Synergies Between Game Styles: Simulationist - Gamist - Storytelling

[Starfox]

Many see gaming as a three-legged beast, with the legs being game styles; Simulationist - Gamist - Storytelling. And I agree, this is a good way to describe how we play games and what gaming styles different games cater to. As can be seen in my Sig, I consider myself a Storyteller first. But I also enjoy Simulationist and Gamist elements, and I see no real conflict between them. I think the three elements all contribute to a good game and will try to explain how.

Storytelling is my main interest. But for a story to be good, it has to be believable - which brings in a degree of simulationism. While telling my story, the players make informed decisions, and if the world does not make sense, they cannot do so. Also, for the game to be enjoyable, it has to play well - a Gamist concern. Resolving the use of a skill has to be fast and easy. At times the player characters are represented by miniatures on a game board and we play a tactical game with many links to the story and if this tactical game sucks or gives weird result the story suffers.

Likewise a good board game (I think we can all agree board games are mostly gamist) becomes even more enjoyable to me if it it is about something (simulationism) has some background (storytelling). I find pseudo-historical games like Puerto Rico or fantasy games like Smallworld more enjoyable than abstract games like Othello.

And finally (I think you can guess what's coming) a simulation game like Russian Front or Campaign of North Africa becomes better if it describes an interesting situation (story) and has smooth mechanics (game). A combat flight simulator becomes more popular if the action takes place in WWII than on an exercise range in the Nevada desert, even tough its likely far more dogfights have been played out in Nevada if you include training runs.


In conclusion, the ideal game has more of ALL the elements; better game design simply crams more quality into the game than poor game design. Game design is not a matter of Simulation VS. Story VS. Gamism. It is the art of taking these three elements and making them reinforce each other. This has the added benefit of supporting multiple gaming styles, even in the same group; if I want to play a story-driven game or if I enjoy moving pieces on a battlemat matters little if the game played supports both.

This is NOT the same as more rules; . Simulationism tends to rules bloat and minutia, but this is balanced by gamist concerns. The ideal of gamism is to have playable rules, which often means less is more. So yes, there is a conflict here - and the art of game design is to balance these elements to include as much as possible of each.

Now, of course, it comes down to what games we think fill what roles to what degrees - something I'll leave to the edition wars.

 

[Bluenose]

This is NOT the same as more rules; . Simulationism tends to rules bloat and minutia, but this is balanced by gamist concerns. The ideal of gamism is to have playable rules, which often means less is more. So yes, there is a conflict here - and the art of game design is to balance these elements to include as much as possible of each.

I think that depends what you're simulating. Pendragon is hardly an example of rules bloat, but it does a really good job of simulating the medieval King Arthur literature.

 

[Doug McCrae]

You're quite right, Starfox, practically all rpgers like a blend of simulationism, game and story. Personally I like the combo of fiction-sim, tactical combat-gamism and fiction supporting gamism (ie if the players do something genre appropriate then they win). These days I don't care for build-gamism.

And, yes, sim/game/story can all work together, but there can also be conflicts. I find that good rules for tactical combat-gamism often get in the way of fiction-sim. For example, the use of healing powers can open up additional interesting options in tactical combat but they are not genre appropriate in superhero comics.

Here's an example of a conflict between sim and Gygaxian gamism -

I hate riddles. Can't stand them. So, if it looks like riddles are going to be regular fare from some Game Master, then I have the character solve the problem. I have the character become an avid riddler, reading books and exchanging riddles with passing strangers. I just try to throw all the solutions back, informing the Game Master that surely my character would know the answer. Then, when my character gets hit with a riddle, I say, ''Quick as lightning, my character spits back the right answer.''

- Amber Diceless Role-Playing page 78

 

[Starfox]

Here's an example of a conflict between sim and Gygaxian gamism -

Is it really? Isn't that the game showing its agility, letting the player use the rules to get out of a situation he's not comfortable with? I suppose Wycheck (spelling out of the top of my head) wanted to use the example to show how bad it was when you could use the rules as a lever against the GM, but I don't agree - and I sympathize with the player in the example and I think a game that allows this stands firmly on all three legs.

