Hello Veeky Forums. What do you think of the theories surrounding Role Playing Games? The big two I hear about are GNS theory and Bartle's Taxonomy, though the latter is usually more about video games it can and has been applied to the table top too.
Are you more Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist? Do you think those labels matter? Is there a better theory out there you want to share? Discuss.
Other urls found in this thread:
seankreynolds.com
cs.northwestern.edu
whitehall-paraindustries.blogspot.com
whitehall-paraindustries.blogspot.com
whitehall-paraindustries.blogspot.de
indie-rpgs.com
twitter.com
Personally, I find myself pretty balanced, though leaning away from simulationist. I appreciate the need for verisimilitude, but I don't want to get bogged down with too much detail.
At the same time, I feel like playing an RPG is ultimately a game, and it can be a lot of fun to test out your characters against challenges. Otherwise the drama that you want as in your Narrative has no real consequences.
And of course, Narrative and telling a compelling story with compelling characters is the ultimate goal.
>Bartle's Taxonomy
Hmmm... never heard that one before.
I'm a fan of whatever works or is fun.
Simulationist is where I honestly care the least. I'd rather the game be fun and fit the genre than perfectly emulate the world itself. That and I'm kinda burned out on 'Every little thing needs mechanics'.
Bartle's Taxonomy is more useful imo as it's a lot less fuzzy (As you'll see plenty of arguing about if something is gamist of narrativist if it's a rather meta mechanic to make the genre work better for example). I like NPCs and I like the world, so I like to interact with it. I've had plenty of sessions with barely a die roll that I look back on fondly and it's what's making my current 4e game a ball, as the GM is good at such.
What's fun varies from player to player. Kindof a non answer there bub
I dunno man, i think the narrative factor is facilitated by either how good the gamist or simulation is done.
Bartle's is superior to GNS, because GNS claims that good games focus on only one thing, and also took the three core components of rpgs (Telling a story, in a consistent world, with the use of consistent rules) as separate, and mutually incompatible, goals.
Bartle's, meanwhile, focuses instead on the decisions the players make in regards to the game (originally text MUDs), and urges devs to make games and worlds that allow for balance between all 4 types.
It's bullshit, a game needs all three of those factors to a reasonable extend in order to be good.
Where would Diablo 3 players who still grind that game every season fall in this category?
Likely achievers, if they are doing it for the sake of saying 'I got to rank X'. On the other hand: Bartle's only applies if you are having fun, I don't think it really works for 'I'm an addict and can't stop' people if it's just out of a sense of duty/requirement.
And If I'm doing it for the sake of continuing the activity that I find relaxing and not care about rank X or Y - simply don't give any attention to it ?
I'd put you as an addict then.
But if I can stop it at any time and I most often do. Like not play for few months even and then come back? Can an addict stop for such a long time while enjoying other activities, having good job and having everything done when it needs to be done?
THere's also this model, built off a survey WotC did back in 99 (copy of summary: seankreynolds.com
Some TL:DR
> The horizontal axis is Strategic Focused to Tactical Focused. "Strategic" means "a perspective larger than the immediate future and surroundings". "Tactical" means "a perspective limited to the immediate future and the immediate surroundings."
> The vertical axis is Combat Focused to Story Focused. "Combat Focused" means "Conflict resolution is interesting to me." "Story Focused" means "The world and the interaction of the characters is intersting to me."
Breakdown of the categories, which a player can be in more than one of (absolute single category player is probably a That Guy):
>Thinker (Strategy/Combat): Min-max for the entire game experience. Master of the system, also likes puzzles.
>Power Gamer (Tactical/Combat): Min-max (sorta) for combat, uses throwaway characters. Murderhobo. Likes to achieve higher numbers on their sheet
>Character Actor (Tactical/Story): Roleplayer, gives no shits about optimizing. Really character focused, makes decisions based on what their character would do in that moment
>Storyteller (Strategic/Story): Kinda a roleplayer, but not super focused on what exactly their character is doing. Likes telling a story with the game, probably has it planned out. Most often will look to the game world, not the game rules, for the answer to an ingame problem
>Basic (None/All): Congrats, you like all 4 styles equally. Probably a Cool Guy, who uses the system to create an interesting, mostly competent, character, with some guiding personality traits, a sorta-there plan for their future, and a connection to the party and game world.
