Gamist, narrativist, simulationist. These three words sparked endless discussions at the place where they were first laid down in relation to rpgs (The Forge, of course), here at RPGnet and elsewhere. They have been debated ad nauseam to the point that even Ron Edwards considered it was better to put an end to the discussion.
Well, I was not part of the whole mess but that does not mean that I don’t have my opinion about it. You see, I like the three words. I think Ron was right with his choice of terminology; these three concepts tell something about roleplaying. On the other hand, I care not for the model that Ron derived from them, neither do I think that GNS is the holy mantra of our hobby.
Whatever, I'll retain the words. Let me repeat it, I like them, as a good anchor to look at the way games balance the setting versus system combine. Just don't suppose that I’m using GNS in Forgite terms. Rather, I'm using them in the sense you can find in any dictionary or encyclopedia.
All for one and one for all was also about three: Three Musketeers in this case. To these three a fourth was added. Likewise and inspired by Olivier Legrand (designer of great games such as Mazes & Minotaurs: check my review at RPGnet) I'll add another term and square the terminology: Dramatic.
You see, Olivier points to the fact that the fun in roleplaying may come precisely from bringing to life a fictional character, from "role playing" in the theatrical sense if you wish, or from the "make believe" roots that from our childhood drove us to rpgs. This concept is important. Good drama means that the players achieve something unique by their gaming. It's through good impersonation that their characters become part of legend, outstanding individuals that tower above the predictable and anonymous crowd.
Thus we have GNSD, or else SNGD since I prefer to handle the four concepts by this order. From my perspective we start with simulationism because more often than not it's some non-gaming (fiction or non fiction) inspiration that drives us to roleplaying; next we have the desire to come out with good stories, stories worth retelling (just as we like to tell others about the juicy bits of our lives); this is followed by the need for a system that allows the simulation to be successful and the narration to be fruitful; finaly we have the ability to impersonate our characters in a way that is fulfilling for its player and entertaining for the other people around the game table.
How does our conceptual square relate to the combine presented last column? Well, for a start up let me recall that I consider that any rpg is by nature the result of the interplay between two levels: the setting level (that places the game in the perspective of the game world and the characters) and the game level (where the focus is on the game system and the players around the table).
Let me also be more precise about what I understand about roleplaying game in this context: a roleplaying game is not a rpg rules book, instead it is a concrete game where we have a set of players roleplaying. In this sense the books that deliver to us Exalted or D&D or Call of Cthullu are not roleplaying games, instead they are roleplaying game resources.
A roleplaying happens, for instance, when John, Mary and Sylvia come together in the living-room of Mary’s house and play Prince Valiant. Of course, from this perspective the GNSI square can only be applied to each concrete game group and can hardly serve as a guideline for good rpg design. Lukily we can also apply it to game tools instead of games. In this case we look at how gamebooks provide stuff that can fuel good gaming. It's in this sense and for this purpose that I'll use the GNSI square. (To simplify language I may even use the expressions "game" or "rpg" to refer to "roleplaying gaming tools".)
From this perspective it's fairly obvious to relate narrativism to the setting level (does the game lead to the production of an interesting setting?) and gamism to the game level (does the game system contribute the fun?). What about simulationism and impersonation, then?
Simply, most role playing games are based on a setting that is pre-existant to the game or that may be conceived indepently of it. Tolkien's Middle Earth predates MERP or the LotR rpg, it existed even without these; many of the things you can find in a game of Buffy the Vampire Slayer can also be found in our contemporary real world; even a game world created to be roleplayed like the world of Seven Seas or Rokugan are detached from the concrete game set in them, hence we often find in rpg books the statement that "it's your game, do as you please".
Good simulationism means that the interplay between setting and system generates a feeling of "being there", of being part of the setting that inspired the game and if that sense is not there the simulation is failed. On the other hand, we can consider how much the setting materials and game rules – and the reflections upon these – sustain good drama, how much do they help the players in coming out with an emotive game experience.
When we look at things from this perspective we can spot some patterns that define different ways of roleplaying according to how much the game tools sustain simulationism, narrativism, gamism or drama:
No simulation. Can there be a game where simulation is not an issue? Well, we can think of a game where the setting is what is played and it grows as playing develops. Since the setting is a pure creation of the game, we cannot say that it simulates any pre-existing reference (it may be inspired by pre-existing references, though, but these are not yardsticks imposed on the game). Still, the more the players play, the more past there is in the setting and the more problems of consistency arise between the present and the past of the game. In the end this generates the same kind of issues that underscore an attention to simulation.
