WARNING: This thread is likely going to generate a LOT of flack. This is definitely not for the faint of heart.

In a thread below Ron pointed out something to me that gave me pause. He asked me why I felt a need to justify my personal play style and my desires to explore certain styles. I had a snap answer but I decided to think it over and I realized something I've never noticed before.

I'm really into gamer psychology. If a person exhibits 'gamist' tendencies, I want to know why. And this goes deeper then, "I prefer games with objective goals and objective means to obtain them." Because the next level is then 'Why do you feel this need for your games to be objective.' and so on until we reach something concrete. I justify my own position to prompt people into justifying THEIR position so I can get one step closer to that concrete reason.

Now I KNOW that every individual person is different but the field of psychology is about finding general tendencies among like groups of people. I'm going to use some examples here which are totally made up and are not in any way based on evidence. They are merely illustrating the kind of information I'm after. To be fair I'll use one from each of the GNS segments so that I'll get flamed universally and won't look like I'm picking on just one group. :smile:

Gamists might tend to be people who have highly emotional lives. They could be people who feel that the world is very subjective and that a lot of it is beyond their personal control. So, they come to the table to get away from all that. They come to a place where they know that everything is objectively defined that they themselves with their own personal skills can make a difference.

Simulationists might be people who feel that they've had a lot of missed opportunities in their lives or perhaps have made many decisions that they are unsure of. So they come to the gaming table to go to world where they can make a decision and see its outcome and then if they wish they can 'rewind' and make another decision and see that outcome.

Narrativists might be people who are in fact frustrated authors and directors who are disillusioned either with the effort needed to produce a work of static fiction or their personal disgust with the publishing and film producing industry. So they come to the game table as a place where they can author their unique stories without the 'red-tape' of media industries.

Again, I know that individuals vary and such but psychology has shown us over and over again that their are tendencies that are generally common among like minded groups of individuals. So, why? Why do I care.

Because I believe that a person's 'likes' and 'dislikes' are directly tied to something personal and psychological. And if you can find a way to address the cause of a person's 'like' with something they 'dislike' they will learn to like or at least tollerate that 'dislike' In the end you can coaxe them to 'broaden' their horizons.

Now, I UNDERSTAND that GNS is not about converting anyone to the 'right way' to role-play but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in experimenting. I keep having visions of writing these 'conversion' documents. I started working on one for explaining Narrativism to Simulationists but it wasn't working out. It wasn't working out because all I was doing was summarizing Narrativistic 'jargon' and illustrating how it differs from Simulationists goals and methods. Not good enough. The Simulationist will still look confused and won't understand what the 'fun' in all that is.

No, the goal is not to create documents that will merely allow someone of a different style to UNDERSTAND the techniques and methods of another style, but to get that person excited about experiementing with a different style and to see how it could be fun. And to do that you've got to address the underlying psychological tendencies. You have to speak to the person's 'soul' per se.

In this forum is a thread about a gamist who's view was 'broadened' through communication. I'm convinced that the communication alone isn't what caused his eyes to light up and so forth. Something that was said to that gamist spoke to something on a psychological level that was more than, 'you're approaching the game with this in mind and we're approaching it with this in mind.' Either the source of his gamism tendencies were addressed in that communication OR you addressed something else that brought another set of tendencies to the surface and I want to know what it was.

And then after I know what makes a gamist a gamist, a simulationist a simulationist, and a narrativist and narrativist I want to try and see how gamism can address the foundation of narrativist behavior and how narratism can address the foundation of simulationist behavior and so on.

But that's just.

*Runs and hides waiting for the bullets to start flying.*

Jesse

Hi Jesse,

You won't find me flaming you for this, Jesse. It so happens that your description of the Narrativist essentially fits me.

However, the endeavor you describe - which in some ways matches with Paul Czege's interests regarding GNS - leaves me shrugging. I'm not very interested in the ontogeny or "core" nuances of role-playing behavior, beyond identifying preferences and patterns. As far as this hobby goes, I'm pretty applied - I ask, what are the effective techniques for getting the people together and committed, creating good stuff together, appreciating the experience before & during & after.

So please - carry on with this topic, and (everyone) keep it all above the belt during the dialogues. But I doubt I'll weigh in, especially.

Except for this: one overlooked element of GNS theory is that the goals have failed to mix well HISTORICALLY, but that POTENTIAL functional combinations may well be possible. I think we've seen some examples in game design emerge in the last few years. Therefore the strict "three types o'person" picture implied in your post is perhaps too limiting.

