In an earlier thread What is the Dream? the idea was raised that players tend to fall into Gamist or Narrativist play more “easily” than Simulationist play. I think there is a kernel of truth to that assertion.

Both Gamist and Narrativist play have built in “goals” that are easily identified or are overtly addressed. Simply put it is easier to direct one’s creative energies at a specific goal than it is to create without reference to some goal.

Gamist and Narrativist play have their “choke points” set at different parts of play than Simulationist play. In G and N the play starts with many options that can then be quickly pared down to those actions that bring them closer to addressing victory or addressing premise. This does not mean it is “easier” or “requires less thought” to play such games, rather it is easier to focus one’s efforts and know what one is trying to achieve. We know what we are supposed or are trying to do; we just don’t know specifically how we are going to get there. Therein lies the challenge of G and N play.

In Sim play the “choke point” is in the character. We constrain ourselves in the beginning by limiting our actions to our characters but to what ends we pursue is wide open. For example we create a warrior, which puts constraints on what he can and cannot do, but whatever we do pursue with that character the player is not guided or hindered by the needs to pursue victory or address premise. The challenge for the player in Sim play lies then not in trying to achieve external metagame goals, but in meeting internal (SIS defined) challenges while staying faithful to both the persona and the physical character. The challenge for the DM is Sim play is creating challenges within the SIS that are relevant to the characters and are meaningful to the players. This is no easy task and from what I have seen, played, and read about, rarely accomplished and a strong reason why people either drift games or drop out altogether.

To support this I argue that in both Gamist play and Narrativist play the nature of the character can “smeared out” to the point where the character is no longer defined (persona) or present (corpus). In the Gamism essay Ron described Hard Core Gamism as

Ron Edwards wrote: …pure metagame: Exploration becomes minimal or absent, such that System and Social Contract contact one another directly…

Hi Jay,

Also very solid. I suggest, however, that several hard-core Sim extremes exist, just as they do for the other two modes. For example, maximizing the engineering aesthetic found in the Purist for System approach to play and design, doesn't engage emotional identification so much as jimmying with how-it-works ... and seeing a complex event occur in game which makes enormous sense given the logistics of the imaginary situation. I've seen and played with groups in this mode - they really get that same rush when the System hums like a bee, without any hiccups, and a ton of very problematic physical events have been resolved without any kind of "leaving" the System (as they see it, with System strictly defined as imaginary physics).

I present further thoughts on why I think Gamist and Narrativist play are the default modes for most people, but not for most gamers, in the Narrativism essay.

Best,
Ron

I've seen and played with groups in this mode - they really get that same rush when the System hums like a bee, without any hiccups, and a ton of very problematic physical events have been resolved without any kind of "leaving" the System (as they see it, with System strictly defined as imaginary physics).

Hi Umberhulk,

You're going to have to break that point down into parts for me to understand you better.

I also think that saying "The Gamists do X" is way too broad - just off the top of my head, your point (and maybe I don't see it yet) seems valid only for the last of the following ways to play Gamist, which I also consider the rarest of the three.

- in which Simulationist-style detail and even any degree of Exploration which might look like it's going that way is the most godawful unwanted element of all

- in which Exploration is very intense, focused on creating the context for the Gamist decisions; this is not Simulationist or a hybrid or anything like that

- in which sections or interludes of play are best described as Simulationist, giving the Gamism a rest, but providing more material for that Gamism later on

Best,
Ron

Ok, that’s a slightly different meaning of Hardcore than I was considering.

In Hardcore Gamism, I presumed that the players ended up there, not by overt choice of saying lets play and not worry about exploration but because their powerful drive for victory drove them there. The players in addressing victory so powerfully squeezed out all those elements that were irrelevant. The competition between the players, not the characters, becomes so naked and so charged that anything that doesn’t help me win hinders me. This level of raw competition is both fierce and emotionally laden. It is just this extreme passion to win that made me think that Hardcore Gamism is an extreme form of that style of play. It addresses victory in the most direct manner possible. It addresses victory in the most extreme manner possible. It addresses that metric which defines Gamism in the most profound passionate way. In this sense Gamism is the most Player centric of the three modes of play, as it is the players who are being challenged directly. Thus the results of play reflect on the players directly.

