Simulationist/Gamist group

[Herr Doktor]

After some discussion our role-playing group came to the realization that according to our own experiences our prefered GNS modes do not match up. Our group consists of six persons, though only five are actively participating at the moment. We play using the revised 3rd edition D&D core rules in the Forgotten Realms universe.

Three of the participants, including myself, prefer simulationist play, while the other two have made it known that gamism is their favored manner of play. The majority was simulationist, or so I thought. After receiving the background and notes of one of the proclaimed simulationist players I realized that he may have been mistaken and actually be a gamist as well. After discussing that with another player he informed that he actually talked with him and told him that he thought he might actually be more interested in gamist play.

I am the groups "primary DM". What that means is that I'm the one with the most experience behind the screen and time to write adventures and scenarios.

Is it going to be possible for me to keep everyone happy under these circumstances? I'll admit that some of the vocabulary used in the GNS article was a bit more than I was used to, so perhaps I've been going about this the wrong way.

I'm looking at this with the possibility of the minority being able to "give a little," and run a sort of hybrid simulationist/gamist campaign...

Any advice or someone more adept at managing things based on the GNS willing to walk me through this? I am getting stressed about this at the moment since we are supposed to be starting my campaign tommorow and I designed the initial bit with the simulationist majority that no longer exists in mind.

[Alan]

Part of the GNS/CA theory indicates that meeting gamist and sim preferences at the same time in a way enjoyable to all isn't possible.   In a given instance of play, one or the other will prevail.

I would talk about it with the group and suggest you try playing an RPG designed to support one preference (gamist, say) for a few months and then later play a game that is good for the other preference.  Ask everyone to commit to supporting the style of play you're currently doing - with the understanding that other players will reciprocate during the next game.  

In general, players are willing to play one of their secondary preferences and can enjoy it if they understand what's going on.

[clehrich]

Part of the GNS/CA theory indicates that meeting gamist and sim preferences at the same time in a way enjoyable to all isn't possible.   In a given instance of play, one or the other will prevail.

My understanding was that hybrid play is actually possible, but sufficiently unlikely and under-developed that Alan's version might as well be taken as true.  If you wanted to run a game that met both preferences equally, you'd really have to invent something quite drastically different from what you've got.

Admittedly, I'm a little out of date on the question of hybrids, but I think that's the current working hypothesis.

Chris Lehrich

[Caldis]

I'd say it's really easy to do and there's no reason to worry about your preferrences unless problems do start to develop.  Rpg's really began as a mix of sim and game so your split is probably the norm.  Knowing your preferences helps in that you realize you have to try and satisfy both groups so dont overemphasize one, that's where the big problems start.

[Alan]

Hi Caldis,

You're right - there's no need to worry about GNS unless your players are unsatisfied with the current situation.  But sometimes, we're tolerating an awful lot because we don't think there's an alternative.


Hi Clehrich (and Caldis),

It's generally accepted that GNS hybrids have to make eiher the G or N preference dominant over sim (a la Riddle of Steel, which uses many sim techniques, but is ultimately dominated by its Narrativist elements.)

On a wider note, GNS/CA theory does imply that a game cannot be all things to all people all at the same time.  A better experience will be had by all if one focuses on a preference - with the understanding that those players with the other preference will get their fix next.

We all thnk for some reason that we as role-players must wait long boring periods before the things we like happens.  Sometimes we buck the current preference because we don't think we'll ever have a chance - or we're annoyed that our preference is forbidden or belittled.  

An agreement to specifically concentrate on one preference for a limitied period before switching alays tendencies to buck the current preference.  It maximizes the enjoyment of a particular preference for those who put it at the top of their list, and, for those who don't, it lets them relax and enjoy a game for what it is.

(I would recommend running seaparate events lines though - don't try to keep the same characters through the transitions, they'll be associated with expectations.   Also, don't play the same game and try to drift it first one way, then the other - the game system will have it's own tendencies and players will carry expectations from their previous experience of that game that will muddy play.  Much better to go with games designed for a preference.)

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I think that the "what should we do" question isn't to be addressed straight from the Creative Agenda box, and certainly not with merely the Big Three Names (or two of them) in isolation.

The only way really to address this is from looking at the actual play-experience.

1. Do people sit around bored, waiting for the fun part?

2. Do people get irritated with or at least feel they have to put up with others' characteristic approach to in-game situations?

3. Do people enter into elaborate post-play bitch sessions about how so-and-so just doesn't get it?

If not, then I suggest that all GNS-talk among your group should be no-pressure - not "oh no, we're not pure, what should we do," but rather "H'm, that's interesting, let's note a couple of potential future pitfalls and move on."

Best,
Ron

[Herr Doktor]

The thing is that I have a simulationist preference, specifically involving character and setting.  The gamists in my group don't feel it is important to have characters with well developed pasts and personalities, while I feel it is essential.

