When it comes to role playing, there are many styles of players, game masters, and games out there. We’ve all got different labels for these different parts of the hobby. Generally speaking, these styles and stereotypes can be boiled down to three different categories: gaming, narrating, simulating.
Gaming
In this category we find the question, “How do I win?” As many of us can espouse, getting together to have a good time is “winning the game.” For others, there needs to be a defined in-game mechanic wrapped around the gameplay to define the top dog at the end of the night’s festivities. A vast majority of role playing games have no such mechanic, but this can be overcome through creative styling of the game.
Players
A role player of this type really needs to be presented with quests to accomplish, bosses to kill, kingdoms to overthrow (or save), and similar goals to achieve. If the GM can present these types of goals, put in place adequate obstacles, and wrap some good storytelling around the events, then the players of this type will enjoy themselves and tell stories about what their characters did for years to come.
Game Masters
If a GM is firmly in the camp of “I must win,” then there will be something off about the game play. It’s not up to the GM to “win” or “lose” the game. They are there to present challenges to the players for their characters to overcome during the course of play. I’ve encountered these types of GMs through decades of gaming, and I’ve always struggled to enjoy the games. Please don’t get a “gaming game master.”
Games
I’m actually hard pressed to think of a system or ruleset in which there is a definitive “win” or “lose” scenario. There are an ample number of board games in existence with these mechanics that have strong storytelling, almost role playing, aspects to them. These blur the lines a bit, but for a tried-and-true role playing game, I can’t think of any. If you know of one, I’d love to hear about it in the comments.
Narrating
Under the narrating column, we’ll find the elements of true storytelling. This is where the events going on with the PCs within the game are more important than the mechanics or rules binding the players to the game. The story itself tends to be more important than the individuals gathered around the table.
Players
The narrative-style players delve into their characters in a deep manner. They tend to have copious notes regarding backgrounds, cultures, traits, and aspects of their characters. Growing the character within the story arc is often more vital to the players than collecting loot, gaining powerful magic items, or advancing in power levels. This isn’t to say that growth in ability isn’t important, but it needs to serve the players’ concepts of their characters.
Game Masters
Narrative GMs often present the most memorable games. They’ll celebrate PC success, and enable the players to expand the story of their characters in a way that fits the character concepts presented around the table. This is incredibly difficult to do in larger groups, but if the players are on board to assist the GM in the telling of the story, then the quality of the games will reach epic levels.
Games
Some games are more focused on the rules and the crunchiness of the interactions between PCs, NPCs, and monsters. These games can be very fun to play, but for a narrative game, there are plenty of games out there that explore characters as a collection of ideals and goals more than an assembly of numbers. Games using descriptors for how strong, fast, smart, or charming a character is fall into this category.
Simulating
With simulation-style gaming, most people are looking to emulate reality as closely as possible. There are many rules covering pretty much every situation that can come up. Players tend to expect rigid strictures for actions, and GMs provide internally consistent behavior in the universe.
Players
Players that love simulation games tend to be the hardcore, number-crunching types of players. The games that can build optimal characters for the system at hand love simulation style games. Many people who come from tabletop miniatures games land in the simulation fanbase. This isn’t a bad thing. After all, the roots of our hobby are firmly grounded in the tabletop miniature realm.
Game Masters
GMs that know the rules inside-and-out, can quote the rulebook, or know exactly what page particularly complex rules are on can easily run a simulation style game. These game masters run the game smoothly and well. Sometimes, however, a GM might come face-to-face with analysis paralysis when a player attempts to perform a logical action that isn’t explicitly covered by the rules presented within the covers of the books.
Games
Simulating the events and actions possible in the world represented by the setting of the game are the strengths and goals of games in this category. Games with intense levels of detailed rules to cover almost every eventuality excel in the simulation arena. Likewise, games that proscribe a limited list of actions possible when conflict arise are often simulationist in nature. These games can be very fun for the right group, and often fall hand-in-hand with the gaming category.
Conclusion
What kind of gamer are you? What kind of games do you enjoy running or playing in? We are living in fortunate times for our hobby. There’s something out there for everyone, and many of the current game offerings cover all three of the above categories to some degree. Many of them are stronger in one area than another. The trick is to find the game system, player group, or game master that most supports what you enjoy most.
Hi J.T.
I’m going to really comment in a moment, but I thought that a first reply might be a good place to point out that this is your theory. It looks like it has a lot of overlap with the forge era GNS theory, but you’re doing your own thing with it right?
(I mostly want to get this out these so people don’t get derailed by talking about “Big Model” GNS instead of your points above.)
Kind of difficult not to compare it to the GNS model when he links to the Wikipedia page about the same…
But that just makes it doubly confusing, since Evans is using these terms, but not in the way that Edwards did.
Instead, this article slaps the GNS labels onto a much older subdivision of play styles that ultimately goes back to Bacow’s Four-fold Way article.