They also found eight principles:
Strong Characters+Exciting Story
Role Playing
Complexity Increases over Time
Requires Strategic Thinking
Competitive
Add on sets/New versions available
Uses imagination
Mentally challenging
And, according to the study, a game needs all eight principles to be good - that is, players prefer the presence of all eight over a strong emphasis on a few that they enjoy.
As someone who just spent the last 20 minutes reading the wikipedia article on Bartle's, I don't think the two are easily comparable. GNS describes a game, while Bartle's describes the players.
*small edit
Masquerade is only narrativist in theory; it's generally portrayed as being all about the story (both by its writers and by its fanbase), but the mechanics don't incentivize that at all, which is why it has the reputation of inevitably leading to assholes with superpowers trying to level up by drinking the blood of other assholes with superpowers. You can tell a story with it, as you can with D&D or GURPS, but it isn't "narrativist."
Here's an amusing model for classifying RPGs. It's a three point system with the points being Retro, Stupid and Pretentious.
Would you say Call of Cthulhu works better for Narrativist? Hmmm, or maybe Amber and Burning Wheel...
All of those are certainly more narrativist than VtM. None of them (except maybe Amber, I haven't played it) are as narrativist as FATE though. It's much easier to make a purely gamist game (since you can basically make a video game on paper) than a purely simulationist one, and that's easier than making a purely narrativist one (since at that point you have to disregard a huge number of RPG conventions, such as rolling dice).
*edit
Interesting post. I’m too tired to add anything useful but hopefully this is still up tomorrow
HERO player here.
Whats the difference between GURPS and HERO rules wise?
...
Gurps tries to simplify everything into a kind of balance and is easier.
Hero is infinitely customizable and is more complex.
I may even go as far as to say that Gurps is Hero Lite.
...
>Are you more Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist?
GNS is not a player taxonomy.
>GNS claims that good games focus on only one thing
That's not what GNS claims. The point is that the three different approaches are mutually exclusive, and attempting to mix them will result in clashes. For example, someone choosing what their character does because it creates the most interesting story will create an experience that clashes with someone making decisions based on how to best succeed at some sort of predetermined goal, or with someone who wants to play their character true to form (for example, the thief stealing from the party).
Narrativist first, Gamist second and Simulationist last. I judge rules on what they contribute to the narrative first, how they balance second and third how they represent reality last. Though the stark dichotomy between the three sounds a bit false to me.
If you are a narrativist, the narrative guides the action. Which means if playing in a realistic setting. reality is part of the narrative, and so sets some boundaries for what can be done. If I'm playing Dungeon World in a setting obeying real life physics, a character can't just float up in the air no matter what, the narrative inherently simulates what is and is not possible in the game's world.
I find it a bit funny that I see 5e D&D get put firmly in the Gamist corner of all of these, when it's easily the most narrativist edition of D&D yet.
Also strikes a big blow against GNS theory, as it's blending gamist and narrativist goals, and is now probably the most popular D&D has been since AD&D. People want balance in their games, not hyperfocus.
GNS theory is commonly criticised, but the Bartle's taxonomy never really clicked for me whereas GNS theory does.
I think the important aspect of GNS theory is that it is a property of a game (or indeed a specific campaign as the GM is functionally the aftertouch of the game's tone). People may purport to have preferences towards certain facets of the GNS triangle but I think the GNS triangle isn't good at describing games a player would enjoy, a player who has primarily experienced gamist games isn't less likely to enjoy a narrativist simulation as such. I want to say Bartle describes player preferences better but it also does a bad job, it just fails to explain the construction of a game as well. That said, GNS is good at rationalising the decisions of players as per .
GNS, to me, describes the reasons things happen in the game. If it is relatively gamist, things happen because a cool and fun mechanic evolves from having it happen that way. If it is simulationist, things happen because they are what would rationally happen. If it is narrativist, things happen because they are what would make for an good story.
