I've read (or tried to read) the GNS articles, and I don't honestly feel like I've come away from them all that much more enlightened about it all.

A major portion of my problem is with simple reading comprehension. I don't honestly feel like I've seen the "summary" that makes it all truly take root in my head. What I need are the (speaking greekly) epithets that make each of them stick for me.

I bring this up because I was looking at the Iron Chef Simulationist thing (too late, alas) over on the game design forum and realized that I probably wouldn't ever be able to participate in a Iron Chef GNS challenge because I wouldn't know how to target the specific agenda involved in the challenge.

When I'm designing a game (exercising my "creative agenda") -- I dunno, I just do it, and I find out afterwards what people think the game fits into in a GNS sense (Ron's called Pace a simulationist game -- I had no idea).

So what I'm looking for, at the least, is the "three sentence understanding" of GNS. I realize it'd involve gross oversimplification but, honestly, I feel like that's what I need -- something dirt-simple that draws some clear black lines and divides the playing field.

So, here's a sort of challenge to the regulars of this forum (which I have avoided in the past largely out of noncomprehension): describe each fold of the threefold model in a single sentence.

Maybe there won't be accuracy that comes of this, but the exercise, even in the occasional failures, will probably be drastically illuminative for me.

Thanks!

I should probably footnote -- I'm looking for something other than these three bullets:

Ron Edwards wrote: # Gamism is expressed by competition among participants (the real people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters, both short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual play strategies. The listed elements provide an arena for the competition.
# Simulationism is expressed by enhancing one or more of the listed elements in Set 1 above; in other words, Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play. The players may be greatly concerned with the internal logic and experiential consistency of that Exploration.
# Narrativism is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The listed elements provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis).

Hi Fred,

I can empathize with you all too well. It was almost a year before I started to "get" what GNS is about. In fact, it didn't really click to me until after I got Sorcerer and read "System Matters" at all why it even existed.

So I'll try to give you the "lies for children" version, and hopefully this will click with you. Understand that you should check back to the original, and see if it makes sense then.

Why GNS?

Basically, different people want to play different ways. No one is better than the other, it just happens that most people don't actually think about this and crazy miscommunication happens. It's like one person's playing basketball, and the other's playing soccer. Problems happen. The point of GNS is to point out the different ways, so everyone can get on the same page about"what the game is about"("Today's soccer day!").

Gamism

For me, gamism is about a challenge. Not challenge in the "that was challenging" sense, but rather specific goals to be acheived. So, beating the dragon is one goal, which the GM can put forth.

I can make my own challenges by saying, "I'll beat the dragon without magic!" I'm sure you've seen this kind of thing with videogames, like folks who will play a game and not pick up any power-ups, or use some other limitation to make it harder.

The satisfaction of this kind of play is the "I did it!" that you get when you beat a hard videogame.

Narrativism

Narrativism is about creating a "good" story through play. Here's where things get nasty for lots of folks.

-Let's just say "good" is whatever the group thinks is good and drop it as a point of contention.

-Let's also define story as more than "a random series of events" and instead look at it as a "Definite Theme". History is mostly a random series of events, strung together that don't really make a good "story". There is no recognizable "theme" to history(although reoccuring trends). A movie, like Gladiator, has definite themes(loyalty, justice, jealously, etc.).

So, the key point is theme. Think of every good movie you like. Theme is the "message" or "point" of the movie. Consider the usual Disney sports movie, where the ragtag team wins the championship, doing it their way. The Theme is self-acceptance. So, in Narrativist play, its a matter of bringing these themes as the point of play.

Simulationism

This is about "exploring" Character, Setting, Situation, Color, or System. It is about what is "plausible" given the game. So, is the struggle between the Jedi and the Empire interesting by itself? Exploration. Would it be interesting to see what it would be like to live in the Matrix? Exploration. Would it be cool to "be" a Vampire or Werewolf? Exploration. The key point here is the fantasizing, and in many cases the "immersion" that folks talk about.

"I kinda get it, but I'm kinda confused!"

So, to give you a couple of examples you can work with, take the idea of making a Matrix rpg.

