PapersAndPaychecks said:
Edwards specifically states that according to his view, Gary Gygax is a very hardcore Simulationist. I think that this tells us more about Edwards than it does about what a Simulationist is.
The
actual point Ron Edwards makes is that the rules of the games Gary has written have included very hardcore Simulationist elements. Including level limits for demi-humans to reinforce the humanocentric nature of the D&D milieu, explanations on the real-world basis for the function of abilities such as infravision and ultravision and the detailed description of monsters/magic items/artifacts/spells with game-world history and story elements included are all examples of facilitating the Exploration of different aspects of the shared-imagined space (i.e. Simulationism). Even if you eliminate the combat rules entirely from the discussion, AD&D still falls heavily on the Simulationist side of the spectrum in terms of how the
rules are written.
In fact, Ron specifically says in several places throughout his essays that using GNS to "define" a particular person isn't useful and it's not what the model was created to do. The model defines particular instances of play and establishes a framework in which to discuss how particular game rules facilitate or detract from creating instances of a particular GNS type. The discussion of how different GNS priorities within players in the same group can cause friction is really secondary to the game design aspect of the model (and doesn't imply, at all, that anyone can ever be defined strictly as either G, N or S or even any combination of the three).
For example, I would say that I enjoy a game that is, for the most part, Simulationist. If I'm not engaging in Simulationist play, I'd rather default to Gamist than Narrativist. However, I absolutely hate exploring Character. So defining me as a Simulationist doesn't really do a lot of good unless you look into the other aspects of the model, because you could plop me into a heavy Sim game with a focus on Exploration of Character and I'd be miserable, even though I just stated I prefer Simulationist play.
By Edwards' definitions I am also a Simulationist, as is pretty much anyone who plays a system where you micromanage details like initiative scores, "to hit" rolls and damage with separate rolls.
That's just not true. You're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what Ron says about the model. Micromanaging details isn't a defining factor of any aspect of GNS. Gamist play can focus on those details just as much as Simulationist play can. In fact, some Gamist play is centered around numbers heavy combat and the challenge of play is not only doing well vs. opponents in-game, but being able to master the rules of the game better than the other players/opponents out-of-game. It's the motivation behind the focus on the numbers (verisimilitude = Simulationist vs. working the system = Gamist) that's important.
Once again, using the model as a sort of gamer "personality profile" is an incorrect application of the theory. GNS defines instances of play, period. The only way this can be applied to a person is by saying "
Gamer X prefers to engage in or tends to engage in instances of play that fall under the heading of
blank". Even then, you've only got a partial picture of that person's gaming habits/preferences.