I definitely think you can pick two when you start creating a new game system, and throw in one or two bones to the final option, but trying to cater to all 3 equally leads to way too much inconsistency and incoherency. The world becomes too uh... wacky, emergently?
It's only really a strike against GNS theory if you think 5e is simulationist as well.
I think that regardless of how widely any of these models are applicable, there's a lot to learn from the perspectives they provide.
What's missing here is the PnP RPG vs PC RPG comparison, which will in time be interrupted by AR-assisted RPG, where you can have an entire UI in 3D on the table that you can rearrange with ease, and while you can still roll dice (also in AR), the necessary math and bookkeeping will be done for you, so you can focus on roleplaying and the plot.
To answer OPs question, you simply can't be simulationist unless you're LARPing. You simply can't put together a system that accounts for the myriad variables involved in the wide array of actions in an RPG.
With that in mind, I think the duality of game vs narrative is where you really have to remember the PC vs PnP difference: the former handles a gamey approach better (computer does the math and bookkeeping, thus allowing more complicated systems and thus a more tactical combat system), while the latter is at its best when dealing with the narrative (unless your GM is a railroad tycoon anything can happen in a game).
But then you have to take into account the tunnel vision with which we approach RPGs' game mechanics. In your average RPG rulebook, the majority of the contents deal with combat and its necessary elements. I'm probably getting old, but I'm increasingly drawn to systems that allow me to do "social combat" and mercantile/political resource management. Regular combat is fine but it needs to make sense, and I've seen enough games to tell when someone's constructing a plot to put you in fights regardless what you do.
The only way to make GNS work as a theory is to understand that it's a way to look at decision making, and then it's on an ongoing decision-by-decision basis.
For example, if we take a reasonably "gamey" system like Dungeons and Dragons, playing a dungeon crawl, the entire game could be described as gamist: 1) KILL MORE STUFF 2) GET MORE LOOT.
The claim is that "you can only do one of the three". Dungeons and Dragons does all three, most of the time. More dangerous weapons do more damage, for example, and movement is important. So there's strong elements of simulation. At the same time, there's been a strong push for narrative-oriented game mastering since Dragonlance took off. There's no real conflict inherent in these facts, or in their effect on the game.
Where you find that you can't mix paradigms is in decision making.
"What Feat should I take at 5th level?"
1) An interesting flavor pick (Narrative)
2) A build-enhancing pick (Gamist)
3) The choice my character would have to pick (Simulationist)
When choosing a particular action, it's impossible to "compromise" between gamist and narrativist unless they agree, because deviation from either means making an obviously sub-optimal decision from every perspective.
But like.
None of the Forge games forego rolling dice. Burning Wheel has big ol' dice pools.
That's a really sensible way of looking at it
I think it holds a lot of potential once we arrive at a definition of the 3 creative agendas that sees widespread consensus.
>1) An interesting flavor pick (Narrative)
That's not narrativist. Remember that Genre Simulation falls into the simulationist part of the spectrum.
>The claim is that "you can only do one of the three". Dungeons and Dragons does all three, most of the time. More dangerous weapons do more damage, for example, and movement is important. So there's strong elements of simulation. At the same time, there's been a strong push for narrative-oriented game mastering since Dragonlance took off. There's no real conflict inherent in these facts, or in their effect on the game.
t. does not understand GNS theory
I find it funny that simulationist campaigns aren't very done.
I mostly do open world stuff, with a narrative focus, and I can tell when Im being more simulationist because if a player says "I go to the cafe" im liable to follow the journey there, rather than skip it.
I find that simulation is good to add unexpected results to a story.
Obviously you always have a bit of the 3, a fully gamist game would be a board game.
That said, D&D is known for having hard, specific rules for situations, and making broad abstractions for activities.
A very narrative focused system can go as far as saying, "rules are not important, decide what happens yourself", and a simulationist game has mechanics highly tailored to the activity, such as crafting that deconstructs the steps of making an object and represents them all mechanically .