Gamism- Can you level up, get enough kewl powers, and beat the Matrix?
Narrativism-Who are you in a false world? What is real? What do you have faith in if you're not sure even you, yourself are real? Do you have faith?
Simulationism- What would it be like to live in the Matrix? What sorts of things would happen?

To give you the same sorts of play in D&D-

Gamism- I want to be able to beat the monsters! Gimme the new feat!
Narrativism- My paladin is torn between obeying his church, and justice, will he do what he should, or will he do what he must, and which is which?
Simulationism- What would a cleric of Pelor really do? What is the evil archbishop planning? What's in those ruins over there?

Of course, this is the "lies for children" version, and Ron will probably come give me the smackdown/correction on this, but hopefully it pushes you in the right direction.

Chris

ok, here's my attempt. I will keep this super-short. this is not meant as a disagreement with Chris, btw, just an attempt to distill the whole huge thing into as small a space as possible.

first: RPG. for the purposes of this post, an RPG is an approach to creating a group fiction (not necessarily a "story", although that is one approach.)

Exploration is the process of imagining that group fiction, exploring the game world.

playing the game will involve two kinds of decisions: in-game decisions and out-of-game (metagame) decisions.

Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism are approaches to making those decisions. each has one priority which can be at odds with the other two approaches.

Simulationism's priority is fidelity to the game-world (taking a comment Emily made in a thread not too long ago.) Simulationism thus tends to dislike metagame decisions and only uses them to reinforce that fidelity.

Gamism's priority is competition, either with another player or with yourself. the competition can be in in-game terms or in social terms (the game as performance art.)

Narrativism's priority is thematic decisions, usually moral decisions (but I'm using "thematic" rather than "moral" just in case.) Narrativism tries to make the most "storylike" play of the three by altering the game-world to match the players' thematic goals.

so: the Simulationist wants to be engrossed in the fictional world and fictional characters, the Gamist wants to earn some praise for skillful play, and the Narrativist wants to play out meaningful decisions in the fictional context.

in theory, either Gamism or Narrativism can be included with Simulationism, since people compete in the real world and make tough decisions, too; but the pure Simulationist doesn't like the way Gamists and Narrativists change game-world elements to fit their goals. and Gamism and Narrativism are pulling the metagame in opposed directions.

sound good?

I had almost finished this, and out of nowhere my browser crashed. I'm going to try again.

The Three Sentences:

Gamism: I want to win this game.

Simulationism: I want to see what would happen in this world if these things were done.

Narrativism: I want to find the moral of the story.

Let's apply this to Lord of the Rings.

There was a Lord of the Rings Bookcase game (SPI, I think) years ago, in which players took either the free peoples or Sauron. Each side was trying to defeat the other. This is an illustration of gamism. You could have Gandalf take the ring and use it against Sauron; the Sauron player could have made Aragorn the traitor instead of Saruman. It was a strategic effort to beat the other side, based on the starting point of the book and following some of the rules that defined that world. This is a gamist expression.

I'm told that the Middle Earth Role Play system is extremely simulationist. Assuming that's correct, I would expect that we could give the ring to Gandalf and things would come out as they would have done, for better or worse; or if Samwise failed to take the ring from Frodo when Shelob bit him, it might have fallen in the hands of Sauron. We could suggest that Gollum didn't have the One Ring, or that one of the dwarfs, not Bilbo, got it from him. We could explore possibilities, have adventures which have nothing to do with the one ring, discover who the other members of the council of wizards were, and things of that nature. In the end, we don't care whether Sauron wins; we care whether what happens seems to us as if it would have happened, given our choices.

We could point to the book as narrativist; that would be unfair, of course, because the book is not a game. However, there are many people who bought the SPI Bookcase game or MERPS who hoped for something other than what they got--a game that would let them experience an adventure with the same sort of moral values as the book. They want a game in which Merry and Eowyn can kill the leader of the Nine, who cannot be killed by any man. They want a story to emerge in which Gollum rushes forward and bites the ring from Frodo's finger, plunging into the fires with it as he falls. They want to create great stories--not strings of events which are connected, but epics with moral power that lead from the very beginning toward an outcome which will have deep meaning to the players and the characters alike. That would be a narrativist game. Neither the SPI game nor MERPS really did anything to facilitate that; and to get that out of those games, you would in a sense have to play against the game.