This same thought process led me to suggest the “extreme” form of Simulationism. As Simulationism is character centric, the most charged form of play would challenge the character. I understand that characters are run by players and are not independent agents, but the challenge lies in maintaining the corpus while maintaining fidelity to persona. The greater the challenge on the two, the more “extreme” the play. This does not mean one must be empathetic or immersive, just that all actions must or ought to satisfy the needs of fidelity to character persona. Thus extreme challenge to that element that defines Sim is extreme challenge to character. This is not meant to imply that this is the “best” or “most representative” form of Sim play, but rather an effort to tease out by extreme example what might be the core element(s) that is Sim play.

I don’t if there is such a thing as Hardcore Narrativism, I’m just not familiar enough with the mode to comment effectively. The only thing I could guess at is the challenge to address premise is pushed to some extreme, but I have no idea what form it might take, if such a thing were possible.

My assumptions about Hardcore play are based on the idea that players’ actions drive toward the singular or profound address of the definitional metric that the game morphs to accommodate these drives. I was not arguing that emphasis on a portion of system or exploration to the exclusion of others is Hardcore, but that the players are Hardcore and that finds expression in Hardcore address to the challenge of play in terms of victory or Hardcore address of the challenge to character. The idea is that if the players are driving all energies towards measuring all their actions against the metric, then the game will be the most “extreme” or Hardcore version of that mode of play. This drive implies an intensity that I feel is emotionally powerful. Strong drives lead to or stem from strong emotions.

In other words the games are not extreme because some aspect of the system is prioritized, but because the player are extreme in pursing the representative metric of that mode of play. When the pursuit is extreme the games fall into the forms as I had argued above. That is why I called those forms extreme or Hardcore. It’s where the forms of the games end up, not necessarily modifications the players are specifically trying to implement upon system.

If my assumptions are not representative or my logic faulty then I will gladly accept Ron’s definitions of Hardcore.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume.

Hi Jay,

Oh, I think you're spot on target with your definition and understanding of Hard Core, as you're terming it in this thread. My quibble concerns this:

This same thought process led me to suggest the “extreme” form of Simulationism. As Simulationism is character centric, the most charged form of play would challenge the character.

Ron,

My point is this:

"Power gamers" will leverage the rules of their game world to their advantage no matter that it doesn't make sense in the real world. A classic example of this is lance charges in DnD 3E still doing massive amounts of damage even though the character is on foot.

There are usually rules that the GM can disallow such actions because it doesn't make sense and it detrimentally affects the shared story (this is a Narrativist solution, no?)

However, this "flaw" of the system bugs the Simulationists to no end, so rules will be added or tweaked to correct the problem, thus changing the physics of the game world (this lance example was corrected in 3.5).

Therefore, the rules as written define the physics of the game world to a power gamer. This extreme Gamist perspective lends itself to the creation of more Simulationist rules over time to reduce conflicts in gameplay by the fan base.

Hi Umberhulk,

Agreed, regarding Simulationist and Gamist play. I made this same point in detail in my two essays about these modes of play. Have you seen them? They're available in the Articles section, linked at the top of the page.

A minor point in your post, however:

There are usually rules that the GM can disallow such actions because it doesn't make sense and it detrimentally affects the shared story (this is a Narrativist solution, no?)

Ron,

I probably should reread those articles. Thanks for the clarification on the sim defense thing. Something else you have said makes me happy:

Neither Gamist nor Narrativist play require a defense against one another, as I see it. They share extremely similar procedures, aesthetic parameters, and social-to-creative relationships among the participants. What they don't share are common reward systems.

Cool! Mike Holmes will be especially interested to see whether Gamist and Narrativist play work well together in the same bathtub.

Jay, we're A-OK on the hard core thing, right?

Best,
Ron

Ron, I'm sure Chris Edwards will chime in here, because this is his baby in a lot of ways, but the Nar / Gam hybrid style is almost the default mode of play for our indie-netgaming pickup games. Doomchaser works that way. Draconum works that way. Fastlane works that way. The Pool works that way in certain ways. There were even some elements of it in the HQ game that Mike ran the other night.