I feel stupid for not comprehending what this is trying to explain.
Types of MMO players. Killers want to kill other players, achievers want to accomplish specific goals, explorers want to see everything, and socializers just want to talk to people.
I am a simulationist when it comes to my world, as I want it to be consistent.
I'm fine with gamist and unrealistic rulesets and I kinda like all the D&Ds for the gameplay. But I want the world to reflect the rules. Kind of like the Tippyverse.
Our current campaign is a crossover about normal people from todays earth who got sucked into a D&D setting. It's glorious. They learned how you can choose a path and can get more powerful in it by doing adventures.
At first, the characters were like: "What is this? A RPG? You pick a class and level up in it?"
They stopped making fun of it, when they realized that fighting monsters is deadly and dangerous. Their change in attitude and the neccesity to think more and more in the worlds logic is kinda interesting.
They still use MMO terms for their actions, like: "Glad I picked Wizard. The CC of that class saved us more than once. The DPS sucks though, but your Archer makes more than up for it. Still weird how a bow with deadly aim deals more damage than an assault rifle at home."
>A very narrative focused system can go as far as saying, "rules are not important, decide what happens yourself"
Except that this in itself becomes the central rule, along with whatever criteria you use to actually "decide what happens yourself."
Gamism = Rules is a very common misconception. Gamism is about the player demonstrating their abilities to overcome challenges; that those challenges are rules-defined should be a tautology since we're talking about games here, which are rules-structured activities, but that fact is lost on a lot of people.
Likewise "Simulationism," since writ large it's such an integral part of how we assume communication and meaning function.
But within the context of GNS, these big definitions mean fuck all; the point is that they're oppositional ideological processes, something that makes a lot more sense when you realize that so-called "GNS Theory" is just a single part of a much larger theory meant to model what actually happens when we roleplay. Since people almost always leave that context out, people are constantly trying to contextualize them in different ways, which is why so many people argue about it and misrepresent it.
>Gamism = Rules is a very common misconception.
What pisses me off as simulationist is the misconception
>Simulationism = autistic detail
Feng Shui is simulationism, genre simulationism. Even Spirit of the Century would rather fall in the genre simulation camp than narrativism. In contrast, PbtA is narrativist because it features emergent story-telling mechanics throughout.
>simulation is good to add unexcepted results to the story
Good point, skipping the details can break immersion if you do it too much
Personally, I’m more a fan of the Game Aesthetics/Eight Kinds of Fun approach.
It's old, incomplete and would need to be expanded on, but it's already far better than the GNS/threefold.
The GNS/threefold was built upon aggregated personnal experiences, we really need to stop using it for anything serious. It useful to talk about expectations or the tone of a game because everybody gets a vague sense of what you mean, but when it comes to game design it's basically useless.
Plus when you actually read what Ron Edwards (more or less the most important guy in the history of the GNS theory) wrote about each type it basically boils down to:
-Gamists: "I disagree with them but they're just misguided, they've been oppressed by simmulationists too"
-Narrativists: "me and my friends, we are the only ones who play and design RPGs the right way"
-Simmulationnists: "games I don't like, they oppressed us since the beginning of RPg history!" (which is wrong, the first RPGs weren't trying to be realistic. The first editions of D&D, Traveller and a lot of other games from that time gave more of a "gamist" feeling. Games started to aim for realism in the '80s)
It was basically a way for him to classify games he liked and games he didn't like.
Pretty far down the simulationist path.
I don't think the labels are important for labeling players, but they are very important when labeling systems.
9 times out of 10 people use GNS theory as a tribal affiliation and truly don't know jack about it or any other RPG theory
Gamist=D&D and Not!D&D normies
Narrativist=rules light and/or generic games for hipster
Simulationist=autistic grognard shit
I've got an even better example than any of yours, Savage Worlds. It arguably doesn't have a single narrative mechanic (even bennies are a stretch) and is very obviously about capturing the feel of action movies, but constantly gets labeled narrativist anyway
I remember the purges done by the simulationists.
I can still see the bodies in my nightmares...
