I think my chief problem with GNS has something to do with apples and oranges.

First, let me make sure I've got my definitions in order.

Gamism is about competition among actual humans (players, GMs). It places emphasis on overcoming challenges, solving puzzles, increasing character capabilities, gathering stuff, fairness, balance, and winning the game.

Narrativist games are intended to help the GM and players create stories together, based on the game's premise. Narrativist games have explicit rules which promote that activity.

The purpose of Simulationist play is to experience the results of the resolution system and of playing one's character, specifically without establishing victory or theme as the indicator of success.

Here’s my first problem: I don’t see any difference between Gamism and Simulationism. The goal of gamism is to challenge the player with game mechanics. The goal of Simulationist play is to “experience the results of the resolution system.” What’s the difference?

Here’s my second problem: D&D is Narrativist. The premise of D&D is to kick down the door, kill the ork and take his treasure. The story that arises from that activity is what players share with each other afterward. Yes, it's hack n slash, but the point is to tell a hack n slash story. Just because its shallow and self-serving doesn't mean it isn't a story.

Here’s my third problem: every game in the world is Gamist. Any game that has a Task Resolution System challenges the players. Once Upon a Time’s goal is to tell a great story (Narrativist), but does so with a highly competitive mechanic (Gamist). The Baron’s Game is the same way.

From my own point of view, Orkworld is simulationist. There is no set victory condition for Orkworld. Stories arise out of playing, but the fact of the matter is it is designed to simulate playing an ork in the world of Ghurtha. I’ve even got mechanics for hunting food.

I must say that these observations come from someone who has never really engaged in deep debate about the subject. This is really my first foray into GNS discussion. I’m interested in people telling me why I’m wrong in specific terms. The more specific, the better.

Have at it!

Take care,
John

In my experience, G/N/S is most useful as a determination of goals, and as such it could be considered fundamental. You can't talk about methods without also saying why you would want to do such a thing, which brings you back to goals.

So:

The overriding goal in simulationist play is to obey the rules, no matter what. It is a proper simulation in the classical sense in that you set up a starting situation, a set of rules by which it evolves, and see what happens.
The key question in simulationist game design is, "how can I design a set of rules which will allow a fair, realistic (at least by genre conventions) and arbitrary decision under any circumstances ?"

The overriding goal in gamist play is to see who designed their character the best and knows how to squeeze every last tweak from the rules in play. It is explicitly competitive, between players and between players and GM. Whether the rules are realistic is not nearly so important as how they are written. Playing a gamist RPG is a lot like playing original Car Wars. The key question in gamist design is "How can I design a set of rules in which there a variety of well-balanced character design options?"

The overriding goal in narrativist play is that the game be dramatically and thematically satisfying, and the process of play creates a story that your high-school english teacher would be proud of. The key question in narrativist design is, "How can I design a set of rules in which play never bogs down, and which consistently tells an entertaining story."

You cannot possibly satisfy all of these goals at once all the time; an early example of this is the argument you may recall from twenty years ago in which people complained about clerics being unable to use swords in D&D: this was clearly included for gamist reasons, but was a clear violation of simulationist tenets.

So: in summary, G/N/S is most clearly considered as a set of goals, and as such they inevitably conflict with each-other.

(Note that sometimes you can satisfy several at once, and that it seems possible to focus on different aspects for different parts of the game. Further note that all of this is my take on it.)

John,

My opinion based on your opinion is that you have not taken the time to read our faq. If I am mistaken, I will stand corrected. Meanwhile, the faq is here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/faq/

Logan

Hi John,

Actually, I thought you summarized pretty well and then did a good STARTING job at classifying.

(Just to orient everyone, to call a game "Gamist" or whatever is only shorthand for saying, "The majority of mechanics in this game facilitate and reward Gamist decisions during play." It does not mean that 100% of the mechanics do so, nor does it say anything at all about the author's intent.)

But here's how I, anyway, end up ism-ing your picks.

Once Upon a Time is Gamist - win or loss among the actual humans is explicit, and constitutes success at play. It uses narrative devices as the components of its competition. You can find the same thing with the card game Slasher and with Pantheon.

The key is not to confuse the part with the whole. The story elements are play-pieces, which give rise to win/lose-events in Once Upon a Time. The story is a SIDE EFFECT of the effort to win.

I also think Logan's points about "borders" in another thread are very strong. Any one of GNS shares borders with the other two. Once Upon a Time, Pantheon, and Baron Munchausen are definitely on the Gamist/Narrativist border.

Orkworld, as I suggested in my review, is solidly Narrativist. The emphasis on setting and the "get into it" feel of play are elements made available SO THAT stories occur. (A lot of people mistake emphasis on setting and characterization for Simulationism; however true that was for the original GDS, my current thinking on the topic is totally different.) The existence of Trouble as a value-based, thematic mechanic as well as an event-generator is a phenomenal example of Author stance. You're famililar, as well, with my thoughts on orks as non-hypocrites, and how that drives players into thematic or judgmental thinking about the outcome of the PCs' adventures.

So in Orkworld, I see a lot of emphasis on the integrity of the setting, but I think that the setting is - all said and done - a place where one has to deal with Trouble. Its integrity reinforces that one thing so relentlessly that I do not think "just being an ork" is the most-facilitated point of play. I think "make a personal statement, through story events, about hubris and responsibility" is the most-facilitated point of play.