No narration. By definition a rpg needs to have a setting but does it need to be "detachable" from the game? The more a game minimizes the setting the less narrative the game becomes in the sense that there is less scope for putting down a narrative of events that can be configured indendently of any gaming considerations. A game with minimal or non-existant setting ends being something like a boardgame without the board.
Still, we can configure a game where all setting entities are defined strictly in system terms and where furthermore there is nothing else to the setting than what is related to the game situations. To a certain extent this was the situation with Original D&D: The characters were defined in system terms (yes, inspired by pre-existing sources but detached from these to the point that they were not valid references for gaming) and everything else that was not present in the system could be ignored; the environment where they evolved was restricted to what was required from a set-up for playing (the infamous modules and dungeons). But do I really need to recall that ODD was an outgrowth of a minis wargame and that the closest we can today get most of its feel with games such as Dungeon Twister?
No system. Can this be? I can only imagine a LARP where characters don't change except in terms on the way they perceive the setting and their relations; where there are only PCs; and all that matters are the relations between those PCs. In other words, a game where all there is to it is what the players do and where this is equated with what the characters do. The moment there is a gap between the behavior of the player and the behavior of the character; the instant there are more things in the setting than those that can be found around the gaming table; there have to be rules and mechanics to fill such gaps.
No drama. It’s doable. A setting can evolve devoid of drama. Everything happens like in a game of Chess or in an artificial intellingence routine. But is this roleplaying? Where is the key idea that the players impersonate their characters?
I suppose that one thing becomes apparent by now: Our four concepts relate in different terms to the dynamics of role playing. Simulationism has to do with the a priori of the game, what is there before; on the other hand narrativism is more concerned with the output of the game, what remains after it was played. Gamism and drama are focuzed on the game as it unfolds. Needless to say, I consider that all games are more or less simulationist, narrativist, gamist and dramatic. Qualifying a game as being "simulationist", "narrativist", etc. only points to the preponderant component, it does not imply an exclusion of the other three. In other words, a game is ...
Simulationist if the touchstone that identifies a successful game is the setting of reference. The key questions are: How consistent is the narration with that setting? Does the system facilitate the emulation of the references? The way characters are played is coherent with the dramatism of the sources? The simulationist player and the simulationist game designer will focus on these questions and will be happy if he is able to answer all of them with a resounding "yes".
Narrativist when the focus is on the unfolding of a story from an in-setting perspective. For a start it's not only an issue of having narration (game fiction and the like). A gamebook may have pages and pages of high quality fiction but if it does not provide a way to translate those pages into gaming it is not narrativist. What is at stake is the ability to come out with a good story through playing. The questions are, of course: Is the setting conducive to good stories? Is the system supportive of playing actions worth narrating? The dramatic devices sustain interesting events?
Gamist if the more visible components in actual play are the system entities and the game mechanics. The players main concern is with having fun playing the rules. They expect these to be framed in such a way that they provide for a good simulation, events worth narrating, and dramatic situations that shake them and anyone witnessing the game.
Dramatic if it leads to gaming experiences that are fun to play or watch. The key here is the emotional part of gaming. The concerns are: Does the setting inspire good drama? Does the narration of the events capture the dramatic tension that happened while playing? Does the system support dramatic play or does it distract from it?
Furthermore, a game can have varying levels of simulationism, narrativism, gamism or drama according to the game’s sub-components we look at. I would consider the next components: The background stage (generic description of the world, the setting for the adventures of the characters); character definition (character creation and advancement); other entities definition (things, living beings, etc.); action (combat, social action, physical action, magic, etc.). Thus we can have games that are fairly narrativist on what concerns character definition, highly gamist in the way they deal with action, that introduce distracting things not present in the background of reference, and that are completely devoid of directions for dramatic gaming.
Why all this long digression on SNGD? Because it provides an yardstick to judge how consistent a roleplaying game to its proposed aim: If simulationism is at the core of the game (a game based on a licensed setting, for instance) then the game should excel as a simulation of the source(s) of reference; if the game is presented as narrativist it should help the players in framing together an interesting narrative; if the focus is on gamism the system must be fun and interesting to play; a dramatic game has to lead the gamers into eye catching characters and intensive situations.
Keep in mind that the SNGD square is not a yardstick for success, though. Both designers and players may aim at a particular type of gaming and fail miserably because it works better for a different type. If the players are happy with this and enjoy playing something other than what they or the designers had in mind all the best for them and lets hope the latter realize the opportunity.
Next column I'll look at several published games by applying to them the concepts of gamism, narrativism and simulationism as used in the present column. This will provide points of reverence to the column after that where I’ll define where I want Rough Quests to be in this context.
