Are you a gamist, narrativist or simulationist?

[Hory]

I like Marc LeBlanc's 8 kinds of fun straw man rather than this GSN shit.

I had forgotten about those. The first time I saw the list, I liked it so much that I wrote it on a PostIt. I still have it .

Anyway, the most important thing about GNS theory is that the 3 elements are mutually exclusive. The more a game gears towards one, the more the other two suffer.

I'm sure that by focusing on one, you can get the highest depth of it, but the combination itself may be as valuable as the extremes. For example, I want to defeat my opponents not just at some abstract level of complex gamist rules, but in a more meaningful context, through "higher faculty" choices and consequences, not just "You die. I win. Game over.". Also, I think narratives automatically become more game-like as you increase the levels of possible interactivity.

 

[Zomg]

The GNS framework eats shit.

 

[sheek]

To me the poll results suggest the GNS has no reality. The votes are pretty evenly split, any variations looks like noise to me when I would expect to see one or two distinct groupings. Also the combination of two descriptors (which are supposed to be mutually exclusive, that's the point right?) are more common than single descriptors by a huge margin.

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

I expect there to be a good amount of conflict with some purpose behind it, and well made mechanics to portray the processes in that conflict in a plausible and fun manner. If that's done well it creates much better narration than a non-interactive story, doubly so for PnP play.

Personally I don't like the kind of PnP play where the GM's all-important story will go on rails no matter what and none of the character's stats are needed in anyhting, save perhaps some combat ones. This is why I haven't enjoyed a single WoD campaing much.

On CRPG's, I'd say I lean towards gamist-narrativist games the most, gamist first, narrativist second. Simulation isn't really as important in a CRPG as challenge.

 

[Deleted Member 10432]

Narrativist/Narrativist-Submissionist.

 

[sheek]

Philosophico-educationalist

 

[Severian Silk]

I'm guessing Gamist=Gameplayist. I.e., you judge a game based on the quality of its gameplay (even if it's abstract) as opposed to the quality of its narrative or the accuracy with which it simulates something.

I'd have to vote narrative-gamist. In theory a game could meet all three criteria and be a good game, but you're more likely to encounter games that only excel at two of the three (or only one). And, of the three I prefer gameplay and narrative. Silent Storm had great gameplay but was marred by a crappy narrative. And, I judge sims based on how "fun" they are as opposed to how realisticly they simulate an environment. (I.e. Freespace is fun but not realistic.)

 

[Kavax]

I guess I'm a Narrativist-Simulationist then... the only game that I can think right now that does them three well is Ultima 7.

 

[mondblut]

Ultima 7 has zero gameplay. From horrible combat to nearly non-existant character development, it's all simulation (the interactivity and realistic world) + narrative with no "gamism" involved.

 

[Melcar]

I always hated these kinds of attempts at classification. What's the damn point?

 

[mondblut]

To understand why 3 games all labelled as "RPGs" have nothing in common with each other, and be able to pick one's poison better.

Also, to be over with the incessant and retarded "my favorite RPG is moar TR00 than yours" phallometry. 'Cuz everybody recognizes the gamist and to lesser extent simulationist RPGs were there first and are therefore more true than narrativist ones by definition :D

 

[Joe Krow]

So if a game offers a world that is open enough to allow the player to create their own narrative is it narrativist or simulation? Aren't you doing what you believe your character would do in either case? If you consider your characters stats while doing this are you a gamist? Aren't you ignoring the character your supposed to be playing if you don't?

 

[Thrasher]

Who is this Ron Edwarda that made up this GNS classification scheme? Marc LeBlancs defs are better but still not right.

 

[Aikanaro]

I don't think that GNS has any relevance for cRPGs. If we're talking PnP I'd argue in favour of it quite happily, but PnP and cRPGs are entirely different things.

Also, that wiki article is really, really shit. Here's a better plain-English explanation (taken from here):

So you have some people sitting around and talking. Some of the things they say are about fictional characters in a fictional world. During the conversation the characters and their world aren't static: the people don't simply describe them in increasing detail, they (also) have them do things and interact. They create situations - dynamic arrangements of characters and setting elements - and resolve them into new situations.

They may or may not have formal procedures for this part of the conversation, but the simple fact that it consistently happens reveals some sort of structure. If they didn't have an effective way to negotiate the evolution of situation to situation, their conversation would stall or crash.

Why are they doing this? What do they get out of it? For now, let's limit ourselves to three possibilities: they want to Say Something (in a lit 101 sense), they want to Prove Themselves, or they want to Be There. What they want to say, in what way they want to prove themselves, or where precisely they want to be varies to the particular person in the particular moment. Are there other possibilities? Maybe. Certainly these three cover an enormous variety, especially as their nuanced particulars combine in an actual group of people in actual play.

Over time, that is, over many many in-game situations, play will either fulfill the players' creative agendas or fail to fulfill them. Do they have that discussion? Do they prove themselves or let themselves down? Are they "there"? As in pretty much any kind of emergent pattern thingy, whether the game fulfills the players' creative agendas depends on but isn't predictable from the specific structure they've got for negotiating situations. No individual situation's evolution or resolution can reveal a) what the players' creative agendas are or b) whether they're being fulfilled. Especially, limiting your observation to the in-game contents of individual situations will certainly blind you to what the players are actually getting out of the game.