Let me point you to my gamers preference quiz. It's a few years old now, and the theory has developed some since then, but its explanations may enlighten you some on the basic ideas. That is, even if you don't take the quiz, seeing how certain approaches to play fit into each category might show you a bit better how they function.

--M. J. Young

Hmm, I'd have to use six sentences:

Gamist - Asking "how". The greater goals are assumed.

Simulationist - Asking "what", "who", "when", or "where". The greater context is assumed.

Narrativist - Asking "why". The greater meaning is assumed.

Most succintly, Gamists ask how, Simulationists ask what, and Narrativists ask why. Of course that turns it into a something like a joke.

A narrativists, a gamist, and a simulationist walk into a bar ...

-Mendel S.

It sounds to me, so far, like:

Gamist: "I want to get out there and succeed more than others by whatever rules there are."

Simulationist: "I want to do anything I want to do, and the world should respond in a consistent fashion to those things."

Narrativist: "I want to tell a certain kind of story, and the world should bend to accommodate the tale."

(Drifting side-note: Ron suggested in the Actual Play forum that my game Pace may be a Simulationist game (saying that Gamism and Narrativism in Pace would be a mode of play rather than rules-mandated, IIRC). I'm trying to come to terms with that diagnosis -- I suppose, sure, the game is trying to "simulate" certain story-structures and pacing, but isn't that a more Narrativist endeavor?)

iago wrote: It sounds to me, so far, like:

Gamist: "I want to get out there and succeed more than others by whatever rules there are."

Simulationist: "I want to do anything I want to do, and the world should respond in a consistent fashion to those things."

Narrativist: "I want to tell a certain kind of story, and the world should bend to accommodate the tale."

(Drifting side-note: Ron suggested in the Actual Play forum that my game Pace may be a Simulationist game (saying that Gamism and Narrativism in Pace would be a mode of play rather than rules-mandated, IIRC). I'm trying to come to terms with that diagnosis -- I suppose, sure, the game is trying to "simulate" certain story-structures and pacing, but isn't that a more Narrativist endeavor?)

talysman wrote:
see, there's where the confusion is cropping up. story-structures and pacing can be used in any rpg. Narrativism is the desire to make a moral decision the point of play.

iago,

I think one of the problems you're having is the need to distinguish between player and character decisions. Your quick definitions seem a bit muddled in this respect. After all, to the player it's a game, not a world. Also gamist is not simply about winning, take a look at the Gentleman Gamer thread on this same Forum.

Hope that helps,

-Mendel S.

Hey Fred,

I am neutral regarding the validity of the thread, but at least it is short: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4867. If I were to discuss narrativism today, I think I would talk more about moral/ethical choices than about story, and if I were to discuss gamism today, I would talk more about conflict and challenge than about winning.

Later,
Grant

ThreeGee wrote: I am neutral regarding the validity of the thread, but at least it is short: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4867. If I were to discuss narrativism today, I think I would talk more about moral/ethical choices than about story, and if I were to discuss gamism today, I would talk more about conflict and challenge than about winning.

Pace is Sim because the rules, note the rules, are preoccupied with delivering some framework that makes the character interaction with the world sensible. A game that supports Narrativism doesn't undermine that (I have to caveat that carefully, Narrativism still needs plausibility), but it doesn't focus on it. That is, the direction that the rules promote will be for the player to think about and make decisions about things that are morally significant to the player. Not the character, though they may be for him as well. But the things have to be significant to the player.

So, let's immagine a game called Emote instead of Pace in which, instead of characters being defined by things like Swordplay and Charisma, they were instead defined by what causes them to be emotional. So, characters have traits like "Loves Lisa" and "Hates rats" etc. And no other stats. Just stuff like these. Then there is no "resolution system in the game" the players and GM just make stuff up. That is dialog looks like this:

Player: I walk across the street.
GM: OK, you get to the other side, now what?
Player: I shoot Bob.
GM: OK, Bob sees you too late to run. The bullet passes right through Bob's head killing him.

Cue cries of where's the system.