I've discovered that I frequently discard campaigns and start up new ones in hopes that the players will finally create characters that live up to my expectations, rather than ones good at earning them experience and treasure.

Two of the players refuse to partake in anything that does not involve immediate danger and action.  Their characters spend the entire day in their room in the inn, not coming out at all, while the rest of the group gathers information on the region.

Are you suggesting that I just enforce a well developed personality and background and go with, letting them play in their particular manners all the while knowing what people like and what that don't like and moving about to accomidate all their likes and dislikes?

[Alan]

Are you suggesting that I just enforce a well developed personality and background and go with, letting them play in their particular manners all the while knowing what people like and what that don't like and moving about to accomidate all their likes and dislikes?

No.  I explicitly said don't try to meet more than one preference at the same time.  Instead, as Ron hinted, this has to be addressed on the Social Contract level.  Ask everyone to play one way for 5 or 8 sessions, then alternate to a different game system with different characters and play the other way  for 5 or 8 sessions.  (You can alternate back and forth every couple months if it works out.)

This must be voluntary.  When this problem first crops up, almost everybody (myself included) is inclined to "make" players play the way _we_ prefer.  That way lies disaster and hatred.  People will resent being pressured from the outside - and worse, they are likely to take the requirement as a comment on their preferences - ie that you think it is inferior.  If there's one thing Creative Agenda teaches it's that no preference is inferior to another.

The way to generate trust (because it sounds like sim has dominated your group for a while) is for YOU TO COMMIT to play gamist for the first mini-campaign.  This says to them that their preferences are as valid as yours and that they don't have to worry any more.  

You will have to ask the sim players to go along with this - and they have the same deal - we all play Gamist for 6 sessions, then we all play Sim for 6 sessions.  (Again, I emphasize that it must be separate game systems and separate campaigns.)  Present this idea to your group as a whole, not in bits or in secret.  Tell them it's a way to explore both preferences and to confirm that you respect both.  Encourage people to tough it out for a full cycle of two mini-campaigns.

After a cycle, discuss it again.  Players will fall in two camps.  First, some will discover that playing the other preference is actually fun and they will be willing to exercise that option again in future.  Second, other players may decide that they just don't want to play the other preference at all.  If you decide to continue alternating campaigns, they can either sit out the one they don't like or run a parallel game of their own.

But the best basic advice I can give is this: don't ever ever ever ever ever ever try to force players to change.

[jdagna]

Reposted from the other thread:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Simulationists and Gamists can play quite happily together if each is willing to understand and work with the slight differences.

The way I look at it, the Gamists want a challenge - something they can step on up to, show their expertise and pit their wits and skills against. The Simulationists generally want to walk around in the game world, experiencing new things, finding out how and why they work and getting into these foreign things. Since this often involves characters, they'll often make non-optimal (in terms of effectiveness) designs in order to see what happens, and they may be perfectly happy to avoid stepping on up to any challenges that arise. "Fight a dragon? Nah, I'd rather find out more about how the prince views his succession rights." This may annoy the Gamists. The Gamists, in turn, may annoy the Sim players (or GMs) by seeing everything as a challenge... I often think of Knights of the Dinner Table: "A gazebo? What's that? I shoot it with my crossbow!"

So the trick is to provide lots of interesting scenery (scenery because it doesn't demand a challenge response, not because it's unimportant to plot or players), interspersed with significant challenges that give the Gamist players a chance to engage. If the Gamists will let the Sim guys explore the scenery and the Sim guys will help beat the challenges, everyone can have a pretty good time. And really... few Gamist players want their challenges separate from interesting scenery, and few Sim players want scenery separate from interesting conflicts. You get a lot of convergent behavior.

I had actually fallen into doing this subconsciously because of groups with just the kind of split you describe. I realized just how much Gamist stuff I'd incorporated while reading my game outlines for scenarios. I detailed the Gamist stuff (because you have to have a measured, reasonable challenge) but left the Sim stuff largely to ad-libbing with only a few notes jotted down for reminders. So when I read through many of my old stuff, it read very Gamist (certainly more than I remember it being in play) for that very reason.

Now, mind you, this advice may not work with every group of Sim/Gam players since mode preferences can very significantly even within one mode. And, don't forget that just because someone has a Sim or Gam preference doesn't mean they can't play in and enjoy other modes too. They key thing is learning to negotiate when conflicts between modes arises.

Edit: Just a quick addition. It's generally important to make sure you congratulate the different players on the things they do. "Good strategy there with the canyons." "Ah, I hadn't thought about that aspect of their culture that way... good job." Many Sim GMs wind up rewarding Gamist behavior (either via systems like D&D that seem built to do it or because its easier to define a Gamist victory than a Sim one). If you reward one thing more than another, you'll tend to discourage the one that's not being rewarded.