Hello, all, :)

A (long) time ago, I came across a wee bit of text that divided role-play gamers into three groups (sound familiar?). These groups were: the adventurers; the problem solvers; the role players.

Then, (much) later, (or rather, recently,) I came across an essay that describes gamism, simulationism and narrativism.

Now, the first thing that jumped in my eyes is: these do not map 1:1 at all. On the other hand, neither do they seem to be quite linearly independent axes. (For instance, I'm having trouble fitting the problem solver as anything other than a gamist.)

With the aim of further discussion of this, I submit the definitions as I remember them.

Role-play gamers are divided into three groups, according to the type of campaigns and scenarios they prefer:

Adventurer - the adventurer enjoys exploring. He likes finding new challenges to best, and enjoys the reward thereof. New monsters, new powers, new venues are what the game is all about. The typical dungeon crawl caters well to this type of player.

Problem solver - the problem solver enjoys riddles. He likes logical conundrums and elaborate puzzles and traps, and is not above logistics and resource management problems. This type of player is at ease in any scenario, as long as they get to used their head a lot.

Role player - the role player enjoys character development. He likes interaction, complex relationships and opportunities for deep emotional commitment. This type of player enjoys campaings with highly detailed game worlds.

Looks like Gamist, Gamist, Simulationist with Focus on Exploration of Character -- or rather, a cross-section of the typical way most popular games are played, not an overview of role-playing and its various modes as a whole.

Or, more honestly, looks like a mish-mash. Who says that because you like riddles, you like resource management or logistics? Or because you enjoy the thrill of adventure, you like new monsters and new powers? Or because you enjoy detailed relationships you also enjoy a detailed game world (or vice versa)?

A lot of assumptions in those definitions, most of which don't work in practice...there would be a number of individuals who might proclaim, "Hey, I like seeing new monsters, too, but I don't care about getting cool new powers or stuff!" Or rather, the individual is focused on Simulation with regards to Exploration of Setting.

Hello, :)

Hmmm... I just thought of something. The above three types I mentioned, now that I think further about it, almost feel like three different sources of contest. As such, it might even be said that the three types above act as a neat subdivision of gamist play.

Add to this the fact that simulationist play is already neatly defined, by definition, into character, setting, system, situation and color.

Now, if all you narrativist types out there could provide me with a parallel level of subdivision of narrativist play, I'd be real happy. :) I say this because, before finding this site, I was totally unaware that narrativist play even existed...

Then again, this afterthought may be completely ridiculous altogether and the three types mentioned before actually be another independent variable to throw into the mix... I dunno. You tell me.

Cheers,

J.

P.S. I caught greyworm's reply just after I reposted, so this is an edit:

greyorm wrote: Looks like <...> rather, a cross-section of the typical way most popular games are played, not an overview of role-playing and its various modes as a whole. <...> A lot of assumptions in those definitions, most of which don't work in practice...

greyorm wrote: Looks like Gamist, Gamist, Simulationist with Focus on Exploration of Character -- or rather, a cross-section of the typical way most popular games are played, not an overview of role-playing and its various modes as a whole.

Wart,

I agree, as you will note, "Or rather, the individual is focused on Simulation with regards to Exploration of Setting."

(That's why responding to things "in part" -- aka dissection -- is frowned upon around here :) )

Hi there,

Interesting, so far.

I'd be able to address these a bit better with examples. "Problem solver," to me, has an adjustable quality that allows it to get factored across all three GNS types.

Or perhaps that's only a fancy way of agreeing with "J" that the 1:1 mapping isn't a good match. Which I do agree with, and furthermore, trying to force GNS and these three "thangs" together might not be the most valuable approach to the thread.

Instead, I'm thinking that these correspond to the first-level of "role" as I defined the four levels of "role" in The class issue. It pops the entire realm of their categorization "above" GNS into the "social box," and thus GNS becomes a way in which any of these gets "further refined" during play itself.

Best,
Ron

P.S. Very bad Ron! Do not make a reference to the very explicit 70s self-help book called "The Sensual Woman," by "J"! Bad! Bad!

I think the role-player/adventurer/problem-solver break down is about as useful as any other categorization system. It help us to look at different aspects of gaming, think about how to describe what we personally like, and gives us an idea of things that other people might like.

Whether or not the categories themselves are more useful than any other arbitrary three categories... who knows? I certainly disagree with their use of "role player" as one of the categories since it reeks of the sort of snobbery that "role players" do one thing and "roll players" do another.

There may be some correlation to GNS modes... in fact, one could even argue that role-play/adventurer/problem-solver are just poorly thought out analogues to narrativist/simulationist/gamist, but there would be a lot of overlap between the two systems.

As far as such player identification schemes, there are several in existence. I've heard that Robin Law's has one in Robin's Laws. Champions had one from way back. The Rolemaster Gamemaster guide had an interesting one that compared players to animal types (anyone have a Cow in their game? I've had 'em). And I'm sure there are more.

I think that they are all interesting in the way they divide up players and their methods of play. But I've never found one that really trumped all the rest. They all seem to have a lot of observational wisdom in them.

Mike

P.S. BTW, I'd say that, if anything, this set of descriptions is more similar to Fang's disection of player types.

Mike Holmes wrote: P.S. BTW, I'd say that, if anything, this set of descriptions is more similar to Fang's disection of player types.