But, even if I think the example in the quote did not show it well, I do agree with your other examples and that there are situations where the different styles conflict. That's why game design is an art, not a craft.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Is it really? Isn't that the game showing its agility, letting the player use the rules to get out of a situation he's not comfortable with? I suppose Wycheck (spelling out of the top of my head) wanted to use the example to show how bad it was when you could use the rules as a lever against the GM, but I don't agree - and I sympathize with the player in the example and I think a game that allows this stands firmly on all three legs.

MerricB discusses this issue here, Player Knowledge vs Character Knowledge, which also includes the preceding text for the Amber quote so you can see what Wujcik is on about.

Merric favours a compromise solution, in fact his approach is the same as mine would be. However I think the quote does reveal an important conflict - after all, there must be a conflict if it requires a compromise to resolve. And, as Merric says, the conflict can also be resolved by going fully one way - gamism - or the other - sim.

The GM in the quote is looking for a gamist solution, he wants to challenge the player's riddle solving skills. The player sidesteps the challenge. He does not 'step on up' as the Forge would put it, but hides away like a coward. If the GM allowed Erick's PC to answer the riddle, even though Erick didn't know the answer, then sim has won the conflict, there's no compromise. Likewise if the GM refuses to allow the PC to know the answer unless the player does, then gamism wins this conflict. However, even in Amber DRPG, a compromise would still be possible. The GM may give Erick a clue, though not the whole solution, on account of his PC being well schooled in riddles.

But, even if I think the example in the quote did not show it well, I do agree with your other examples and that there are situations where the different styles conflict. That's why game design is an art, not a craft.

Yeah, most rpg designs are a compromise, particularly mainstream rpgs.

 

[Balesir]

The GM in the quote is looking for a gamist solution, he wants to challenge the player's riddle solving skills. The player sidesteps the challenge. He does not 'step on up' as the Forge would put it, but hides away like a coward. If the GM allowed Erick's PC to answer the riddle, even though Erick didn't know the answer, then sim has won the conflict, there's no compromise. Likewise if the GM refuses to allow the PC to know the answer unless the player does, then gamism wins this conflict.

If the particular 'flavour' of gamism was focussed on player riddle solving, and not use of the game systems, sure, this would fit.

But, generally, I think care is needed in this context. The earlier (late 1990s) discussions of "Gamism", "Simulationism" and "Dramatism" were centred around general gestalts; each a feeling or an 'atmosphere' connected with a specific aspect of the game. In this sense, certainly, encouraging as much as possible of each is beneficial.

The Forge usage, though, is rather more specific, arguably more technical and in some people's eyes more anal What defines the three "agendas" for the Forge definitions is the focus of social interaction besed on the events in play. If a group are giving kudos, going "woo hoo!" and maybe even high fiving at particularly good tactics, particularly nasty "gotchas" set up on bad guys and particularly good (or bad) die rolls, then, in Forge terms, the play is "Gamist". If the same is going on for particularly thematically resonant actions - actions that plumb the nature of a moral quandry, say - then that is "Narrativist" play. Likewise for adding aesthetically matched and flavoursome objects or events to "Simulationist" play.

This "Forge" usage is specifically where the comments about "exclusivity" come from. In these terms, it really makes no sense to describe a set of RPG rules, or an RPG player, as any specific one of the three "agendas". The agendas relate to instances of play, not to game systems or even groups.

That said, however, it does make sense to consider how well sets of game rules support play that is focussed on one or another of these agendas - and that is what is meant on the Forge by "Gamist supporting rules", or "Simulationist supporting rules" or "Narrativist supporting rules". Making a ruleset that supports more than one agenda is not impossible, but it is very difficult to do well. The very idea of "supporting all three to the maximum extent possible" doesn't really fly - a game where the players were genuinely trying to gain and give kudos for all three at all times would be pretty unfocussed and confused, basically.

 

[Doug McCrae]

So if the other participants, including the GM, congratulated Erick on his cunning in having his PC solve the riddle when he, the player, could not, could we see that as gamist play?

