I'd be really interested to know your opinion:). So, I enjoy...
Overplaying the other players-getting more XP, contributing more to the success and the athmosFEAR:), and so on... Gamist, right?
Good simulation-"realism" is a core notion in my worldview:). I'm trying to play a character, as realistic as posible for the given setting and campaign, making full use of my knowledge of history (as limited as it might be:)). As well, I'm really trying to play a character according to his/her worldvies, ethics and so on. And of course, exploring the setting...
And at the (narrativistic?:)) end, some of my characters are trying to change the world, often in the most dramatic way possible. Even when they are not, they are trying to act in a dramatic manner. So, am I a G, N or S player/ GM? :)
Waiting for your opinions...:)
A. :)

We certainly can't say from this information. More importantly, nobody plays any of the Creative Agenda's in a "pure" way. Maybe you like to mix styles.

But if you want some kind of answer, what you should look for are actual situations in your games where you had to make a choice between the different priorities. If you could get either XP or play your character true to life, what would you do? If you could either contribute more to the success or highlight your character's thematic issue, what would you do? Don't try to answer these question in abstracto, look at actual choices you made and make during gaming. That's the only way to find out what you prefer.

(Well, there are other ways. Go and play some hardcore G, N and S games and find out what you enjoy more. It might be the case that you enjoy them all.)

"If I like to eat Pizza without any meat on it, does that make me a vegeterian?"

Victor Gijsbers wrote: 1. Maybe you like to mix styles.

2. But if you want some kind of answer, what you should look for are actual situations in your games where you had to make a choice between the different priorities. If you could get either XP or play your character true to life, what would you do? If you could either contribute more to the success or highlight your character's thematic issue, what would you do? Don't try to answer these question in abstracto, look at actual choices you made and make during gaming. That's the only way to find out what you prefer.

3. (Well, there are other ways. Go and play some hardcore G, N and S games and find out what you enjoy more. It might be the case that you enjoy them all.)

"If I like to eat Pizza without any meat on it, does that make me a vegeterian?"

I'm looking at this topic with great hesitation. I read a post on a blog not long ago that mourned the loss of the war of turning the creative agendas according to Ron's big model into identity politics. That is, it is absolutely critical to understand that a person isn't Gamist, Narrativist or Simulationist. There are no G, N or S people, there are only instances of play that are G, N, or S.

Also remember that all three CA's take place in all games, just that two of them are usually subordinate to the third. That said, you are looking to find out what it is you prefer predominately? Self analysis is always a little tough. You might need to think back over your expeience in playing and GM ing and ask yourself what motivated your decisions most often. Your breif anecdotes are not enough for people here to even form such an opinion. The people here have never played with you so we can't say.

I'm not sure it really matters, to ask what you have been. It helps maybe, if your dissatisfied with your play or if you are haveing a conflict with the peopel you play with that you suspect comes from very different ideologies about what is important in a game. If you're trying to see where your preferences lie, the easiest way is probaby to play games that emphasis one of those three agendas and see how they go. If you're the only GM then certainly you could talk freinds into trying out a couple of new things with you.

Yes, it is possible to enjoy more than one style of play.I know I've found I can enjoy all three agendas when I understand that that's what the game is beng played for. I admit that my deepest liking is for Narrativist games, games where I have the chance to put my own answer, through my character, to the situation at hand. But I have enjoyed other types of play too. It's when these things get mixed up that it can be painful.

best,

Trevis

Trevis Martin wrote:
1. Also remember that all three CA's take place in all games, just that two of them are usually subordinate to the third. That said, you are looking to find out what it is you prefer predominately?

2. Self analysis is always a little tough.

3. I'm not sure it really matters, to ask what you have been. It helps maybe, if your dissatisfied with your play or if you are haveing a conflict with the peopel you play with that you suspect comes from very different ideologies about what is important in a game.

4. Yes, it is possible to enjoy more than one style of play.I know I've found I can enjoy all three agendas when I understand that that's what the game is beng played for.

best,

Trevis

Hi Asen,

You might be interested in this thread: One opinion on why and how GNS matters.

Best,
Ron

I was thinking of adding onto this thread based on Trevor Martin's post but I think a new thread might be better. So that's what I'm going to do in a thread entitled GNS Conflict and Identity Politics.

Edit--Um, make that "Can GNS modes be identified outside of GNS conflict?"

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Asen,

You might be interested in this thread: One opinion on why and how GNS matters.

Best,
Ron