In Emote when somebody introduces one of the character's emotional traits somehow, the player has to decide to go with the Trait or against it. The other players guess which way the character will go, and write that down. Then the player reveals which way the character goes. For every player who guesses correctly, the player making the decision pays a dollar. For each that guesses incorrectly they pay the player a dollar.

That would be a narrativist diceless system. Not a good one, but there you have it.

Do you see the difference? In Pace, the rules are concerned primarily with simulating the in-game environment. Sure, players can make narrativist decisions, but the rules do nothing to encourage this. In Emote, the rules are all about coming to thematic decision points and resolving them. Play will not be about "can I kill Bill?" or anything like that, but rather things like "should I kill Bill".

That's the difference between a system that supports simulationism and a system that supports narrativism.

Now, I've used a very extreme example to make my point. You don't have to get nearly that far from traditional design to get narrativist play. But it's not the resolution system that makes Sorcerer a Narrativist game. It's the fact that characters are designed such that they are automatically in situations that require narrativist decision making. So like Pace, the resolution system "stays out of the way" of making Narrativist decisions. But unlike Pace, there are parts of the game that make you look at specific kinds of decisions. Hence Sorcerer supports Narrativism and Pace supports Sim.

Does that clear it up at all?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Does that clear it up at all?

I found myself clarifying the GNS terms on a mailing list today. Here's what I wrote.

GNS stuff is a set of terms used to describe the _creative agenda_ of a particular game or play-style. It's a way to explain the _primary focus_ of what the rules are trying to achieve. The terms are not mutually exclusive, per se, but most games tend to have one of the three in greatest prominence, and tend to wholly or nearly neglect another of the three.

Simulationism is largely focused on "exploration" -- of a theme, of a story structure, of a world, what have you. The paramount Sim notion is focused on consistent behavior when interacting with the world at large.

Gamism is largely focused on "competition" -- it may be player versus player, or it may be player versus gm, or what-have-you, but it very much has the idea of "winning" in it, sometimes in a "i win more than you win" way. (Games that have a lot of "levelling up" and kewl powers tend to fall into this realm.)

Narrativism is largely focused on "emotion" -- it has mechanics which focus on and enhance and guide play toward those story moments that revolve around emotional and moral decision-making, and as such probably models the "internal world" of characters well.

Let's go for star wars as an example.

Sim Wars would have a focus on star travel and the setting at large.

Gamist Wars would have a focus on force powers, getting the best equipment, becoming the best (or darkest) Jedi.

Narrativist Wars would focus on the temptation of the dark side of the force, and the paths from there to redemption.

Hi Fred,

Well, let's put you at the ... oh, green belt level for this stuff. Here are a couple of things to consider.

It's a way to explain the _primary focus_ of what the rules are trying to achieve.

I'll accept the green belt as about as far as I can _easily_ tread... reading the elder thread you cite does clarify a few things for me, and I feel like I'm grounded enough now to be able to 'walk the walk' if necessary.

Part of what kicked this off for me was realizing I'd missed out on Iron Chef Simulationist (buying a house thrashed my ability to spend time on the forge), and then realizing ... I wouldn't have had the foggiest idea of how to hit the Sim part of the requirement.

Which, I suppose, brings up an interesting point -- you're effectively saying rules are optional to the GNS perspective, and that GNS is more of a creative/play/communication perspective -- but all the same, rules can and do encourage a particular style (else, why would the Iron Chef challenge as played out here on the Forge identify itself by one of the three GNS terms as the style of game to create?).

So I think the reason "rules" terminology keeps creeping into my attempts to express understanding is that I'm trying to understand best how to "set out to create a (blank) game" where (blank) is one of G, N, S.

Hi Fred,

Which, I suppose, brings up an interesting point -- you're effectively saying rules are optional to the GNS perspective, and that GNS is more of a creative/play/communication perspective -- but all the same, rules can and do encourage a particular style (else, why would the Iron Chef challenge as played out here on the Forge identify itself by one of the three GNS terms as the style of game to create?).

So I think the reason "rules" terminology keeps creeping into my attempts to express understanding is that I'm trying to understand best how to "set out to create a (blank) game" where (blank) is one of G, N, S.

Yah. I get it. I'm just explaining that when I talk about GNS stuff, it's inevitably going to be colored by a further-ahead design goal, because that's the destination in my head.