Metagame and the GNS

[Bevan]

It seems to me that something that the Narrativist and the Gamist have in common over the Simulationist is a preference to metagame. The Simulationist's main goal is to directly experience the game-world, and embrace his character, whereas the Narrativist and the Gamist have a degree of separation. The Narrativist focuses on the story and the Gamist focuses on the game, whereas the Simulationist prefers to immerse himself in the character (to the Narrativist the character is a protagonist, to the Gamist the character is a piece, and to the Simulationist the character is you). Author stance, gamer stance, and actor stance respectively.

I find this metagame layer fascinating, particularly from a Narrativist point of view. I am far more interested in shaping my character's life than in experiencing life as my character.

I also find this link between Narrativism and Gamism interesting because these gaming styles are antithetical in many ways. After all, the heart of Gamism is competition, but the heart of Narrativism is collective story creation.

[jdagna]

Well, you're making some of the classic GNS mistakes here.  Stances are not directly related to GNS modes, and you can use any stance within any mode.  The connection you state in your post is sort of the most common stance for each mode, but by no means the only one (or even the best).

Now, there's some debate amongst everyone here on whether Sim play has a metagame priority and, if so, exactly what it is.  Here's my own take on it nowadays:

Consider that exploration in Sim play may be a metaplot priority on par with competition and theme.  For example, there's a mountain in the game.  The Gamist wants to know what he'll get if he climbs it.  The Narrativist thinks climbing it might develop his theme.  The Simulationist is just interested in seeing what's up there, or how mountain climbing works in this system.

Now, all three modes feature exploration (hence the reason Sim play may appear to be lacking a priority), but the concept of exploration for exploration's sake seems like a distinct priority to me and not just a rejection of the other two modes.  You could also say that all modes feature conflict, but Gamists step up to that challenge differently than the others.  And you can concoct a theme out of any session, but only Narrativist play focuses on creating it.  If the other modes produce a theme, they did it on accident.

I'm sure you'll get some interesting opinions from everyone else...

[Ian Charvill]

Hi

I think your points are broadly valid but your choice of wording might trip you up a little.  To deal with the big three:

the Simulationist prefers to immerse himself in the character

"Immersion" is not a pre-requisite of Simulationism, although it does represent a strong strand of Simulationism.

The Narrativist focuses on the story

Narrativism focusses on Premise, explicitly.  Story is no more focussed on in narrativism than in certain styles of Simulationism (sim, exploration of situation, frex).

Gamist focuses on the game

Well, we're all focussed on the game, but I'm guessing you mean traditional "game elements".  Competition works pretty well in this context.

I think your right that the metagame goal does separate narrativism and gamism from simulationism.  I tend to think that too much play is given to this in the "one of these things is not the same sense, pretty much for the reasons you outline: i.e. it doesn't make narrativism and gamism any more compatible.

[Ben Lehman]

The Narrativist focuses on the story and the Gamist focuses on the game, whereas the Simulationist prefers to immerse himself in the character (to the Narrativist the character is a protagonist, to the Gamist the character is a piece, and to the Simulationist the character is you). Author stance, gamer stance, and actor stance respectively.

BL>  Stance has no direct correlation to Mode.  You play any mode using any stance.  Some combinations are more common or more well-known than others, but none are more "difficult" or anything like that.

Metagame Sim happens all the time, particularly in Genre-Sim, where you need to keep in mind the genre tropes at all times.  An example might be a Call of Cthulu character who opens the book because that's what Lovecraft's characters always do.  Clearly Sim, clearly metagame.

yrs--
--Ben

[Bevan]

I think the reason that I placed Mode and Stance together is that I am a Narrativists more interested in the Author stance, whereas most of the gamers that I interact with are Simulationists interested in the Actor stance, and so I naturally associated Mode and Stance together.

So it is the Actor who is anti-metagame as opposed to the Simulationist, whereas it is the Author who metagames, and not necessarily the Narrativist.

However, I think that the Narrativist seems to be more prone to Authorship and thus to metagaming than the Actor who is more prone to Acting and thus no metagaming. Thus, it can still be said that the Narrativist metagames more often than the Simulationist, and so does the Gamist, who is more prone to being the Competitor than the Actor. Therefore, I think that my initial observation has merit, just not to the same extent as I initially thought.

[Mike Holmes]

I'd be willing to buy arguments based on tendencies. But as I've said on this subject before, I think that these tendencies are artifacts of traditions in play, and not indicative of superior methodology at all for the modes in quesiton.

That is, Simulationists do Actor stance more often, but ought to try other stances more, as there's no neccessary link to enjoyment by associating these modes.

Mike