That's GNS in a page.

I don't think I've said anything here that Ron Edwards hasn't been saying. I do think that I've said it in mostly my own words.

Or a far more in-depth one here.

 

[OSK]

I'm feeling too lazy to read the descriptions. Whatever tactics + C&C fit under.

 

[Turok]

I am just a player.

 

[Thrasher]

Thanks. Those are better descriptions. It's all about peoples' goals and desires. But I'm not convinced that those are the only reasons people play RPGs though.

What about escapism and other higher motivations?

What about lower more base motivations like comaraderie, or the use of simulated violence to release anger?

What about the self-satisfaction of solving a problem (without the need to prove it to anyone else)?

The classification seems too artificial and limiting.

 

[Severian Silk]

So if a game offers a world that is open enough to allow the player to create their own narrative is it narrativist or simulation? Aren't you doing what you believe your character would do in either case? If you consider your characters stats while doing this are you a gamist? Aren't you ignoring the character your supposed to be playing if you don't?

I'm not sure LARPing (or emergent gameplay) = narration.

 

[Gnidrologist]

I'm rockist.

 

[Joe Krow]

So if a game offers a world that is open enough to allow the player to create their own narrative is it narrativist or simulation? Aren't you doing what you believe your character would do in either case? If you consider your characters stats while doing this are you a gamist? Aren't you ignoring the character your supposed to be playing if you don't?

I'm not sure LARPing (or emergent gameplay) = narration.

Your probably right but it doesn't mean linear either. So the choices are: power gaming, on rails, and larping? No wonder the genre is in decline.

 

[mondblut]

What about escapism and other higher motivations?

There are different ways for escapism. Escapism relying on the realism of the gameworld and a range of interactions possible is simulationist. Escapism relying on aesthetic immersion and make-believe (LARPing, as we call it) has a more narrativist side to it, as whatever's going in the player's head ("playing a role") is more important to him than what is actually happening within the game.

What about lower more base motivations like comaraderie, or the use of simulated violence to release anger?

Neither is of any particular relevance to RPGs. People play Monopoly to socialize, and play Quake to vent off, so these are not something to judge an RPG by.

What about the self-satisfaction of solving a problem (without the need to prove it to anyone else)?

Gamism is about achievement and overcoming a challenge, not about showing off to others. The later is a natural outcome of the former when the game is collective (i.e. PnP), but is irrelevant for a singleplayer experience, whereas "gamism" per se does not depend on the number of participants.

The classification seems too artificial and limiting.

Not really. I think it fits computer RPGs very well and gives a lot of insight into the varying nature of the different CRPGs. It is simple enough and picks the three aspects of an RPG which indeed define it and are always in a struggle against each other. Gamism has ties to such aspects of CRPG as character development and resource management, simulationism to interaction complexity (combat first and foremost) and the gameworld with its exploration, narrativism to plot and dialogues. Fits well enough, methinks.

 

[Thrasher]

What about escapism and other higher motivations?

There are different ways for escapism. Escapism relying on the realism of the gameworld and a range of interactions possible is simulationist. Escapism relying on aesthetic immersion and make-believe (LARPing, as we call it) has a more narrativist side to it, as whatever's going in the player's head ("playing a role") is more important to him than what is actually happening within the game.

No you're missing the point about motivation.

What about lower more base motivations like comaraderie, or the use of simulated violence to release anger?

Neither is of any particular relevance to RPGs. People play Monopoly to socialize, and play Quake to vent off, so these are not something to judge an RPG by.

Don't assume everyone is like you.

What about the self-satisfaction of solving a problem (without the need to prove it to anyone else)?

Gamism is about achievement and overcoming a challenge, not about showing off to others. The later is a natural outcome of the former when the game is collective (i.e. PnP), but is irrelevant for a singleplayer experience, whereas "gamism" per se does not depend on the number of participants.

The definitions specifically talk about the motivation to achieve so you can show off, which I said was wrong.

The classification seems too artificial and limiting.

Not really. blah blah blah.

You give into someone else's stupidly simple categories too easily.

 

[mondblut]

No you're missing the point about motivation.

Elaborate.

Don't assume everyone is like you.

How is it of any concern? We're talking of a set of aspects specific for RPGs. Socializing and venting off anger are universal for gaming. Some people come to play D&D hoping to pick up a chick, should we account it for an RPG motivation too?

The definitions specifically talk about the motivation to achieve so you can show off, which I said was wrong.

Yes, wrong. The definitions were written with PnP in mind, where showing off achievements comes off naturally.

You give into someone else's stupidly simple categories too easily.

Since they work, their simplicity is only a virtue.

 

[Lurkar]

GNS theory is the most retarded fucking thing imaginable. It was created for one reason: for Ron Edwards to go "SEE SIMULATIONISM IS STUPID" and then declare himself teh winnar.

Where's the poll option for "It's all a bunch of psuedo-intellectual bullshit?"

 

[Smarts]

Gamist-Narrativist. Good story, good presentation, fun game, please. Realism can fall by the wayside.