How do I write a Gamist/Narrativist RPG?

[Palaskar]

In the wake of the latest Iron Game Chef, I'm struck by how my games tend to end up being Simulationist, even though I don't try to make them that way.

How does one make a Gamist/Narrativist game? (I'll move this to the GNS forum if someone complains.)

I already know how to make a Simulationist one -- come up with a cool setting, and customize everything to fit, basically. For "Horus," I came up with the setting, added custom Traits, changed terms like "PC" and "GM" to fit the setting, and even mucked with the scale so it was Egyptian base-10 instead of the standard -2 to +7 in the base game, Signature.

To me (and please correct me if I'm wrong), Gamism seems to start with a cool mechanic and build from there, while Narrativism seems to take the Premise and work from there. Is this right? And can someone fill in the details for me? Especially with Narrativism...working from a base mechanic I can understand, but I'm lost as what to do if starting with just a Premise

[Eric J.]

WTTF(Welcome to the forge)

I would consider your approaches to designing based upon GNS accurate, but I would dissagree on the conception that they are the only ways.  Simulationsim isn't setting dependent.  Just look at GURPS.  Gamism is simply conflict between characters and/or gm, and could be free form. (It wouldn't work well, but that's not the point.) Narrativismn is restricted to premise, but I would have to say that it's more than that.  You seem to understand, but I am saying that the terms are very versitle and apply in nealy infinite ways to different aspects of RPGs.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Unfortunately, this question is way too general. So I'll give very general answers and qualify them by saying now, "These answers represent common approaches to Gamism and Narrativism, not definitive qualities."

The important key to Gamist design is not a cool mechanic, but a strategically manipulable mechanic. This manipulation can occur in character creation, in play itself, in distributing the reward system, or any combination of these.

Another important consideration is to provide for possible reversals of fortune, whether expressed through an actual Fortune mechanic or through allowing other players or GM to "catch you up" verbally or through the resolution system. Combining this feature with benefits for both cooperation and betrayal is pure gold for Gamism.

The important key to Narrativist design is indeed Premise, in the specialized meaning of the term that I outline in my essay (classic Lajos Egri). This feature can arise from tons of different combinations of the five-element spectrum of role-playing (Character, Setting, Situation, System, and Color); what matters is that the players, including the GM, are in some way empowered to act upon it in during play itself, and that the way they act upon it (ie what the characters decide to do) is not presupposed.

As I say, these are (a) brutally general and (b) historically descriptive rather than definitional. Hope it's useful ...

Best,
Ron

[Palaskar]

The important key to Gamist design is not a cool mechanic, but a strategically manipulable mechanic. This manipulation can occur in character creation, in play itself, in distributing the reward system, or any combination of these.

Another important consideration is to provide for possible reversals of fortune, whether expressed through an actual Fortune mechanic or through allowing other players or GM to "catch you up" verbally or through the resolution system. Combining this feature with benefits for both cooperation and betrayal is pure gold for Gamism.

Thanks. That really helps. The answer to Narrativism was less clear, though...I'll go read your essay again.

Simulationsim isn't setting dependent. Just look at GURPS.

That's a very good point. May I change the subject and ask, "What -does- Simulationism depend on?"

[Valamir]

Simulationsim isn't setting dependent. Just look at GURPS.

That's a very good point. May I change the subject and ask, "What -does- Simulationism depend on?"

The way I understand the essay is this:

There are 5 items that are foundational to all styles of RPGs:
Character, Setting, Situation, System, and Color.  

For Gamist and Narrativist games these 5 items are the building blocks that enable you to get to the point of the game.  For a Simulationist game they ARE the point of the game.

Merely placeing an emphasis or having a particular attraction for 1 or more of these elements does not indicate in and of itself "simulationism" because every style can enjoy being in character or exploring settings and situations etc.

[Palaskar]

There are 5 items that are foundational to all styles of RPGs:
Character, Setting, Situation, System, and Color.

For Gamist and Narrativist games these 5 items are the building blocks that enable you to get to the point of the game. For a Simulationist game they ARE the point of the game.

Oh, thanks Valamir. It makes sense now.