geek-related.com/2008/06/12/is-dd-4e-rea...
Given the definitions of the Threefold Model, what role playing approach do you like best?
1. Gamist
2. Simulationist
3. Dramatist
For me I'm about 50% Simulationist, 30% dramtist, and 20% gamist. Which might explain why 4e doesn't always meet my expectations.
I also prefer games where even the lowliest goblin could pose a threat if he snuck into your tent while you were asleep and tried to kill you with your own dagger of humanoid bane. Obviously your chances of survival are better if you are higher level, but the threat is there.
Are you saying that you don't prefer one aspect of the model more than another? Does it not mean anything to you when you select a game system? Surely 4e can't be everyones cup of tea even if it does describe in detail all 'player types'.
I think the proitization of agendas is important for someone to like or dislike a game system. It also clearly identifies the shift in focus between all the editions of D&D. It also explains why some people like one edition over another. The player types is another consideration but it's less important when compared to the focus of a system.
For example, even if I find a 'player type' in the DMG that best describes the way I play that doesn't mean I'll like the system. I might still feel the need to create house rules that introduce more or less simulationist elements into the game.
For that reason I think that a players preference is defined by those three elements. The way players relate to the game has nothing to do with it.
You expected real fairness? pfft.
D&D 4th ed IS RPING. Tell otherwise to it's real intelectual fans - a big reason why I went for it.
It's a fun little "hey, look what I came up with" exercise, but that's about it.
I put about as much stock in it as reading my horoscope on Facebook. A cute little side-trek, but nothing to actually count on in any way shape or form, or a serious way to collect any real data about the player-base.
@AbdulAlhazred
Are you saying that you don't prefer one aspect of the model more than another? Does it not mean anything to you when you select a game system? Surely 4e can't be everyones cup of tea even if it does describe in detail all 'player types'.
I think the proitization of agendas is important for someone to like or dislike a game system. It also clearly identifies the shift in focus between all the editions of D&D. It also explains why some people like one edition over another. The player types is another consideration but it's less important when compared to the focus of a system.
For example, even if I find a 'player type' in the DMG that best describes the way I play that doesn't mean I'll like the system. I might still feel the need to create house rules that introduce more or less simulationist elements into the game.
For that reason I think that a players preference is defined by those three elements. The way players relate to the game has nothing to do with it.
I'm just saying you're misusing GNS and maybe that stems from the post you linked to. I didn't read it. My point is that GNS is a theory about GAME DESIGN, not about player preferences.
I don't believe that G, N, and S, are good ways to divide up players actually. I think the way WotC does it is actually a stronger indicator of what the player is going to prefer. Most people playing RPGs believe it or not could care less about game-theoretical considerations at all. They just want to drive their character around and do stuff. The stuff they want to do will be mostly determined by their preferences overall. The guy that likes to slay things isn't that concerned about if there is a detailed wound system or just abstract hit points, his motivation is to be able to hit stuff and kill it in cool ways, etc.
Here's the funny thing about this whole GNS thing. It was ALL the rage back in the 90's and all sorts of indy games tried to build around the concept, but you know what? It does work OK as an organizing principle for system design, but it failed utterly to predict which types of games people would like. There are a ton of systems out there of each of the three types (and I'd argue that GNS isn't even THAT good a classification but that's a whole other discussion that shouldn't even get within 1000 miles of this site let alone this thread). People are more easy to segregate by which genres they like, styles of play, and player agenda than by game system agenda. I doubt these days you'll even find a lot of game designers that care one big about GNS based design. It had its day, it was a big rage, now, like phlogiston and Newtonian Mechanics it is relagated to the back drawer ;)
I find the entire process of lumping every gamer on earth into 3 categories the equivalent of lumping every PC in D&D into the alignments. Not only is it a poor substitute for actual facts and hard data, it is self-serving to those who institute it, and too open to interpretation under any kind of scrutiny.
To be fair, people aren't being "lumped into categories." There are generally 3 categories that people's interests transcends as various levels. It's not like the author has provided us some revolutionary theory.
That being said, the article is pretty disingenuous and typical of much anti-4E mud slinging. Just more cheap shots with little to back it up other than personal and conjecture.
Besides that, the article is over 3 years old. Riding in on a horse that is long dead and beaten serves no real purpose, with the counter being that people are role-playing just fine in 4E and having a great time doing so.
Given the definitions of the Threefold Model, what role playing approach do you like best?
Simulationist
Given the definitions of the Threefold Model, what role playing approach do you like best?
Simulationist
May I recommend RuneQuest... an interesting little game static hit points, no classes(or roles), no levels
Consider that the most recent version of the theory is The Big Model, the GNS is now obsolete.
With this statement, I now understand your argument. It appears you view things as dichotomies. I view the world very differently, and this difference makes a response to the rest of your post unnecessary.
