Membership ratio of GNS

[Bevan]

I'm currently involved in a Changeling larp. I used to be one of the Storytellers running it, but due to stress, time, and general frustration, I stepped down to player status.

Anyway, from running and now participating in this game, it occurred to me that the cause for a lot of the arguments that broke out between the players and the storytellers was due to the fact that the Changeling game seemed to be run by narrativists, but played by simulationists. We are more interested in creating stories then playing characters, and wanted the players to take a more metagame focus (thinking of themselves not so much as their characters, but as authors writing stories with their characters as protagonists). Likewise, the players often got annoyed when they felt that the integrity of their characters, the world, or our objectivity were compromised.

It occurred to me that narrativists seem to be in the minority. My simulationist gamer-friends certainly recognize the existence of gamists, and place themselves in an adversarial position (those who role-play vs. those who just want to "win"), but also look at me a little strange when I talk about the importance of story and drama, and how one should sometimes distance himself from his character and instead focus on the story as a whole.

It is also telling, I think, that in Ron Edwards' essay, "System Does Matter," his sample gamist games (Rifts and Shadowrun) and simulationist games (GURPS and Pendragon) are fairly prominent game written by large companies, whereas most of his sample narrativist games (Prince Valiant, Everway, etc.) are small-press.

It seems to be that there are a lot of gamist players, who often graduate towards simulationism as they get older (more interested in roleplaying than in victory), but that narrativists are in the distinct minority.

What does everyone else think about the ratio between gamists-simulationists-narrativists?

[jdagna]

Well, the usual disclaimer applies: people only play in GNS modes, they don't really belong to groups.  A Gamist is just a person who tends to prefer Gamist modes.

I think in this case, the disclaimer is actually extremely important.  As you note, the Simulationist and Gamist modes are supported by more popular systems than are Narrativist modes.  As a result, I'd expect to see more people playing in S and G modes, regardless of their preference.  A great many people believe that Simulationist modes are "how role playing is done" whether they actually like it or not.

The fact that most house rules (of the ones I've seen an heard of)  enhance N modes over G and S seems to support this.  

So... as far as frequency of modes used during play, I think my experience backs yours up.  Whether or not those modes really reflect what people like is an entirely different issue though.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

No one's going to like this post.

I think that preferences of play favor Narrativist and Gamist approaches by a wide margin, probably in similar proportions and often spread through the play of the same people.

I think that learning-methods of play, including texts, favor Simulationist approaches by a wide margin, especially texts published between 1985 and 2000. I think that Simulationist play priorities are extremely strong among a self-replenishing minority of the population.

These phenomena, taken together, produce a disturbing picture of many people who encounter role-playing, bobble it around a little, pronounce it relatively unsatisfying, and go find something else to do.

Best,
Ron

[Emily Care]

Welcome to the Forge, Bevan.

I think that preferences of play favor Narrativist and Gamist approaches by a wide margin, probably in similar proportions and often spread through the play of the same people.

I think that learning-methods of play, including texts, favor Simulationist approaches by a wide margin, especially texts published between 1985 and 2000. I think that Simulationist play priorities are extremely strong among a self-replenishing minority of the population.

Are you saying that the populace as a whole if sampled would show distinct preferences for narrativist and gamist play, while the industry and the current core-group of hobbyists have a strong tendency to favor sim? Or that all among all those exposed to rpg--looking at all their individual decisions, rather than the person, as the base unit--narrativist and gamist prioritizations are in the majority?

Thanks,
Emily

[Marco]

I think (and this is IME) people prefer what might be described as simulationist systems (cause and effect within a given genre-space, here is your character with behaviroal parameters a la CoC or maybe Pendragon, here is how you resolve actions based on starting conditions as modeled physically, etc.)

As to how they play with those systems? I think it's wide open. The success of Vampire spoke well to people wanting theme and non-combat interaction in their games. The success of 3rd Ed and computer games speaks well towards people digging the "joy of character advancement."

