Looking over the Dramatism threads it seems to me that Simulationism is still causing problems. And it seems to me that the REASON Simulationism is still causing problems is that because it feels way more diverse than the other two. Even I often find myself having to clarify myself when talking about Simulationism. I find myself saying lots of things like, "That's Character-based Simulationism" or "That's exploration of Situation Simulationism"

Since GNS is largely designed to help us think about different modes of playing I think Simulationism still feels ill defined because we know that the Character-based Simulationist and the System-based Simulationist thrown in a game together aren't necessarily going to get along. Where as we 'feel' like if we threw a bunch of randomly sampled Gamists and Narrativists into rooms of their own, they'd get along just fine.

Now, I think it's possible that Gamism and Narrativism might be just as diverse, however, Gamism and Narrativism share something that Simulationism doesn't have, namely a prioritization of a meta-game concern. What that means is that there will be a lot of prior to play discussion. For the Gamist an arena of competition and the parameters that define it will be layed out. For the Narrativist there will be much discussion of Premise and whether it comes from the Setting or the Character. In each of the cases the Gamist or Narrativist who doesn't like the elements layed out before hand will either suggest a change, willing alter his preferences for this game, or simply bow out BEFORE the game even begins.

Simulationists on the other hand all come to the table with a lot of UNSPOKEN assumptions about what roleplaying is and not a lot of preplay discussion on why they're gaming. So what ends up happening is that the conflicts don't arrise until the game is already underway and thus we observe disfunctional behavior. The Character guy complains to the Color guy that his action was 'out of character.' The Color guy retortes that it doesn't matter because it was really 'cool' and the System guy chimes in that it's a moot point because 'no human being could do that in real life.' Meanwhile, the poor Setting guy is off on the sidelines waiting to get to the next interesting port-o-call.

So the solution that naturally jumps to mind is that Simulationism needs to be broken up. But I don't think it does. Simulationism is very acurately defined as the prioritization of the exploration of one or more of the five requisite imaginative elements. That works. That covers Simulationism. Instead of trying to break Simulationism down it might be helpful to try and identify the diversity among Narrativists and Gamists. Furthermore it might help if we tried to identify that diversity in terms of the five imagined elements just the way Simulationism is.

As I start I can think of two ways to break down Gamism:

Character - A character focused gamist is going to be primarily concerned with survival and aquisition of wealth and power.

Setting - A setting focused gamist doesn't care so much about what happens to his character as an individual but how much of an impact his character can have on the setting as whole. He doesn't mind being a powerless pauper if in the end he can lead a slave revolt to over throw the aristocracy. Similarly, a setting focused gamist wouldn't mind dying in battle if it meant that the people of the world will see him as a martyr and elevate his memory to god like status.

Does this make sense? Do you see where I'm going with this? Does anyone have a contribution?

Jesse

Hi Jesse,

Nice thoughts here.

I don't have much from a theory standpoint, but let me offer a potentially off-topic observation: I wonder whether the perception of Simulationism as more diverse stems from the fact that most games on the market adopt a simulationist design.

In other words, it's not that the designs themselves are more diverse; it's that there's a lot more product on the market creating the illusion of diversity via volume. In fact, I don't see the basic designs of most simulationist games as establishing a wide spectrum. On the one hand, there's the "default" task-resolution style with all the weapons tables (Storyteller, Rolemaster, Blue Planet, Ars Magica, Witchcraft, GURPS, Champions), and on the other hand, there's the genre emulation style (Pendragon, Feng Shui, maybe Conspiracy X). With the exception of Pendragon, I'd say all these offer about the same kinds of "immersion-promoting" decisions and mechanics to players. The clutch is basically the same in all of them, in other words. The reason Simulationism "feels" more diverse may be because it's the market default and the conceptual starting point for most players. In terms of volume, it may not be exaggeration to say 90% of the games out there are Simulationist, and we may be seeing Gamist and Narrativist behaviors struggling to emerge within that context. (Note: I just played Exalted last night and felt pretty constrained, so that experience may be fueling my perception here.)

Moving to player priorities, I only observe the Character and what I'll call the Verisimilitude mindsets in actual Sim play, the former prioritizing "in-character" decisions and the latter prioritizing consistency with the diegesis of the setting, whether it be Malorian Arthurian Britain, a gritty and realistic Southeast Asian battlefield, or modern magic in New York. Thus, I don't see as much diversity between Simulationist play priorities.

I do like your breakdown of Gamism. Let me suggest another class of gamer who doesn't prioritize Character or Setting, but seeks a tactical challenge to overcome using RL thinking skills. Call it a Challenge-oriented Gamer. This person would approach a game a bit more like a game of chess.

Best,

Blake

I break down Gamism into two types of competition:

Competition with Environment - The PC is competing to succeed against forces external to the other Players. The Player is pushing her PC to win against obstacles provided by the GM or circumstances. D&D and Donjon fall into this category. Either game promotes the PCs, as a whole, to conquer obstacles (through Experience Points, Treasure, etc.)