Mh? No, maybe I explained it the wrong way (my english can improve...).
The GNS theory is officially obsolete and abandoned. Ron Edwards created the GNS, then he expanded and reworked the same concept in the Big Model. A lot of things in the GNS are now no longer true, similar to how a lot of Isaac Newton's theories, while extremely important, are unused nowdays, since disproved/obsolete.
Anyway, as i said, personal tastes obviously exist, but they are not deeply examined in the theory, and certanly have nothing to do with gam/nar/sim agendas... I just want to clarify things, using the wrong terms is never a good thing :p
Mh? No, maybe I explained it the wrong way (my english can improve...).
[...]
I just want to clarify things, using the wrong terms is never a good thing
I feel you are overly-rigid in your use of the term GNS theory, keeping it within a purely theoretical construct frame of reference when the rest of us are discussing it in more of a layman application context, but I appreciate the follow-up. It helps to understand why we are not in agreement. It is not an impasse; but rather, we are speaking at different levels. Applying it to individuals, games, and groups is more "crude" whereas your use of the term is more "pure".
The GNS theory is officially obsolete and abandoned. Ron Edwards created the GNS, then he expanded and reworked the same concept in the Big Model.
'The Big Model currently recognizes three kinds of creative agenda: simulationism, also known as "The Right to Dream;" gamism, also known as "Step on Up;" and narrativism, also known as "Story Now."'
I personally enjoy learning what the preferred 'reason for play' (creative agenda) of other players is, especially if it can be simplified to one of these three options. Evidently the OP does too. No need to 'thread-crap' on his query
Books are commonly narrativist, followed by simulationist with little to no thought on being like a game (unless you count in choose your own adventure books ;)).
Cinema and television are both mainly narrative, with some strange combination of more or less simulation and gameness.
And then there are other things, such as doing math or reading history or crafting or painting that can influence a person's enjoyment of something.
For example, though I love books, I prefer video games, and then cinema/television when I can get it commonly both chosen before I read a book. Reading a book is what I do when I'm not doing other things, or as a space-filler. So it should come as no surprise that gamey and narrative elements are more important within a game than simulation. At the same time though, my logic brain asks why, if I can carry 1000 lbs of gear in Oblivion, can I not have the upper body strength to climb up a measly 5 foot drop. I will not try and percentage it out either, because on any given day, the game or narrative will win out, but I know the simulation, the verisimilitude of a world is my last concern. That doesn't mean it's less in importance, just that it does not tie into what else I like to do as much as game or narrative concerns.
For example, people who enjoy video games would almost certainly be more likely to enjoy "gamism" because that's what video games are first (though there could be some argument on that front with recent indie games); they are commonly narrative after that, and simulationist after that (commonly, not always).
Isn't this a bit simplistic? There are many types of computer games varrying from purely a game to highly narrative (more like an interactive novel than an actual game so to speak). Most actually switch between the two modes with one being more important than the other depending on the type of game. Come to think of it, a RPG like D&D has a similar switch between two different styles. I find simulationalists being something independend of gamist/narritive though, to me simulationalist tells more something the type of choices you make when deciding on both game mechanics and narritives and hardly anything on whether you like combat, puzzles or story during a RPG ;)
For example, people who enjoy video games would almost* certainly be more* likely to enjoy "gamism" because that's what video games are first (though there could be some argument on that front with recent indie games); they are commonly narrative after that, and simulationist after that (commonly, not always).
Isn't this a bit simplistic?
Simple, yes, but not simplistic. Kalnaur uses general terms (almost, and more likely) rather than absolutes. He is merely applying a theory to practice, and then allowing for variation in what we observe so as to not have the theory or its application blow up in our face.
* Emphasis added by me.
For example, people who enjoy video games would almost* certainly be more* likely to enjoy "gamism" because that's what video games are first (though there could be some argument on that front with recent indie games); they are commonly narrative after that, and simulationist after that (commonly, not always).Isn't this a bit simplistic?
Simple, yes, but not simplistic. Kalnaur uses general terms (almost, and more likely) rather than absolutes. He is merely applying a theory to practice, and then allowing for variation in what we observe so as to not have the theory or its application blow up in our face.
* Emphasis added by me.
Yea-up.
This is a statement that I have trouble understanding, when I found the rules for quests I thought that it would please simulationists. This is because in 3.X the only way that XP could be earned way by killing monsters, if I remember correctly. I recall that the DMG basicly said "if you really know what your doing as a DM you could give XP for activities other than killing monsters, but we're not giving you any advice so have fun with that." It opened the way for very combat light campaigns, if a group actually wanted to go that way.
Quests speak to the PCs motivations, which I thought what simulationism was all about anyway. I guess that quest has an unfortunate association with video games. In the GNS system quests are probably more narritive, followed by simulation and gamist least of all IMO.