Hi Nathan,

We'll see. A lot of people use the term "hybrid" for a lot more than it means to me. But I'm willing and interested to learn more about playing all of those games.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Yes we are!

Hi all,

A lot of the Indie-netgaming irc play is Nar/Gam, particularly when certain members play together, but I think that’s only a very basic description of our actual play.

In my view, there are three plates that we’re trying keep spinning during play. We have our Narrativist plate, which is ever present and (for me at least) takes less direct attention to keep “spinning”. We don’t formalize a Premise before play, at least not verbally. A formalized Premise may be present in the system (like Sorcerer, for example) or may be built into the characters to one degree or another.

We have our Gamist plate, which gets more attention (gets prioritized more frequently) if, say, Nathan and I are playing together. Much of this Gamist behavior takes place within the narration where a game of one-upmanship in regards to how “cool” the narration is, or how much advantage we can narrate in for our character, takes place. This is basically competing with Color, which leads to our last plate.

We also have our Sim plate, which is predominantly Sim Color. This plate has a great deal of importance attached to it, more so than I think we usually realize. It’s tied directly to our Gamist plate in that our Gamism functions within the bounds of our adherence to Color, usually the conventions and elements of a specific genre that we are exploring.

Our narrative one-upmanship is focused and dependent upon that exploration. There is also a great deal of adherence to character involved, not narrating within the bounds of perceived character personality or the elements of the genre being explored actually tends to make the narration less “cool”, as does directly contradicting previous narration without some very good explanation.

What makes a particular bit of narration “cool”, or determining who has gained an upper hand narration wise is something that has never been formalized or discussed. Many of us have played together enough now and have similar sensibilities that we “just know”. Player comments and reactions have served as a good yardstick to measure an instance of narrative success or advantage.

Of course, we’re working to keep three plates spinning during play, and prioritizing three modes in one instance of decision making just isn’t possible (although I think that you can mix them well enough in a bit of narration to pass for equal prioritization to an observer). While you’re working at spinning one plate you leave the other two plates to lose momentum.

Sometimes our Sim exploration of Color lapses into emulation of that Color. The active exploration loses its priority for a short while. Sometimes our Gamist tendencies lapse, only to come to the fore again when the situation heats up for our characters. Our Narrativist desires are always present it seems, and I think the other two modes become subservient to our Nar much more often than the other way around.

I don’t know if this is considered “hybrid” play. I do know that it seems completely natural to me and reflection upon my own past play experiences has showed that I have always played this way to one degree or another. This usually resulted in dropping rules and mechanics from games that hindered this style of play.

-Chris

Hi Chris,

At the risk of armchair-analysis, it sounds to me as if the Color part isn't Sim so much as supportive Exploration for the other modes.

Regarding the Gamism, yes, your post is suddenly clarifying something for me that deserves some attention. Obviously much creative effort of any kind is often "juiced" by competition with fellow creators. It's often even collaborative - a "poke" or a raise-the-bar effect. Hell, that's one of the major requirements of any artistic community.

But whether this is actually Gamist play on your parts remains a question. From my GNS essay:

For a given instance of play, the three modes are exclusive in application. When someone tells me that their role-playing is "all three," what I see from them is this: features of (say) two of the goals appear in concert with, or in service to, the main one, but two or more fully-prioritized goals are not present at the same time. So in the course of Narrativist or Simulationist play, moments or aspects of competition that contribute to the main goal are not Gamism. In the course of Gamist or Simulationist play, moments of thematic commentary that contribute to the main goal are not Narrativism. In the course of Narrativist or Gamist play, moments of attention to plausibility that contribute to the main goal are not Simulationism. The primary and not to be compromised goal is what it is for a given instance of play. The actual time or activity of an "instance" is necessarily left ambiguous.

Hey Ron,

I'll have to ponder some of the things you point out in your post.

I'll clarify a bit by saying an "instance" is at least a full session, and quite likely more.