Quote from: StumpydaveSimulationist - those people who wish to experience their game in the most realistic manner possible.  Hence lots of rules, for everything.  I'd suggest any early, non fantasy, game as their cup of tea.

Not remotely. But hey, it's certainly a plausible explanation to make up off the top of your head after hearing the word once.

Quote from: StumpydaveThen THEY didn't explain themselves very well, or worse, changed the meanings of words in order to depict something else entirely which is their own damned fault.

To my understanding - Gamist - those who approach rpgs as a game.  With a competitive focus and a desire to not lose.  Typical d&d stuff, boost your stats, kill the monster.
Narrativist - those whose approach is to tell a story either about their character, or to make sure they drive the story that forms out of the game through their actions.  Typical Vampire/Larp type.
Simulationist - those people who wish to experience their game in the most realistic manner possible.  Hence lots of rules, for everything.  I'd suggest any early, non fantasy, game as their cup of tea.


If thats wrong then its wrong.  But if so I announce my own GMS theory.
TADAA!

I'd go one further than ghost rat - none of them (perhaps with the Gamist being close) are the definitions.

Quote from: James J SkachI'd go one further than ghost rat - none of them (perhaps with the Gamist being close) are the definitions.

Then can someone please tell me what i was on cos I've got completely the wrong end of the stick.

Yup, what you've produced is much closer to rgfa Threefold than GNS. Still not quite, though, as you're suggesting that "rules-light" can't be simulationist.

Stumpydave, GNS is a moving target; you might try Ben Lehman's blog for GNS, and this thread started by Silvered_Glass on rpgnet for the Threefold. (John Kim's FAQ on the Threefold is actually kind of terse.)

Or...we could not bother and spend our time making our games fun and exciting.

Yes?  No?

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=65490&postcount=35

Wow. It took them five years to come up with THAT? I mean the section before the GNS part.

So the GNS part is a rehash of the threefold, and the sociology part amounts to: "For a fun experience, everyone better be on the same page."

No wonder they closed the theory forums.

?

The Threefold basically developed over the course of two-three years ('94-'97), but pretty organically, as the product of various attempts to draw distinctions between styles of play. Much of it was pretty political, as in, the basic idea of different motivations and styles was already obvious (and had appeared both seriously and jokingly for more than decade, from Blacow to "Real Mean, Real Roleplayers, Loonies, and Munchkins", to "role vs. roll"). The trick was achieving widespread consensus on the basic point, which was and is still amazingly difficult.

Yes? All I'm saying is: in that summary of Forge theory linked by Mr.S, part 2 is derivative, and part 1 is a joke.

Oh, I thought you were commenting Silvered Glass's post.

Yes, "SIS", "Social Contract", and capital-S "System" are...pretty bad tools.

Oh, and Stumpydave...yes...but...some sensitivity to the fact that there are different motives & styles of play is needed...and it helps to have a critical vocabulary which recognizes that fact...it's just that GNS isn't an especially good one.

Quote from: StumpydaveOr...we could not bother and spend our time making our games fun and exciting.

Yes?  No?

Yeah, well, this is the hope. Here's the problem.

Game designer X puts mechanic Y into his game.  It's new, and radical, and he wants to set it apart and provide a reason.  So he, perhaps even unintentionally, insults traditional gamers in the marekting or PR for the game. Even if this doesn't occur, when someone asks why the new mechanic, the designer will draw a reason by saying there was something wrong with the existing method and, ususally, use GfuckingNfuckingS to explain it.  People playing with that method who love it and have fun with it will take exception.

This is not inevtiable.  Look at the diverse small press games from the people here - Roma Imperious, In Harm's Way, Epic, Forward to Adventure.  all of these desginers have navigated this mine field rather well, though not without mistakes (ask Kent/Remindall about Epic!), and usually by not basing teh reasons on anything to do with something as pathetic as GfuckingNfuckingS.

And, somehow, there is this desire to now just say, "Hey, let's just forget about all those nasty things we said and move on." Of course without apology or recognition that what was said was nasty - even vile in one particular case.

Pierce,

It´s the official, naturalized and approved concise guide to the big model.
Ron loves it.

But really, you wouldn´t believe WHAT kinds of trueisms or trivialities Ron "discovered" for himself and is preachy about them. You wouldn´t believe it.

So, with apologies if I come across as ignorant or somesuch, whats the point of all this.  I mean all of it, the forge theory approach, the death to all swine approach from here.  Constant sniping and bickering not just about the games you play but about how you play them.

Or does it just boil down to the fact that some people have nothing better to do in their lives than belittle others?

Quote from: James J SkachYeah, well, this is the hope. Here's the problem.

Game designer X puts mechanic Y into his game.  It's new, and radical, and he wants to set it apart and provide a reason.  So he, perhaps even unintentionally, insults traditional gamers in the marekting or PR for the game.

That's funny, when I came up with d4-d4, a lot of the stuff in that seemed new to me. But I didn't feel any urge to have a go at "traditional" gaming. I felt more like it was traditional - traditional in the sense of how games are often played (fast and loose, over 6-12 sessions with half the people not knowing the rules or paying much attention to what's going on) rather than how they're usually designed. So it had some new stuff, but was overall not new, if that makes any sense.

It's what I've said about rpgs before - they're like lego sets, each set has mostly the same bunch of pieces you had before, if you're lucky there might be one or two new pieces, but generally each set is just the old pieces put together in a new way. But the new way's interesting and fun, so you're happy to buy the set. To my mind, an "innovative roleplaying game!" is like an "innovative lego set!" I just go, "really? how?!"

And then you get guys like Clash who openly express fear of doing anything "new and original". "If I have an original thought in game design, I quickly smother it in its crib before it can get out and do any damage."

Things don't have to be all super-original to be fun and interesting. But I guess some people don't feel that way. Beats me, really.