Competition with Players - All of the PCs are are competing against each other for some winning condition. This can be refereed (via the GM) or GMless (My Cubes RPG, for example). Rune and my own Jon Morris Sketchbuk RPG are this type. Both games' Systems eplicitly pit players against each other (Rune has concrete character gain, Jon Morris Sketchbuk's only mechanic is competitive).

I thought about a third option, where the GM competes against the Players as a whole (providing obstacles, etc), and the Players also compete against each other, but this is simply Competition with Players.

---

If you want to break either of those down further, you're in the right direction with your concentration on one element (System, Setting, Character, etc). Rune and D&D, for example, adds Players vs. Situation. Magic the Gathering is Players vs. System (the System changes with many of the cards played).

You now have two axes to analyze & design a Gamist RPG: Who Competes with Whom (answer: self or players), and What do you Compete Against (answer: System, Setting, Character, Situation and Color). Not that your game requires players to stick to this, but strong Gamist design promotes one of these over all else.

For example, D&D is Competition with Environment, though there can be contests (who gets the most XP, treasure, kills, etc). In some D&D games (con tourneys), the System can be used for Competition with Players to see who roleplays the best (not supported by System), who deals the most damage (supported by System), etc. In most D&D games, however, we see Comp w/ Environment because the System supports this best.

Blake Hutchins wrote:
I do like your breakdown of Gamism. Let me suggest another class of gamer who doesn't prioritize Character or Setting, but seeks a tactical challenge to overcome using RL thinking skills. Call it a Challenge-oriented Gamer. This person would approach a game a bit more like a game of chess.

Point taken, Zak. Thanks for the clarification.

Best,

Blake

Hi guys,
Name's Brian and I'm fairly new around these cyber-parts. Your discussion really twigged my interest cos I'm developing a game of my own and while I come from a gamist background, I really want to add a narrativst element to my game.

Anywho, the point/question is this:
What about overlap? While D&D is definately gamist it does nod its head in the direction of story? I've also seen more than I want of inter-party conflict (not arrising from group immaturity but because everybody was feeling more than a little cut throat-ish that day). I guess what I'm saying is players vs situation and players vs players is fine but look at the D&D example...you can pretty much kill what ever you want...

Another thing, I've read a lot interesting theory here at the forge (very interesting) BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN IN PRACTICE? I'm not asking for hard and fast (if your wrong i'll kill you) answers. Just a discussion of the practical aspects. because, if I know my players, and I do, they're are going to consistently find the borders between these genres.

So anyway, just my two bob's worth, happy gaming to y'all.
Brian.

Brian Hose wrote:
Anywho, the point/question is this:
What about overlap? While D&D is definately gamist it does nod its head in the direction of story? I've also seen more than I want of inter-party conflict (not arrising from group immaturity but because everybody was feeling more than a little cut throat-ish that day). I guess what I'm saying is players vs situation and players vs players is fine but look at the D&D example...you can pretty much kill what ever you want...

Hi Brian and Welcome to the Forge.

Excellent questions -- and you'll soon discover they've been brought up before. But before we discuss that, I'm going to set up a whole new thread for you -- cause we tend to keep discussions -- as much as possible, on topic around here -- and your questions don't have much to do with Jesse's original discussion.

Click on this link and you'll end up at the new thread:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=16834#16834

[edited to add link]

Ah well. I mention again that IMO competition is gamisms equivelent of colour, at best, and largely (or totally, IMO) irrelevant.

D&D rewards cooperative play. It doesn't reward competitive play (and certainly not player vs. player conflicts).* True, you can kill whatver you want in D&D but everything in the game points to the players cooperating with one another to defeat obstacles.

Felderin wrote: The players were trying to "beat" the dungeon, and the DM was trying to stop them (within the bounds of not making the adventure impossible for the players to win). Just look back at some of the early AD&D modules, such as Tomb of Horrors, and you'll see what I mean.

Everyone,

This thread is beginning to become a sequence of free-associations rather than a focused discussion. At this point, I count the following topics:
- subdivisions of Gamism in terms of elements of play
- the role of competition in Gamism (with the attendant question of whether people read the word "competition" differently)
- the role of "story" in D&D and AD&D
- the role of "competition" in D&D and AD&D
- the history of D&D sensu lato

I submit that no single thread can actually sustain a meaningful discussion with all these things going binga-banga past one another at the same time. I also submit that the original purpose of this thread has been dealt with adequately, and that it be permitted to retire gracefully.

Please pick one of the above topics, or some other thing that has struck you from the posts in this thread, and start a new one in the appropriate forum.

Also, please remember that no one can capture, say, the history of D&D in a hasty three-sentence post - so if your only concern is "Hey, that wasn't complete," maybe it's not worth a post about it, or perhaps it warrants a private message for clarification rather than a public tangent.

Best,
Ron