After reading "Applied Theory" by M.J. Young, I got inspired.

It seems to me, mechanically, there are a minimum of five GNS roles with regard to system. Broken down, they are:

Gamism: Arbiter (GM) and Player (Player.)
Narrativism: Author (GM and Player.)
Simulation: Guide (GM) and Simulator (Player.)

In Gamism, an Arbiter creates challenges for the players and arbitrates the rules of the game, while a Player tries to overcome the in-game challenges set by the Arbiter.

In Narrativism, both "GM" and "Players" try to share narrative control of the game as a story as Authors.

In Simulation, the Guide ensures the consistency of the setting's background, while the Simulators detail specific aspects of the setting.

I want to emphasize here that I am not talking stances, I'm talking mechanics. In other words, I want to know what are the simplest mechanics a game can have to support GNS. And more importantly, can my model be simplified?

Thoughts? Questions? Experiences?

Hi there,

Not bad! I do think, though, that Gamist play yields more complexity. The Arbiter role is often taken on by everyone (the same way that there's no ref in playing pool or many other games), and the roles of competitors can be (although are not necessarily) involved.

You might want to explain just what you mean by "Author," as I read it as "Premise-resolver" and others might read it (incorrectly, in my view) as what I'd call Director Stance.

And finally, for Simulationist play, I think there's a lot of variance in just who's doing the Guiding. And Guide means what? If we're talking about what the player-characters do and where they will go, in some forms of this play, the GM is highly responsive, and in others, he or she is highly directive. But if we're talking about the "buck" (as in where the buck stops) regarding the content of Exploration, then yes, a GM for that purpose is historically very important in much Simulationist play ... but that's almost the same as the Arbiter that you posed for Gamist play.

Best,
Ron

I'm very pleased that my article has gotten you thinking; and I think that those delineations are viable ways to do each of those modes--but I don't think they're anywhere near exclusive.

I think narrativism can have separation of aspects, for example, such that GM and player are quite distinct positions--while it can also be played completely devoid of any referee figure at all (Alyria seems to have that potential, although the referee seems key to first runs).

So what I think you've got are good choices for those modes, but not exclusive choices for them--in the sense that you probably would find it easier to support each mode with the suggestions you offer, but not impossible to do so in a completely different way.

--M. J. Young

I think what Ron is getting at is that the GNS mechanical roles are not "hard and fast." They can be combined in various ways depending on the game and the "players." Thus a Narrative game, for example, might have both Author and Arbiter roles for different "players."

(Here I use Author in the sense Ron indicated -- Premise-resolver -- instead of Director stance. And by "player" I mean anyone involved in the game.)

This is only natural, since most games are not purely G, N, or S. I hesitate in saying 'all' because of weird things like Rune.

M.J., I'm not worried about exclusive roles. I just want distinctions that are functional and, ideally, mechanically elegant. Combining the five aspects seems to do that pretty well, IMHO.

I'm curious, though. Would a Narrativism GM be in Author+Arbiter aspect, or something else?