>2018
>not simulating 6 million deaths
>It was basically a way for him to classify games he liked and games he didn't like.
Sure, but how is that any different from how people use it now? The whole point is that the categories are vague and simplistic enough that you can dismiss anything out of hand based on the cover art, who plays it, or how thick the rulebook is and still have a pseudo-technical justification for it.
I think that refers more to video games. Also there is no winning in roleplaying.
It was more like 12, if you count the narrativists
Then the hipster faggots started their own purges, they created a famine of games with any decent amount of mechanics... they called it the normie's revolution
Yes, and? Bartle is MMO design, but it still gets applied to RPGs and is still relevant. Besides, I find a number of the Aesthetics more useful than the GNS taxonomy - see, e.g., the distinction between Fantasy, Exploration, and Expression, all of which fall under the Simulationist category, or Challenge, Submission, and also Expression, which fall under the Gamist one.
Funny how they claimed to represent the interests of the normies with their "simple, intuitive game mechanics," when the normies, given any sort of chance, would choose D&D. When the narrativists realized they WANTED clunky, exploitable rules and systems built around legacy mechanics and optimization, that it wasn't it wasn't simply the foul propaganda of WotC and their ilk making them think they were having fun, that coherence truly meant nothing to them... that is when the worst of the atrocities happened.
Simulating a narrative is how you "win" the game - taking away any one of those aspects changes the experience dramatically.
No Narrative?
You've got a murderhobo sandbox boardgame. Rust
No Simulation?
You get a clusterfuck of people one-upping each other by abusing the "rule of cool". *teleports behind you* nothing personnel kid
No Gaming?
You're writing a book
Hey guys, have some informative links.
Which the pro-GNS crowd will scream at me for providing, since the guy that wrote them hates GNS
whitehall-paraindustries.blogspot.com
whitehall-paraindustries.blogspot.com
And finally: Allston's Types of Players, which categorizes the players he encountered in his games, and in the Champions book he released the model in, he urged GMs to have balance in the game between the competing desires of the players. A couple people added onto it.
>Builder - wants to have an impact on the world
>Buddy - he comes to the game to be with his friend(s)
>Combat Monster - wants combat, in a reasoned way
>Copier - is interested in recreating a character from another source
>Genre Fiend - wants to model everything after genre elements
>Mad Slasher - kill everything that moves, no reason needed
>Mad Thinker - seeks clever solutions to in game problems
>Plumber - wants intricate characters and exploration thereof
>Romantic - focuses on relationships
>Rules Rapist - interested in bending the rules
>Showoff - seeks the most spotlight time for his character
>The Pro from Dover - desire a character who is the best of his field
>Tragedian - like tragedy and wants to play it out.
I would have to track down the original source, but he probably also said that people can cross categories.
>whitehall-paraindustries.blogspot.de
>But what evidence do the presenters of such theories give that all player goals match those components of the RPG definition? None.
>Do they tell us why we should make that assumption to begin with? No.
Gleichman is a hack who doesn't understand what axioms are.
>If I call my theory an axiom, it's magically above criticism
I'm sorry user, but it's you who's the hack
>If I call my theory an axiom
Nice strawman. It's clearly called GNS theory.
>I'm sorry user, but it's you who's the hack
There is no theory that isn't based on assumptions, you doofus. You have to assume some things as given. Damn, why do I spend my time talking to brainlets on Veeky Forums? Have you ever seen a university from inside, user?
I mean evenm a hack like Gleichman calls GNS the building-blocks of role-playing. What the moron, just like you, does not get that players do have preferences with regards to these building blocks and that different game systems cater to these preferences in different ways by giving them different priorities.
Are you trolling? He calls them the building blocks of an RPG to point out that they're necessary components, not mutually exclusive player goals. And the point of axioms is that things make more sense if you assume them to be true, even if they can't be directly proven. Gleichman's whole argument is that GNS theory doesn't make sense of anything and is directly contradicted by the available evidence.
Having played most of the games on this chart (5e, SW, CoC, Fate, and SR) I agree with your edit user.
