What I dislike about GNS is the concept that they are mutually exclusive ideas in an RPG and that if you have one, then you must reject the others. That's hogwash! They have to work together, and here's why:
Simulation creates a world. This world creates the illusion of freedom. It simulates everything the character (an avatar of the player) can experience: sights, sounds, tastes, etc. It acts as setting, backdrop, and physical law for most of the experience, and interacts with the character in a believable manner (gravity pulls down, sun's rise and set, fire is hot) to give a framework for the PCs to work in. How and what they do is handled separately.
What they do is Narrative. Its as complex as Greek Tragedy or as simple as going to the store. Everyone tells a story. Some lay it out ahead of time (traditional narrativism) while others allow the story to develop tabula rasa (without outside interference). Everyone's actions tells a story: from you telling your buddy what happened on your way to the grocery store to the most harrowing biography. To say the story is unimportant is to ignore continuity and purpose; you create a character adrift in a vanity faire of experiences (mundane and exotic) without greater context.
How they do it is Gamism. These are the resolution of mechanic that allow the character to interact with the simulation and create the narrative. That is the combat mechanic to hit, the skill check to jump, the saving throw vs. poison, the spot check, etc. Even the mechanic of "DM fiat" resolves a nagging question (Can I touch the statue?) so not all gamism is dice and rules.
Overemphasis on one can be accomplished easily, but trying to deny the others (or reduce they're overall impact) is detrimental. Too much simulation creates a world where PCs are adrift and have no greater context or purpose. They are not important, they just happen to be played by people other than the GM. Too much narrativism is railroading the loss of meaningful action: the PC is a spectator to some greater story. Too much gamism reduces the PC to pawn: mechanical game piece used to play a game that is devoid of individual "character" or story: no one names or tells stories about their monopoly shoe.
D&D cannot (even 4e) be shoehorned into one of those categories: all of them exist. Simulationism lives in the new emphasis on monster ecology (beholders came from the far realm, giants are lesser titans) and spell interactions (how raise dead and the shadowfell interact). Gamism is emphasized in the balancing of spellcasters to noncasters and the idea of resource managment (dailies, encounter powers, healing surges, Action points) equal for all classes. And narativism lives in the USE of those resources: Morrock using his healing surge to second wind. Karthos using her daily power. Even if the resource comes from a game mechanic, the PC decides in the narrative (the session played) when would it be most beneficial to use it. Simulation knocks again in explaining how the daily is perceived (two arrows knocked, a knife in the gut). Each works in harmony. Having simulation try to do all the heavy lifting (IE: explain how the resource came about and why he would use it now) is counterproductive at best, maddening at worst.
Lastly: I'm glad I could help GnomeWorks wrap his head around martial dailies. Always here to help.