Even the FAQ got this right: GNS is about behaviors and decisions, and people may be classified only insofar as their behaviors and decisions show very strong trends.

Best,
Ron

P.S. Quick clarification about me and Jesse's hypothetical characterization of a Narrativist. "Frustrated" isn't quite right, more along the lines that the other media require career-level commitments and I like my actual career too much. On the other hand, his description fits perfectly insofar as I think the industries in question really stink.

I don't really know about the psychological attributes of the players. I can only really tell you why I find certain aspects of GNS play styles appealing or not appealing.

I see Gamism as a means for releasing stress, especially when I'm winning. I have a little bit of tactical skill, a little bit of diplomatic skill, and a lot of ruthlessness in competitive game situations. Where many Gamist games frustrate me is in their over-reliance on randomness at resolution points. If I'm tactically superior or diplomatically dominant, I want my reward. I don't like it when the dice say "no," especially when my character is supposed to have a high degree of effectiveness.

As an aside, I think that sort of thinking justifies the view that Gamist games *should* "emphazize player skill" over random chance. I also think it's the desire to circumvent the inherent unfairness of too much Fortune which makes some players turn to abuse of the rules or blatant "munchkinism." Some of those people may well exemplify the worst aspects of that word, but I think more of them are just trying to find a way to make their character perform as they envision within the scope of the game's rules.

I see Narrativism, more specifically the liberal availability of author/director stance and shared balance of power commonly found in Narrative-oriented games as a means for achieving greater player satisfaction, for reducing the GM's pre-planning burden, and for increasing the fun for all participants.

Players who spend too much time behind the GM screen may find a certain amount of frustration when saddled with the usual limitations of being a player. I exemplify that statement completely. Other players want what they want out of a game. Too often, they have to practically beg the GM to get it, and even then, many GMs take perverse pleasure in playing Devil and turning the sweet taste of victory to ashes in the players' mouths. If Narrativism isn't good for anything else, it's wonderful because the style of play provides players with mechanisms for getting exactly what they want out of the game session when it matters most. The caveat, of course, is that the GM must be secure enough in his role as GM to hold the reigns loosely and see where the players want to go.

I see Simulationism as an attitude toward play. On the one hand, it's the desire to see what will happen as a result of the character's actions. This desire is completely divorced from concerns about winning or making story (2 little terms that represent a whole universe of possible desires and means for achieving those desires). On the other hand, it's the desire to be or at least think like someone else, to see through the eyes of another.

Players who embrace the more personal aspects of Simulationist play, including the immersion in character, must sometimes be very brave. They (possibly more than players in other styles of game) may sometimes reveal parts of themselves while portraying their characters. The style of play lends itself to introspection. The same can't really be said for that part of Simulationism that dwells on detailed mechanical modeling of the game world, but that style lends itself well to the clinical detachment of the player who really just wants to see what will happen when his character presses the big, red button marked "Do Not Touch."

Finally, it's worth noting that no game, no game session, no player is truly pure in GNS orientation. Some players will spend a lot of time in one pattern of behavior, but even they will deviate on occasion. Others may shift from session to session or even shift position several times during the same session. Even a mechanic may have different meanings depending how it's used and what the designer, GM, or player is trying to achieve.

Logan

[ This Message was edited by: Logan on 2001-08-10 15:33 ]

Why I am a Narrativist:

An essay by your loving Uncle Dark

Basically, when I role-play (as a player) what I am looking for is a fantasy where I am always competent in the day to day stuff, and the challenges are dramatic and larger than life. Basically, for me it's a way to rise above the prosaic frustrations and problems of mundane life.

Nothing frustrates me more in a game than to have my character derailed byt he petty stuff. "Oops, you blew your candle-lighting roll, so your spell fails." Or whatever- any situation where we spend a lot of time on stuff that doesn't advance the plot, especially when it's stuff about my character's minor failures.

Narrativisim appeals to me as a player because it allows ways around this. I'm talking,mostly, about fortune-in-the-middle here, but the degree to which OOC info can be used by a player helps, too.

Is this the kind of psych stuff you're looking for? Identifying exactly what it is in real life that makes a certain style of play satisfying for an individual?

Lon

I think your definition of Simulationist psychology is a bit flawwed in that most Simulationists that I've seen never "rewind" and make a different decision and, when they do, it is generally for non-Simulationist reasons (e.g., my group used a "rewind" to back out of a situation that threatened to destroy a game not for Simulationist reasons but for Social and Dramatic reasons). It would be better simply to point out that it provides the opportunity to try something different and potentially dangerous without lasting real-world consequences.