I think you should keep your dog-mouth shut if you, like Gleichman, don't even understand the basics of GNS:
>To be absolutely clear, to say that a person is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This person tends to make role-playing decisions in line with Gamist goals."
>Misunderstandings of GNS
>By far and away, the worst misunderstanding of GNS, with the worst consequences, arises from synecdoche, confounding the part with the whole and vice versa. (I'll use Simulationism as my stand-in term, but any of the modes could be named here.)
>Mistaking the whole for the part, within a mode: claiming that any Simulationist-oriented person must enjoy all Simulationist play.
>[...]
>Mistaking the shorthand of "He's a Narrativist" (or either of the others) for a limiting statement that the person is incapable of any other mode of play.
>Source: indie-rpgs.com
Now fuck off.
There is nothing narrativist about GURPS, Shadowrun or CoC. Also please make sure to not confuse genre simulation with narrativism.
user you have no idea what you're talking about
Or genre simulation with gamism, apparently (SW)
Hey Veeky Forums
Are you more silt, sand, or clay?
Why does clay dominate this chart? This is clearly unbalanced. Fucking geologists need to fix this broken ass system
>2001-10-14
He eventually turned on those ideas and decided each one was mutually exclusive with the idea of "coherence." Why do you seem so cultishly devoted to something you don't know about?
And all that is ignoring how vague gamism, narrativism, and simulationism are.
>when you roll up a new Dirtman but he's always fucking clay
Cthulhu loves you, too, user.
My taste in games fluctuates like my taste in food. Sometimes I like exploring a simulation, like Harvest Moon vidya. Sometimes I like trying to solve hard mental problems, like a tactical RPG battle. Sometimes I like a lightweight effort-puzzle where unlocking the narrative is the reward. I think tabletop has historically handled tactical problems the best because the GM and players are tightly bound to the rules, loose cannon players and loose cannon GMs tend to destroy any game. So people tend to call me a gamist, but really it's the quality of the current methods available. I like narrative-unlocking games and simulations, but just on vidya where they can be most properly presented.
> Why do you seem so cultishly devoted to something you don't know about?
No, you're a moron who doesn't know what he's talking about. Read up on hybrid modes of play, particularly functional hybrids.
I think you should really educate yourself better before speaking about a subject you know jackshit about, user.
>Tfw you keep trying for loamy sand but keep getting sandy loam
How would you do the list?
>The focus here is more on interesting stories than tactical challenges.
>is a style of roleplaying where the whole point of playing is to have player characters freely make choices* and actions based on human issues.
>relies on outlining (or developing) character motives, placing characters into situations where those motives conflict and making their decisions the driving force.
I don't follow? Could you elaborate? Also I suppose Amber would probably be the best example of Narrativism.
What do you mean?
narrativism means emergent theme/tropes during gameplay. with genre simulation the themes/tropes are more or less pre-defined by genre: you're trying to recreate the genre after all. in a cyberpunk genre simulation game you might be exploring man versus machine. in narrativist cyberpunk, the theme might suddenly shift towards shakespearan tragedy or exploration of the mental struggle of having killed another human being.
don't blame me for the definition of narrativism in GNS, I am not happy with it myself. for me, any mechanic that allows players to go beyond actor stance is narrative.
Interesting, what would you put in the list? I'm trying to be as thorough as possible.
>in narrativist cyberpunk, the theme might suddenly shift towards shakespearan tragedy or exploration of the mental struggle of having killed another human being.
I believe that kind of roleplay is encouraged by Steve Jackson and Gurps. He tries to make Gurps be able to do anything and make it so people can play whatever kind of character they like (completely dependent on the player and GM).
Chaosium/Call of Cthulhu and to a lesser extent Shadowrun I believe encourage individualistic roleplay as well.
which list? the GNS narrativism one or mine? the problem with the GNS one is that people don't follow the definition. they call FATE narrative, FFG Star Wars has narrative dice, etc. i try to derive my definition from how people use the term, not seeking to impose my own.
