A couple of threads ( http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4267 and http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4414 ) prompted some questions in my mind that I finally managed to figure out answers for. Particularly the second thread, which asked what does RP accomplish and can you describe it to someone in a sentence casually. We'll assume this is worth while doing rather than unnecessary justification, as suggested latter in that thread. After all, like in the first thread, its handy to put on the back of something.

Now, the first thing I'd like to say is that each of these descriptions runs of each GNS mode as I understand them, but most likely with a particular direction. What I'm saying is that is not the be all and end all of how you play that mode, but just a direction that I'd use, play by and if designing a game, stick on the back of the box/book of a game supported that mode. When I ask for feedback latter, keep in mind I'm not trying to describe a particular GNS mode in its entirety, I'm just describing an angle (so judging how well I described the whole mode isn't needed, of course). Also, each description describes emulating movies/books a lot more than just the user making up their own thing. Similarly, this is to help get across a particular direction of play (to newbies), rather than describe how all RP works.

So, in trying to describe a mode in one sentence and for someone with little RP contact, here I go. I'll start with gamist first.

Gamist: 'One player designs a mental puzzle based on movies/TV/book situations or those like them and describes it to the other players who then work within certain rules (to make it challenging) in an attempt to master this puzzle'

Big note: For ages I just did not get gamist. Recently I wrote a post about the unlimited elephants a GM can drop on players and how I thought this negated gamist play. I mean, I understood that elephants can't casually be dropped because social pressures are in place. But I just didn't see and still don't see this supporting a Vs style game. It would be like winning in chess because you'd scowl at the other player (if he were allowed to by the rules to bring in new pieces) who just kept bringing in new pieces, so he can't and eventually if you win it's because you policed him and because he accepted that/let you (thus let you win). That's not the same type of win that standard chess gives. Still, others and Ron posted with their support for the mode so again I had to ponder what is gamist.

'A puzzle' answered it for me. It really clicked. Say someone is making a jigsaw puzzle. They can easily make pieces too big or too small to complete the puzzle or even just keep a piece, so the puzzle can't be mastered. There, he wins! Ah, but winning that way is not the goal. Really, with the jigsaw or with something more complicated like a Rubik's cube or Chinese box it's more like a mental arm wrestling match, where the idea is not to slam down the others hand, but to use the pressure they apply to make your own arm stronger. Likewise they are using the pressure from you to strengthen their arm. The idea is to spar and sharpen each others wits. Concluding it early with someone winning has gained nothing, when the goal was to sharpen your skill.

Well, this is how I perceive it as a workable and fun. I think attempting to play Vs mode fully relies on not looking behind the black curtain and in the end is actually puzzle/sparing play without realising it. Rune might be a proper Vs (not sure, myself). But most RPG designs used in a gamist mode can only support a puzzle/sparing play style in my view.


Narrativist: 'We take characters from movies/TV/books or those like them and put them in 'what if' situations to see what they'd do'

Note: Of course, 'what if' means 'what if the premise were this' and what they do/their actions answer that premise.


Simulationist: 'We take situations from movies/TV/books or ones like them and apply special characters to them, to see how the situation would then turn out'

Note: Man, sim took me ages. Wasn't going to bother until this one came to mind by luck. Again I'll apply the disclaimer that this is my understanding of the mode and one particular direction the mode can go.

Anyway, for me it's really interesting. Notice how it's just a role reversal with the narrativist description? Situation and PC's have switched position, so it's like the PC's are the premise themselves. We then learn more about the protagonist/situation as it explores the premise/PC's!

Another side angle is that an audience outside of the players might find this a lot like narrativist. They would see the world changed by these PC's and from how the world is changed/reacts to them, they would learn about the PC's themselves. It'd be like one of those movies which centers around characters so you get to know them and their thoughts (or perhaps like a soap?). While standard narrativism is like a movie where we explore some conundrum with characters we can relate to (but in this case, these characters are a means to an end, not the end itself).


Questions: Obviously I'd appreciate comment on anything (I'd really like some on that last bit), but here are some direct questions about this:
These GNS mode descriptions do take particular directions (rather than covering the whole mode aptly). Apart from that, would they be good for;
1. To use as a one sentence design goal in making a RP game that is supposed to heavily support that mode?
2. Are they something good to put on the back of the book/box once published?
3. How useful are they for designing actual game sessions, from 'getting my thoughts in order' and beyond?

Note: I had real trouble figuring out if this should go in RPG theory or GNS model discussion. Hope its in the right spot.