So it seems to me that a lot of the current definition discussions are getting lost in somewhat abstract consideration of the definitions. GNS Simulationism is defined abstractly as "exploration for its own sake" or "exploration squared" or variations. However, there also seems to be the general consensus that GNS Simulationism is the dominant, traditional mode of role-playing. In my experience, "traditional" play has never been aimless wandering which is fun regardless of what happens. There are definite goals which the players seek.

I would propose an alternate approach, which could be complimentary to other approaches. Rather than starting from the definition, I want to look at traditional role-playing and ask "What are players getting out of it?", i.e. "What makes it fun?"

In my experience, there are two traditional patterns of play: location-based and plot-based. Location-based includes the stereotypical dungeon crawl. The GM has a map of a region along with an understanding about what is in each place. The players literally explore, facing many small challenges along the way. The fun is not exploration of setting, however. If a dungeon had no monsters and no treasure, the players would be frustrated and annoyed. They like color and consistency to the setting, but it is not the point in itself. Individual places will have "encounters" -- a little mini-challenge like a trap, monster, test, or resource. The PCs get to the place and the players think "What can I get out of what is here?"

The second is group plot-based, where the GM has a central external conflict in mind: i.e. an enemy to be defeated, usually. In published adventures this usually is broken up into a series of scenes: where each scene has clues which will lead the players to the next scene. GMs may be more freeform about this, however. Generally there is a dramatic hook: something wrong happens, but the cause is not obvious. The PCs have to investigate. Based on this they find out more, and eventually they discover the enemy and defeat it. The steps of this conflict may be colored by the desired genre (i.e. Feng Shui the fights are colored as Hong Kong action), but it fundamentally involves investigation plus external conflict which the players try to win. Players are expected to role-play consistent with their character, but are also expected to help succeed in the conflict.

My point is this: Under GNS, both of these are better characterized by the definition of GNS Gamism -- not GNS Simulationism. There are games where, say, the players are have fun by all coming together and chatting in-character and/or wandering about the game-world -- these would clearly be GNS Simulationist. However, this is very uncommon in my experience. The vast majority of traditional gaming that I have seen is about adventures which are prepared by the GM, where the players strive to investigate and defeat an enemy.

What I'd like to see is more discussion about what "traditional" gaming means to you? Different people may have different traditions, that's fine.

Hi John,

Another aspect of what I think of as traditional play is how narrative power is apportioned. The GM/player divide, being:

gm gets to edit/author: world/setting, situation, conflict, multiple characters, plot, scene framing, pacing, application of techniques, possibly premise, possibly character

player gets to author: character, possibly plot, possibly application of techniques

Hm. Looking at it that way, "narrative power" is barely an adequate description.

Regards,
Emily

I think "traditional" gaming refers to RPG texts that are largely exploration material. Some people would say that's Sim, but I don't think those texts translate directly into how people are playing.

Hi John,

What you have described as traditional play is kind of "generic play". That is, when new roleplayers start the hobby, that is the face that is most readily accessible. The way I see GNS is as a way for traditional play to inform players as to their preferences.

If I am a new player in a typical D&D dungeon crawl and I like the game, that doesn't mean that I prefer Gamism. It means that the stars aligned during play in such a way that I enjoyed myself. It might have been the GM's personal style, the other players, the particular scenario, or whatever.

Often what happens is that the new roleplayer moves on to another group, tries playing the same way, and suddenly isn't having fun anymore. The beauty of GNS is that, while engaging in traditional play, one can be more perceptive about the parts of the play experience that are engaging.

For example, I am pretty sure that my personal leanings straddle sim:character+color and narrativism--yet the vast majority of the games that I have played in have been "traditional" (non GNS aware or informed), and I have never played in a strictly narrative or strictly simulationist game. It is through examination of the highs and lows many years of traditional play that I am able to identify my own creative agenda.

That doesn't strictly answer your question, prehaps. I guess what I am saying is that tradtional play, to me, means a style of play that doesn't acknowledge the broad spectrum of creative agendas, and exists as a muddle of whichever ones the GM and players (and absolutely in that order) bring to the table.

I'd agree with both of those.

Traditional to me refers to two things.

1st) the roles that the players around the table are expected to fulfill. Particularly the GM / Player divide as Emily notes, and especially when there's emphasis on the GM being the controler / master / guardian / gate keeper of the game world and everything in it (including secrets).

2nd) the assumption that the primary (sometimes taken to "best" or even "only") way that a player is supposed to interact with the game world is through the vehicle of the character. This second is where I relate to Jason's comment, because if the player's interaction with the world is limited strictly to his character, than his options are largely limited to exploration of character, setting, situation, and color, and system to the extent the character is defined with system mechanics.

This is what I view as Traditional.

Non Traditional then is anything that challenges these assumptions. For instance a game that starts to play in different ways with the apportionment of player roles in the game. This could be something as completely pervy as eliminating the distinction all together or formalizing a system for rotating GMs like Rune.

Going non traditional in the second one often means permitting, encouraging, or even mechanically measuring the direct involvement of the player with the world regardless of the character. Into this fall alot of the ideas about metagame, but it could be other more subtle things such as allowing the player's suggestions to shape the course of events without resorting to the illusion of the GM having planned it that way all along.