>I believe that kind of roleplay is encouraged by Steve Jackson and Gurps
I don't think so. Look at Powered by the Apocalypse games. Specifically the example of play in Apocalypse World.
>What do you mean?
It's a game meant to simulate an action movie, that's not especially tactical for it's level of crunch and without much of a meta. Anyone who says it's gamist knows enough about the system to know it's not a storygame like Fate or PbtA, but is ignorant enough about GNS theory to think simulation either means hyperrealistic or obsessively detailed, so they label it gamist by default since no one *really* knows what the hell that one means in any case.
Thread saved. Thank you op, this is pure gold.
>which list?
List of games. What games would you put in what place on the GNS?
>I don't think so. Look at Powered by the Apocalypse games. Specifically the example of play in Apocalypse World.
The back of the main Gurps book says this in the pic.
You're welcome user. Though I'm not one of the major contributors of information here, I am glad to have facilitated good (mostly) discussion.
for gamism look at D&D 4E. for simulationism look at Song of Swords (for genre simulationism Star Wars FFG, Feng Shui, purist Trail of Cthulhu), for narrativism look at Apocalypse World or maybe even better yet Hillfolk
>The back of the main Gurps book says this in the pic.
it's not about chargen. narrativism is about what happens in play and providing rules for the players to reshape the narrative, leaving genre conventions behind if necessary. also, claims by publishers are unreliable. vampire's storyteller system has nothing to do with narrativism.
does the game compromise occasionally on accuracy of genre simulation for the sake of being more fun? i would say: yes.
>A gamist makes decisions to satisfy predefined goals in the face of adversity: to win.
>Game play is based around covering various challenges that are callibrated to be of an appropriate difficulty for the party.
>is expressed by competition among participants (the real people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters, both short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual play strategies.
Ah, I see. Maybe Paranoia, Pathfinder or D&D 2e Birthright would be a better example. Or perhaps you have a better suggestion?
Name a game that doesn't do that, at least occasionally, that isn't a miserable chore to play.
Honestly? I suggest reading more RPG theory so you can understand just how bullshit GNS is. The whole thing came out of a pissing contest between self described "narrativists" and "simulationists," with the "gamist" category pretty much only existing as a place to shunt off D&D and anything else that wasn't cool enough for either tribe to claim
>it's not about chargen. narrativism is about what happens in play and providing rules for the players to reshape the narrative, leaving genre conventions behind if necessary. also, claims by publishers are unreliable. vampire's storyteller system has nothing to do with narrativism.
I would disagree. Every game of Gurps I've ever played has been individualistic and involved players/characters that wanted to be unique tell a story and grow differently. That's certainly how I played all my Gurps characters (or any character in general really, even D&D characters).
Well... most of the players wanted that. There were usually one or two that wanted to just play D&D.
Also I will say I prefer Hero system to Gurps.
Ah! Well it does depend on the GM and players. Like a lot.
>how bullshit GNS is.
Oh I agree completely, I do not subscribe to it all. I'm just trying my best to define things in GNS.
Read the example of play in Apocalypse World. You can't do that in GURPS without homebrewing.
Why do people still go with GNS when it's pretty much all bullshit anyways?
I mean fuck even goddamn Bartle's is more defined.
HERO was a huge influence on GURPS. I prefer HERO myself. Being a GM, HERO gives a greater range of customization, and a kind of built-in balance. Very Gamist, though...
Every time I see a game theory thread it's, "Oh I hate GNS theory so much. I'm much too smart for that badwrong bullshit. Ugh!" and then the thread continues on without any sign of good counter theory.
Every time.
not a fucking argument
>I mean fuck even goddamn Bartle's is more defined.
it's just less useful for P&P
because the basics of GNS are fine. the problem is that the 3 creative agendas are not well-defined. also, as you can see, the critics of GNS don't even fucking understand it.
And you just put it up as to why it's bullshit. The definitions should be one of the core things, but they're so badly defined that something not that useful for P&P is still better defined.
PErhaps we need to go back and look and actually add to it to make it less something a guy came up with to attack what he didn't like and sound pretentious while doing so, and more something that's actually fucking useful.