I have been coming to this site for more than a year now, reading the articles, threads, etc. in effort to gain some knowledge before I begin asking questions that have already been answered. So, now, finally I have some questions. If these issues have already been dealt with, please point to the right place and I'll happily go read and ponder some more. That being said...

Reading M.J. Young's article Applied Theory last night got me thinking about the "applied" differences between Gam, Sim, and Nar. Gam and Nar seem well-defined when compared to Sim. And being Sim in my priorities (at least I think I am) and someone who needs to have things clearly defined and categorized, I began to search for defining features.

Here are my conclusions. I try to keep my assumptions and definitions as simple as possible. Please feel free to dissect these fiercely.


Gamist character design needs to provide the player with a character that can meet the challenges presented in the game and affords each player the same opportunities.
Narrativist design needs to provide the player with a character that can address the Premise.

I propose that when a Sim player designs a character, he attempts to create a character that can do both... to a certain degree. In order for a character to be a part of a world, they must be able to face the challenges and address the Premises of that world. However, the point of the character is neither, but to do both as "realistically" as possible within the confines of the game.

For an easy example of this, I turn to Star Wars. First off, I would love to play a narrativist Jedi campaign (turning to the Dark Side, etc.). However, I truly enjoy playing it Sim (how high can you Force-jump?). But back to my example. Say my character is being lured to the dark side. In my system, I have two options for resolving this conflict. I can either have my character address a "mini-Premise", i.e. is giving into hate worth going to Dark-Side over, or I can have him roll some "willpower" ability that determines mechanically his fate. Now, depending which I chose as the system designer, I either lean toward Gamism or Narrativism. The question that the Sim designer asks is, which is more realistic in light of the overall game. ( Note: when I use the word realistic, I mean consistent with the system, setting, etc.)

So, I conclude that a Sim game can address Premise, but with this caveat: The characters' are addressing issues as consistently as possible within the system, not for the purpose of creating a story or providing commentary for the players (though both may come about), but to provide the player with the vicarious feeling of addressing the issue. Furthermore, Sim games also allow players to vicariously overcome challenges presented by the game. I like doing both, and when my character dies or the story sucks, I say, oh well, as least I know that I played him right. (Of course I prefer overcoming challenges and telling good stories...)

Therefore, the question is:
Is Sim the midpoint, at least in design, between Nar and Gam with a different priority set for each activity? Or am I a wacko who stayed up too late last night?

I feel like these ideas are solid, but need refinement. Again, if this has already been said, let me know.

Jonathan

You may be interested in reading Mike Holme's Revised Beeg Horsehoe Theory.

Some of your ideas seem really similar, and it may help you flesh them out a bit before continuing discussion.

But overall, I think you're heading in the right direction, if not on the right track.

-Ben

Well...
Now that I've read the Beeg Horseshoe Theory and this other thread, Caring How it Resolves, I would like to make a few observations.

Sim can very often be mistaken for either Gam or Nar, especially when (player) motive is not readily discernible and the observations are based on a single "event".

Two examples:
Two characters are dueling to the death. The players employ an action by action strategy-based method of resolving the duel. There is a definite winner and loser. Is this Gam or Sim?

A character is sworn to defend the Royal family. However, the prince is corrupt and evil. He often rapes and kills teenage girls for pleasure. Finally, he rapes and kills the character's daughter. Some event occurs which puts the prince in mortal peril, but the character is in position to save the prince. Is this Nar or Sim?

To say that the character's actions or motives have any bearing on the mode of play is FALSE.
The character in the first example cares a GREAT deal about winning, not neccessarily that the combat itself was satisfying in any way.
The character in the second example faces a grave moral dilemma, but may not be interested in the statement he is about to make.
This is, I think, well defined elsewhere, I just felt it needed to restated.

As I understand the state of the theory, GNS states that player motive is basis for determining a mode of play. Therefore, I propose that either of the two examples above could be Sim.

I think the Gam/Sim example is probably the easiest of the two to see how this could be. The question there is: why is blow by blow strategy being employed? There are two answers. Either the strategy is a method of competition or it is how the system simulates the game world.

The second example is the one most problematic to those that inhabit this site. They will often agree that it could be either, but not on when it is one or the other. For the Sim point of view, here is my opinion. When the player addresses this premise:
Does he have his character act based on what avenue of the story he wants to take.
Does he have his character act as he thinks his character will act.

If the player is acting based on the first motive, he is likely playing Nar. (forgive me if I'm a little off the mark with my Nar motive)

If the player acts on the second motive, he is likely playing Sim.
Here it is:
It is impossible to create a character that a player knows everything about. He must create, on the fly, this small piece of his character. In fact, his motive for allowing his character to find himself in such a situation may be to Explore his character. This doesn't undermine the goals of Sim, in fact, it upholds them. If I knew how everything would turn out, why would I want to simulate it?


In conclusion, it appears to me that GNS nails what the three motives are for playing. To make sure I understand it, I try to summarize it. Gamism is about addressing a challenge, competing, and gaining respect from your peers for doing so. Narrativism is about addressing a premise in such a way that good commentary is made upon the issue and the story is enriched and furthered toward a thematic end. Simulationism is about exploring how your character responds to challenges and premises, how they interact with game world, and how well the system furthers these goals.

I'm trying to become more coherent with this line of thinking. Please tear into it.

Jonathan

It may be a bit late to say Welcome to the Forge, but there it is anyway; I'm pleased that you found my article helpful, and it sounds to me like you're on the right track.

You wrote: Simulationism is about exploring how your character responds to challenges and premises, how they interact with game world, and how well the system furthers these goals.

So am I defining Exploration of Character here? And if so, would mind providing me with some examples of the other types of Exploration?

ErrathofKosh wrote: So am I defining Exploration of Character here? And if so, would mind providing me with some examples of the other types of Exploration?

Absolutely! That is a lot of help. I'll have to try playing or designing a game that prioritizes exploring something other than character.

BTW, great website.

Jonathan