Catalyst Castle

Having played various role-playing games with a variety of people over the years, it’s obvious that not everyone has the same tastes and preferences when it comes to gaming. Most people seem to be looking for specific things when it comes to role-playing, rather they realize it or not. This can create tension or dissatisfaction when different people in the same role-playing group have different ideas of what constitutes fun. I’m writing this article (and one or more follow-up articles) with the purpose of exploring why we play role-playing games. I’m hoping that it will draw out some critical thinking and self reflection from my fellow role-players. By better understanding what we ourselves, and our friends, enjoy about role-playing, maybe we can build a better role-playing group in which all of us can get more enjoyment out of our games.

The first place I looked to for ideas on what to write in this article, is a web community called The Forge. On the forums there, a bunch of avid role-players and role-playing game designers really break down role-playing and make a science of the hobby. I’m not sure that such an analytical approach to role-playing is necessary, or even healthy, but some of their theories have a bearing on what I’m doing here.

In an article on The Forge, entitled “GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory”, RPG designer Ron Edwards discusses, among other things, player agendas in role-playing. The article is very wordy, and features a near-doctorate level vocabulary, but if you have the patience to read the whole thing, I would recommend it. I’ll summarize some of the applicable points here.

Ron Edwards discusses something he calls GNS, which stands for Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism. Each of these is a term that refers to a specific mode of play which a particular player may especially enjoy. Saying that a particular player is “Gamist”, for example, just means that they typically enjoy playing in a way that involves Gamism. None of these modes of play is superior to any other, neither are they mutually exclusive. A player might enjoy a mix of play modes, but they will usually gravitate towards one over any other.

Now for an explanation of what these modes of play are:

Narrativism is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The characters, system, setting, situation, and flavor of the game provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis).

Some examples of Narrativist play might include:
Exploring the ethical ramifications of your character’s actions.
Cooperating with the other players to produce a story with real dramatic impact.

Simulationism heightens and focuses “exploration” (imagination in action, or the attention given the imagined elements) as the priority of play. The players may be greatly concerned with the internal logic and experiential consistency of their exploration of the characters, system, setting, situation, and flavor of the game.

Some examples of Simulationist play might include:
Exploring questions pertinent to the game itself, such as “What does it feel like to be an android?”, “What would it be like to fight in a war?”, “What are the nobility of this kingdom like, and how do they influence the fate of the world?”, etc.

Note that two or three of these modes of play may overlap in a particular instance of play. For example, beating the bad guys is obviously a Gamist agenda, but the act or methods of doing so may also move the plot forward in a meaningful way (Narrativism), or shed some new light on the game world (Simulationism).

Remember that, as I’ve pointed out before, these modes of play are also not mutually exclusive. Just because you enjoy beating the bad guys doesn’t mean that you aren’t interested in the story, or in exploring the game world. And just because you’re after a good story doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy besting a rival or an enemy.

Myself, I think I enjoy a variety of modes of play, but I seem to tend to gravitate towards Simulationism. I like to have a rules-system with enough detail to support my character concept in a way that makes them distinct, and outlines their specific quirks and abilities. I also like to really get inside my character’s skin and try to explore both him and his surroundings. As a GM, I love tinkering with the rules and preparing game sessions that will introduce the players to interesting aspects of the game’s setting.

So, please participate by giving this article a careful reading and giving me some feedback on it. What do you think of the GNS model? What do you think of the different modes of play? Is there one that you think you primarily enjoy? Any that you don’t particularly care for? Let me know!