I think it's clear that the GM in the example wants gamist play. But it's not clear that Erick wants sim.

 

[Umbran]

I think it's clear that the GM in the example wants gamist play.

I'm not sure that's true. Or not purely true, anyway.

Yes, the GM wants to challenge the player's skill, rather than the character's, and that's typically viewed as gamist*. But, player skill is typically demonstrated within the context of a defined set of game rules, and the GM has stepped outside the RPG's game rules to present the challenge.

So, the fundamental conflict here may not be between the legs on the tripod, but instead just on what player-challenges are acceptable.


* Not all challenges to players are gamist - I used to run Paranoia games, in which we presented food styled in the manner of Alpha Complex. That food was certainly a challenge to the players, but it was really a simulation element.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

This "Forge" usage is specifically where the comments about "exclusivity" come from. In these terms, it really makes no sense to describe a set of RPG rules, or an RPG player, as any specific one of the three "agendas". The agendas relate to instances of play, not to game systems or even groups.

That said, however, it does make sense to consider how well sets of game rules support play that is focussed on one or another of these agendas - and that is what is meant on the Forge by "Gamist supporting rules", or "Simulationist supporting rules" or "Narrativist supporting rules". Making a ruleset that supports more than one agenda is not impossible, but it is very difficult to do well. The very idea of "supporting all three to the maximum extent possible" doesn't really fly - a game where the players were genuinely trying to gain and give kudos for all three at all times would be pretty unfocussed and confused, basically.

I begin to suspect that the hole in the Forge theory is due to the personality of its supporters leading to a blind spot. No, I don't mean that in any hostile way. I mean personality traits, the same way that being extremely introverted has consequences for what I do and like, but is hardly an indictment (or kudo) to my personality.

I keep hearing "focus" on a particular agenda to describe a behavior that to me sounds more like "intensity". You see this over and over in the reports--it was not that the themes of the narrativist session excluded any particular focus on simulation or gamism. It was rather that the particpants became so intense on the themes, that everything else necessarily became less important.

I've met people that do this, but I'm not generally one. I can focus on something, say a light-read, fun fantasy novel, to the point that I won't hear a phone ring right next to me. But it is not an intense experience. It's just a fluff book that I happen to be heavily focused upon. It isn't a perfect match, but you might say that the logical part of the brain is the focus and the emotional part the intensity. I'm not sure that this works the other way--very intense on X without also focus on X--though I know of a few serious examples where it might be true.

In any case, I've previously described that our group is made up of people who task switch very rapidly when gaming, and this is why we have relatively fruitful gaming out of all three agendas, often switching our focus in seconds. I think when games are "clicking" with traditional groups, playing in a traditional style, this is what is happening. What Forge theory describes as disfunctional, is actually highly functional giving sufficient cues passed back and forth amongst the group. (Nor is this limited to the agenda, as task switching into and out of metagaming, social gaming, and so on also can occur.)

I think the synergies that Starfox discusses emerge out of that mix of task switching and cues. If you've ever played in a jazz band, and done improvizational jazz, you'll know exactly what I mean.

 

[pawsplay]

Making a ruleset that supports more than one agenda is not impossible, but it is very difficult to do well. The very idea of "supporting all three to the maximum extent possible" doesn't really fly - a game where the players were genuinely trying to gain and give kudos for all three at all times would be pretty unfocussed and confused, basically.

Probably one of the more popular and well-supported innovations in RPGs is the Hero Point/Life Point/Luck Point/Force Point. A Hero point could be construed to represent:

- A character's determination and capacity to exceed their normal capabilities
- A form of currency used by a player to overcome challenges
- A tool to shape the story to create climactic events and prevent anti-climax

In practice, it is any, and all three. A basic weakness of Forge theory is that it posits competing agendas, when in fact, in many cases, the agendas have the potential to converge.

It may be, as you say, difficult to design such a game, but I think such an argument is a steep hill to climb. Why is it difficult? Is it not the path of least resistance, if you can identify the various goals players are likely to have?