I also want to say that your willingness to participate in this big-ass cranky debate is GREATLY appreciated.

Best,
Ron

I'll try a few pieces here - first, one that gave me fits for a long time:

>Here’s my second problem: D&D is Narrativist. The premise
>of D&D is to kick down the door, kill the ork and take
>his treasure. The story that arises from that activity
>is what players share with each other afterward.

In GNS terms, Narrativist means actively focused on both the PCs and GM creating the story DURING play. They kick down the door and ask RIGHT THEN "is it good for the story to kill the orc now?" And remember - not just the GM decides here - the players do too.

>Orkworld is simulationist. There is no set victory
>condition for Orkworld. Stories arise out of playing,
>but the fact of the matter is it is designed to simulate
>playing an ork in the world of Ghurtha. I’ve even got
>mechanics for hunting food.

As was discussed (somewhat acrimoniously, unfortunately) over on GO at one point, if you apply the winter hunt rules as a simulation, eventually Orks die out. You MUST add the "roleplay" bonuses. While not strictly a Narrativist mechanic, this does tend to at least provide fodder for a Narrativist to munch on . . .

Gordon C. Landis

On 2001-07-05 15:31, Logan wrote:
John,

My opinion based on your opinion is that you have not taken the time to read our faq. If I am mistaken, I will stand corrected. Meanwhile, the faq is here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/faq/

Logan

John Wick wrote:
Gamism is about competition among actual humans (players, GMs). It places emphasis on overcoming challenges, solving puzzles, increasing character capabilities, gathering stuff, fairness, balance, and winning the game.

Narrativist games are intended to help the GM and players create stories together, based on the game's premise. Narrativist games have explicit rules which promote that activity.

The purpose of Simulationist play is to experience the results of the resolution system and of playing one's character, specifically without establishing victory or theme as the indicator of success.

Here’s my first problem: I don’t see any difference between Gamism and Simulationism. The goal of gamism is to challenge the player with game mechanics. The goal of Simulationist play is to “experience the results of the resolution system.” What’s the difference?

Here’s my second problem: D&D is Narrativist. The premise of D&D is to kick down the door, kill the ork and take his treasure. The story that arises from that activity is what players share with each other afterward. Yes, it's hack n slash, but the point is to tell a hack n slash story. Just because its shallow and self-serving doesn't mean it isn't a story.

Here’s my third problem: every game in the world is Gamist. Any game that has a Task Resolution System challenges the players. Once Upon a Time’s goal is to tell a great story (Narrativist), but does so with a highly competitive mechanic (Gamist). The Baron’s Game is the same way.

From my own point of view, Orkworld is simulationist. There is no set victory condition for Orkworld. Stories arise out of playing, but the fact of the matter is it is designed to simulate playing an ork in the world of Ghurtha. I’ve even got mechanics for hunting food.

Here’s my second problem: D&D is Narrativist. The premise of D&D is to kick down the door, kill the ork and take his treasure.

But it's a pretty crappy story, let's face it.

Ok. You're running L5R. It's the Scorpion Clan Coup. Bayushi Shoju storms the Emperor's throne room. A low-ranking Seppun guard takes a swing at Shoju...and rolls a 10, followed by a 10, followed by a 10, followed by a 10. According to the rules, Shoju just got his head chopped off. A narrativist might fudge the roll, on the grounds that it doesn't make story sense for a major character to get killed so easily. A gamist would probably accept it (sometimes you lose). A simulationist would too (it makes sense within the world - people were running around with swords, and there's no such thing as a major character within the world - everyone's just a person). Both the gamist and the simulationist are sitting there thinking "well, that's a bit of a stupid way for Shoju to die"....but for both of them, concerns other than the story will take precedence.

On 2001-07-05 14:46, John Wick wrote:
Here’s my first problem: I don’t see any difference between Gamism and Simulationism. The goal of gamism is to challenge the player with game mechanics. The goal of Simulationist play is to “experience the results of the resolution system.” What’s the difference?

On 2001-07-05 19:33, John Wick wrote:

Here’s my second problem: D&D is Narrativist. The premise of D&D is to kick down the door, kill the ork and take his treasure.

But it's a pretty crappy story, let's face it.

That's a problem with the definition. Good or bad doesn't really matter. I just saw Dracula 2000 (so should you!) and had a helluva good time. Most people would tell me I'm insane, but the bottom line is: you can't define "good and bad" stories, because of taste.

An adversarial relationship between the players and the GM is not a good idea, wherever you are in the threefold. Gamist GMs try to provide a challenge that the players will enjoy. The particular group may enjoy slaughters and routs, or they may enjoy "take as many of the bastards with you as you can", but if the GM is out to get them, then that's just fucked-up. The GM has got to be trustworthy.

[ This Message was edited by: Knight on 2001-07-07 15:49 ]

The GM has got to be trustworthy.

It goes without saying (or so I thought) that adversarial <> "cheating to win."

On 2001-07-06 05:07, Mytholder wrote:

Stories have beginnings, middles and endings,...

On 2001-07-08 11:44, pblock wrote:
Spielberg said someting along the lines of stories do not hae middles or endings. They have a beginning which never stops beginning.

It relates, or doesn't relate however you wish it to, I suppose. It is a way of looking at the idea of the continuing story, which relates to RPGs very strongly.

It is also a statement by one of the more successful (note I didn't necessarily say better) storytellers about how to craft a story.