I missed the link. I wasted way too much of the early 2000s reading and minimally participating on the Forge and… um, think that a lot of the term definition above would have been heavy trolling back in the day. It’s been a decade, so there might be drift in practice. Mostly, I was hoping to head off a GNS digression… but, with the link, maybe that’s what JT was looking for.
I suspect my problem came from (mis-)reading the author’s opinions into the theory. I find that it’s a stronger theory when discussed positively–when you viscerally understand why someone would prioritize each mode. Otherwise it reads as a put down of people who pick other priorities. As written above, a GM prioritizing gamism is a bad thing–but a gamist facilitating GM is nigh-essential to have a group feel challenged and to overcome difficult challenges by the rules, instead of winning “because the story expects it” or “because the GM didn’t want a TPK”. If you can’t calculate a fair challenge, you can’t deliver it to players who want one.
OK, I’m gonna try not to get too far into a digression here.
But just to reply to your misgivings about the presentation of gamism: this is because Evans has not understood what gamism is about. Yes, many people who like to play gamist games are focused on winning, but that does not mean the win/lose dichotomy is central to the concept.
From a system perspective, gamism is the desire to present elegant rules – rules where the math fits together in a way that’s aesthetically pleasing to a logical mind. This means things like a minimum of different subsystems, a transparency to the probability curve, and that elusive questing beast “game balance”. So original D&D is a mess from a gamist perspective, while 4e is almost the platonic ideal…
Now, the original GNS model is ONLY intended to be used for the system design perspective, but you can extrapolate from there to what kinds of players/GMs will like a certain system. And as you say, the GM who prefers to run something gamist will be one who is concerned with fairness of adjudication, and likes presenting players with challenges that can be worked out like a logic puzzle within the rules of the game. And gamist players will be the kind who like that sort of challenge.
From your list, I enjoy Narrating–particularly as a player. I want to tell an interesting story about our adventures (or whatever). I keep an eye on gaming–I’ve played in games where I haven’t had much chance to influence the story, because I picked characters who weren’t effective in games where 75% of the time was spent in combat–and that’s no fun.
I do wonder if you have the player motivation for simulating correct in your model. Mastering the game mechanics seems to be concentrating on “winning the game”–just like you mention as a concern for GMs under gaming. In your model above, you seem to conflate rules mastery, number crunching and power gaming. Is the idea for Simulating that both players and GMs concentrate on the rules, which are extensive?
As a GM, I deliver Gaming, with a fail-mode of Simulationism. By which I mean that I try to present fair, exciting, challenges to the PCs–not that I try to win. As you hint, “rocks fall, everyone dies” is a way to be the only person left in a game… and soon the only person at the table, since your players will all leave! My “fail mode of Simulationism” means that I can get bogged down in using the right rules, or holding to the world logic, instead of leaping ahead and saying “that sounds awesome… roll high and it happens”.
I’m with you, Scott! I love telling stories with my friends. The game mechanics wrapped around the process are secondary. I know my article comes off a bit as “pick one and use it” but these are all ingredients in the creation of a great game. There are going to be times when gamism shines through over narration, and other times when the game feels more like a simulation.
It’s just a matter of finding the right balance to find what pushes your happy buttons to get the most out of gaming!
I found this particular model for assessing the player psychographic profile is not very good.
Gaming is very narrowly divided and does not correspond to actual players behaviour. The fact that you have difficulty mentioning a game that would fit that category suggests this is not appropriate psychographic profile or definition for roleplaying games.
I much prefer Robin D. Law definition myself. However, I think the works by other more renown analysis is even better:
https://makeagameofthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/extended-player-psychographics/
I particularly love Mark Rosewater views but the Roger Caillois is far more reaching and goes deeper in trying to understand why we game at all.
All in all, Rosewater and Callois have kind of the same categories. Johnny is ilinx, Spike is Agon.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134842/personality_and_play_styles_a_.php?page=2
But every time someone tries to narrow something down into categories, they tend to miss some bits. Where are those who just want to socialize with friends? Where are those who wants to destroy things (not only by using game mechanics)? I mean, it’s a simplified model, and like all models, they are a good start to realize that people want different things.
That’s the only thing I will bring with me from GNS and the likes.
I like your three categories of play styles. I think they make the most sense when viewed from the perspective of player/GM motivation. Start from there, and your article can be summarized as the answer to one question:
The fact that few if any RPGs directly address motivation #1 does not mean the category is faulty. It just means there are a lot of people looking for something not well served by RPGs. I believe it, because I’ve sat at the table with them. Really they don’t need the “RP” part of RPG. They just need the G. And there are plenty of Gs (Games) out there for them. For those who want an element of “Play to win” in an RPG, it’s not hard to graft on player-based awards. Many tournament games have done this for years.
I’ve played with people who are reluctant to lose, ever, in a game like D&D. It’s a relatively common problem; we’ve had a number of articles tackling “my players never surrender or retreat” and “how do I cue them that trying harder will just get them all killed”?
It was a more common discussion in 4e, because 4e did a great job of making combat an engaging activity and giving the GM strong guidelines for encounter design. So both sides could play hard and feel threatened–not like the GM had obliterated them with some cheese.
