[To everyone, but particularly Discussion Participant Ron.]

Looking over the GNS theory, I was reminded of another essay about categorizing different styles of rpg players. After rummaging around a bit, I managed to rediscover it:

<http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm>
HEARTS, CLUBS, DIAMONDS, SPADES: PLAYERS WHO SUIT MUDS
Richard Bartle

If you're not familiar with it, I strongly recommend looking it over. Yes, it's written about MUDs (proto MMORPGs (Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games)) but don't hold that against it.

In short, I think Bartle's model shares a lot of similarity to the GNS model, and each can provide some insight into the other.

Bartle posits four player types:

1) Achievers
2) Explorers
3) Socialisers
4) Killers

I would suggest that they correspond as follows:

1) Achievers are identical to Gamists
2) Explorers are identical to Simulationists
3) Socialisers are similar to Narrativists
4) Killers are a bit like degenerate Gamists

I'll go through these points in order:

1) Achievers are identical to Gamists

Bartle describes Achievers as:

* Players give themselves game-related goals, and vigorously set out to achieve them. This usually means accumulating and disposing of large quantities of high-value treasure, or cutting a swathe through hordes of mobiles (ie. monsters built in to the virtual world).

* Achievers regard points-gathering and rising in levels as their main goal, and all is ultimately subserviant to this.

* Exploration is necessary only to find new sources of treasure, or improved ways of wringing points from it.

* Achievers are proud of their formal status in the game's built-in level hierarchy, and of how short a time they took to reach it.

It's a perfect description of Gamists, as far as I can tell.

2) Explorers are identical to Simulationists

Bartle describes Explorers as:

* Players try to find out as much as they can about the virtual world. Although initially this means mapping its topology (ie. exploring the MUD's breadth), later it advances to experimentation with its physics (ie. exploring the MUD's depth).

* Explorers delight in having the game expose its internal machinations to them.

* The real fun comes only from discovery, and making the most complete set of maps in existence.

* Explorers are proud of their knowledge of the game's finer points, especially if new players treat them as founts of all knowledge.

That's a perfect description of Simulationists, in my opinion.

3) Socialisers are similar to Narrativists

Bartle describes Socialisers as:

* Players use the game's communicative facilities, and apply the role-playing that these engender, as a context in which to converse (and otherwise interact) with their fellow players.

* Socialisers are interested in people, and what they have to say.

* The game is merely a backdrop, a common ground where things happen to players.

* Inter-player relationships are important[...].

* The only ultimately fulfilling thing is [...] getting to know people, to understand them, and to form beautiful, lasting relationships.

I'll admit that I'm stepping onto shakier ground here. None of the above seems remotely related to addressing a Premise through role-playing.

It may be more accurate to say that the overlap between the two groups is very high (I suspect.) The preceding points certainly seem to describe most of the Narrativists that I've met.

More research into this point might be fruitful.

4) Killers are a bit like degenerate Gamists

Bartle describes Killers as:

* Players use the tools provided by the game to cause distress to (or, in rare circumstances, to help) other players. Where permitted, this usually involves acquiring some weapon and applying it enthusiastically to the persona of another player in the game world.

* Killers get their kicks from imposing themselves on others.

* [These] people attack other players with a view to killing off their personae (hence the name for this style of play).

* The more massive the distress caused, the greater the killer's joy at having caused it.

* [...] Only in the knowledge that a real person, somewhere, is very upset by what you've just done, yet can themselves do nothing about it, is there any true adrenalin-shooting, juicy fun.

For the most part, this mode doesn't exist in tabletop RPGs, simply because the context -- "a real person, somewhere, is very upset by what you've just done, yet can themselves do nothing about it" -- doesn't really exist in RPGs. (There *is* the potential for this mode to show its face in PBEM RPGs, which I think is a very interesting topic, but one that will take a different essay.)

It may be related to some highly-dysfunctional modes of Gamism. The closest match is probably to the Bloodthirsty GM who kills characters out of spite. Fortunately, this isn't often seen.

Other Notes from Bartle

* His lists of "Ways to emphasise <X> over <Y>" is very much in the spirit of "System Does Matter".

* The section labeled "THE SOCIAL VERSUS GAMELIKE DEBATE" bears more than a passing similarity to the Gamist vs Narrativist debate.

* His Player Interactions section is very worthwhile.


Cheers,
Roger