My suspicion is that people like all three--and that if you have a gaming environment that shuts one aspect out, it'll have a more narrow appeal.

-Marco

[lumpley]

And but look at how carefully he says "play priority" and "play preference"!  Ron, are you suggesting that many play-priority Simulationists are play-preference Narrativists or Gamists?  Who might be, because their play priorities don't match their play preferences, sad?

-Vincent, who likes the post a whole hell of a lot.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Ron, are you suggesting that many play-priority Simulationists are play-preference Narrativists or Gamists?  Who might be, because their play priorities don't match their play preferences, sad?

Isn't this in the Gamism article:

The bitterest role-player in the world
*snip*

This person prefers a role-playing game that combines Gamist potential with Simulationist hybrid support, such that a highly Explorative Situation can evolve, in-game and without effort, into a Challenge Situation. In other words, the social-level Step On Up "emerges" from the events in-play. This view, and its problematic qualities, are extremely similar to that of the person who wants to see full-blown Narrativist values "just appear" from a Simulationist-play foundation. It's possible, but not as easy and intuitive as it would seem.  

[/size]

[lumpley]

Isn't this in the Gamism article:

Y'know, I think it is.  But I don't think that's who Ron is talking about.  I think - forgive me, Ron, if I'm way off - he's talking about people who encounter roleplaying, find it relatively unsatisfying but intuit its potential, and keep playing as they learned to from play-priority Simulationists and their game texts.  They remain relatively unsatisfied.

Casual gamers who could really get something out of it if they weren't blocked by the prevailing conventions, and serious gamers who sabotage their own enjoyment because "that's not how you play."  Those people are in Ron's self-replenishing minority.

If that's not what Ron's saying, hell, I'll say it.  Most people are beyond daydreaming.  Most people want to be challenged, be it by the strategic / tactical opposition of Gamism or the moral opposition of Narrativism.  Including many Simulationists-by-habit.

-Vincent

Hornet's nest, you say?  Look out where I'm swinging this stick, you say?

[Mike Holmes]

I'm going to agree with Marco. Sorta. :-)

That is, I think that what Ron is pointing to is the tendency of players to retreat from Gamism and Narrativism due to encouters with incoherence.

Waaay early on, it was proposed that Sim was a retreat from G or S play. And I disagreed. I've since come to an alternative position which is that it's common for systems and groups to try to eliminate problems with incoherence by playing in a very straightforward way - sim only. The players still like Gamism and Narrativism, but, burned by games like D&D and Pawn stance play in it, they create games in the mode that restricts it best, Sim.

It's not fear of committing to Gamism or Narrativism, it's fear that these things will happen Implausibly. That is, at the expense of Sim.

So what you have is the these players playing in a single mode because they don't want problems. They choose Sim because it doesn't say anything beyond the basic "be plausible", the violation of which is many RPG player's example of the worst behavior. Munchkins aren't loathesome because they're out for power, but because their character's actions are implausible.

I can say the same thing about the Narrativist crowd here, interestingly. That is, in finding that all the other modes potentially mess with Narrativism, they retreat to the single mode method that they like best for safety.

So I agree with Marco that all this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That is, we ought be be looking at how to get back to effective Hybrid play, and less at how to make Uni-modal games. Interestingly, I think that the Gamists do it best in general. That is, if you're a Gamist, and not playing a wargame, you're likely acceeding to quite a bit of the other modes in your game. If they were to "retreat" from RPGs, they'd all be playing CRPGs, or other sorts of games, which enable Gamism only.

Anyhow, the extremes that limit are less viable, IMO. Yes, it's easier to avoid the Incoherence bug. But just because Hybrid is harder doesn't mean it's not worth going for.

Mike

[John Kim]

I don't really feel like I can say about distribution of gamers in general.  I would like to question the original poster's example, though.  

