streak still there from wargaming background!
Wombat
First Post
Narrativist, first and foremost, followed by a fair amount of Simulationist; Gamist only where absolutely necessary.
I like stories, I like character development, I like making worlds that feel "real" even while having strong fantasty aspects, etc. And I like to see where characters fit into this larger image of the world.
When I'm feeling particularly Gamist, I go for a more traditional boardgame. I try to keep metagaming knowledge and aspects to a minimum in my rpgs.
I like stories, I like character development, I like making worlds that feel "real" even while having strong fantasty aspects, etc. And I like to see where characters fit into this larger image of the world.
When I'm feeling particularly Gamist, I go for a more traditional boardgame. I try to keep metagaming knowledge and aspects to a minimum in my rpgs.
Similar Threads