Players taking a “never retreat, surrender, or reconsider” approach is definitely a problem. It’s not limited to the Gamist motivation, though. It’s a failure of creativity that can exist within any of the three categories.
I agree completely with your comment. See my above comment to Scott. I should have mentioned that these three broad approaches can easily be mixed and matched in different quantities to produce a fun experience.
As a demonstration of the author’s abject ignorance, this was an astoundingly good article.
First: Bravo on recognizing that there are many different things to enjoy in a roleplaying game and that, therefore, individual players may have different tastes. But two big thumbs down to your, “AND THOSE PEOPLE ARE WRONG!” attitude. Jesus. Take two steps back from your, “Narrating (sic) GMs are the only good GMs.” nonsense and think about what you’re doing here.
Second: You takes these terms from GNS theory and include a link to imply that you are actually discussing GNS theory, but then your discussion of the GNS principles are radically inaccurate.
Particularly egregious is that you explicitly claim that Gaming (sic) GMs don’t design entertaining challenges for their players, when that is literally the definition of what Game is in the theory you obviously have no knowledge of whatsoever. And why have you done that? So that you can claim that building effective challenges is something only Narrating (sic) GMs do.
Gnome Stew should be embarrassed to have this on their site.
I don’t think this makes a good point on the “gaming” stile. I call myself a “gamist gamer” and such is my group, but noboby wants to “win the game”. It’s about presenting (gm) and overcoming (players) challenges. So winning those challenges is correct, but winning the game? I don’t even know what that might be.
This topic has been discussed far and widely and there are many better definitions out there. Basing this article on those should have made this article much better and shouldn’t have been too much effort, sorry.
I tried not to post a reply here, as it has all been more or less said already: But its clear to me that JT has missed the point on GNS, broadly ignored the ‘big model’ and failed to acknowledge one of the major criticisms of GN&S already out there.
I applaud the effort, but think a little more background reading (and references to the arguments for and against?) are required. can I suggest JT submit a follow up article after a month or two see if he still feels the same way. I will attempt to post a reply here with a couple of links but I know the Gnome sometimes throws fits when i do that!
I suspect it’s a good sign to us old timers that throwing out GNS to a general audience will often mean that you’ll be misunderstood. Even on one site, with the theory creator and people who were with him from the beginning and “got it” actively participating, it took constant effort to keep contained. It kept trying to spread and change, which is one reason why its forum was shut down before the rest of the site.
As “an old timer”, it’s hard to remember, but the theory hasn’t been actively, centrally discussed for almost a decade now. The first couple of years had good explainers (like those you link to, or Chris Chinn’s Big Model posts… but that was 2008!
If anyone is interested, there’s two other posts I have which are pretty good if you’re interested in Forge theory Creative Agenda (on the right side of my blog, there is a section of links labeled “Forge Theory”):
https://bankuei.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/creative-agendas/
https://bankuei.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/creative-agenda-processes/
I don’t bother rewriting on the same topic unless I’ve discovered a better way to talk about it. I feel like I’ve pretty well covered how it works between those posts.
While the actual terminology around Creative Agenda has turned to word mush in the wider RPG internet space, the basic ideas, divorced from it, have spread out quite well: There’s different ways to play, not all of them work well together, you should communicate with each other to find out so you don’t have problems in play.
You’ll find people who will decry Big Model but totally accept using The Same Page Tool, even though, all it is, is a concrete set of choices on describing your Creative Agenda.
http://whitehall-paraindustries.com/Theory/Threefold/rpg_theory_bad_rep.htm
http://www2.uiah.fi/~mpohjola/turku/
https://jaakkostenros.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/blast-from-the-past-meilahti/
There have been a ton of articles on GNS theory and a lot of discussions about it. Most of the time it’s been about the actual gameplay experience, and not the elements that contribute to it, like the players’ attitudes and desires in those sorts of games. My wife and many of our friends love Fiasco and other similar games, which would fall very strongly in the Narrative camp, but you couldn’t get them to touch D&D 3.5 with a 10 foot pole.
While I tend to think the GNS model can be too limiting, you can definitely see that current games (like D&D 5e) think about the various player types who come to the table and want an experience that will fit their particular play style. I don’t think it’s the best model out there, but it is a beginning grounds for discussion about these sorts of topics. I’m not sure that would have happened if GNS and other models for gaming were espoused and debated in this way.
I agree with John here, the best games think about the various player types. This is true as true for RPG as it is for Magic The Gathering or computer games (such as MMOs).
If expanding on the current categories.
Narrating: when I play games that focused on creating a story, the group as a whole is creating the story in a collaborative manner, and it’s usually without a game master. It’s usually through meta play and no secrets – full transparency of agencies and stats between the players.
Simulating: one mode of gaming I’ve seen and is present in one of the biggest Swedish fantasy roleplaying games is the dollhouse. Dollhouses are game worlds with a consistent inner logic and causality, often resulting in intricate details and a cause-and-effect-approach to worldbuilding.