We (Changeling Storytellers) are more interested in creating stories then playing characters, and wanted the players to take a more metagame focus (thinking of themselves not so much as their characters, but as authors writing stories with their characters as protagonists). Likewise, the players often got annoyed when they felt that the integrity of their characters, the world, or our objectivity were compromised.

It occurred to me that narrativists seem to be in the minority.

You are associating "narrativist" here with a metagame viewpoint -- which I think is jumping to conclusions.  In previous discussions, many people have said that in-character/non-meta-game view is completely compatible with Narrativism.  The question for Narrativism, as I understand it, is whether they engage with moral/ethical issues in play.  

It could be that you are observing a different split.  This might be related to the "narrative paradigms" that I discuss in my recent essay at http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/narrative/paradigms.html

It is also telling, I think, that in Ron Edwards' essay, "System Does Matter," his sample gamist games (Rifts and Shadowrun) and simulationist games (GURPS and Pendragon) are fairly prominent game written by large companies, whereas most of his sample narrativist games (Prince Valiant, Everway, etc.) are small-press.  

Well, your examples here are incorrect as far as the companies go.  Prince Valiant was published by Chaosium, the same people who originally published Pendragon.  Everway was published by Wizards of the Coast -- who had already become a juggernaut because of the enormous success of their card game Magic: The Gathering.  It is true that Valiant and Everway turned out less prominent in the marketplace, but they weren't small-press any more than the original GURPS.

[Eero Tuovinen]

About the original question:

Bevan wrote:

It seems to be that there are a lot of gamist players, who often graduate towards simulationism as they get older (more interested in roleplaying than in victory), but that narrativists are in the distinct minority.


What does everyone else think about the ratio between gamists-simulationists-narrativists?

Setting aside the proposed model (I think the pattern proposed by mr. Edwards and others is a tad more believable), what actual experiences are there? I'd think that the matter could be resolved empirically, assuming capability of recognising modes in play. In practice it's of course quite problematic, but let's see if this helps.

Let's take a look at some of my own resent play experiences. I play with a quite differing group of people, mostly without overt theory-talk in forming the group. Thus to a certain degree I should think that the players come to the game semirandomly.

First, my newbie-D&D: players coming to the game know that the game is D&D, but it is heavily emphasized that it's modded to the greatest extent possible and really is just a general fantasy game. Some 15 players since last fall, let's see what I think about their game:
- 1-2 gamists
- 1 narrativist
- 3-5 hanger-ons
- 7 simulationists
This suggests to my mind that simulationism indeed is the assumed mode. Some players haven't played for years, others have never played. Of the active players (those making significant contributions) the great majority finds the means of play from the world-simulation. I use to say that such a player justifies intervention in the story by his vision of the game world. It's considerably rarer for such intervention to rise from a thematic interest or a drive for challenge.
I think the above is significant mainly because I genuinely try to accomodate all GSN-preferenses in the actual play. It's all good to me, and thus the above is from observing where player interest lies.

For another case study, there's my extremely narrativistic superhero game. Four players, garnered by an announcement declaring only the genre of the game. The result: three simulationists, one hanger-on. Of course the game took it's toll and all four play like romans when in Rome, now.

The point? My experience from play supports heavily mr. Edwards's idea. The play culture indeed (at least in Finland) produces mostly simulationist play. This doesn't prove anything about how people would play with sufficient information, but in practice we can assume that your own experience is supported.

[Bevan]

Well, your examples here are incorrect as far as the companies go.  Prince Valiant was published by Chaosium, the same people who originally published Pendragon.  Everway was published by Wizards of the Coast -- who had already become a juggernaut because of the enormous success of their card game Magic: The Gathering.  It is true that Valiant and Everway turned out less prominent in the marketplace, but they weren't small-press any more than the original GURPS.

Fair enough. But the roleplaying games themselves are pretty obscure, so even though the companies themselves are prominent, the games have not caught-on as much as Rifts or GURPS had.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I agree with Marco (and Mike's associated post) and with Vincent, in all details.

Best,
Ron