Quote from: Ben LehmanP.S.  Seriously, dude, don't capitalize Theory.

Alas, my capitalization is pretty random for the most part.

Quote from: Ben LehmanDoes that answer your question? ...

Well enough, thanks!  

What, exactly, are the definitions of Gamism, Narrativism and Simulationism, respectively?  And why will the three other people who answer my question have different definitions?
I mean, I've read the essays. I thought I understood them, but if I were ever to attempt to discuss them online my usage of the terms would be immediately gainsayed by several people (presumably more knowledgeable about this than I, since they hail from Forge country), all of them with differing definitions.  I've seen it happen more than I care to recall.

Quote from: BrantaiWhat, exactly, are the definitions of Gamism, Narrativism and Simulationism, respectively?  And why will the three other people who answer my question have different definitions?
I mean, I've read the essays. I thought I understood them, but if I were ever to attempt to discuss them online my usage of the terms would be immediately gainsayed by several people (presumably more knowledgeable about this than I, since they hail from Forge country), all of them with differing definitions.  I've seen it happen more than I care to recall.

The correct definitions are those which do not challenge the legitimacy of the Big Model.

Actually, the useful way to understand them would be as the primary focus of one's play style. What these actually are has mutated more to fit the interest of the kinds of games Forge folks like to make, so Narratavism in particular has become less about the desire to have one's game make sense as a story and more about playing within a story that has already been determined by the structure inherent in the game.

Quote from: BrantaiWhat, exactly, are the definitions of Gamism, Narrativism and Simulationism, respectively?  And why will the three other people who answer my question have different definitions?
I mean, I've read the essays. I thought I understood them, but if I were ever to attempt to discuss them online my usage of the terms would be immediately gainsayed by several people (presumably more knowledgeable about this than I, since they hail from Forge country), all of them with differing definitions.  I've seen it happen more than I care to recall.

An incomplete and certainly incorrect definition, but this is how I look at them in my head.  Gamism is interest in how the character interacts with the rule system, Simulationism is how the character interacts with the setting, and Narrativism is how the character interacts with other characters.  

Like I said, this isn't a Forge-approved definition or anything, and there's certainly more to the three than this.  And I'm sure some would say that I'm completely wrong about one or more of them.  But to me it grabs the basic idea of each.

Quote from: BrantaiAnd why will the three other people who answer my question have different definitions?

Go to another forum, one with really high traffic and ask for a definition of science fiction, wuxia, dark fantasy or high fantasy and see how many different responses and varied answers come back.

Hey, Brantai -- Sorry for the wait.  I've been starting a new job, finding a new apartment, all the bullshit of moving to a new city.

Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism are three types of Creative Agenda, in Big Model terms.

Basically, they are three totally different activities that someone might mean when they talk about playing a role-playing game.  These are totally different and seperate activities.  This isn't a difference in "play style" nor is it a matter of the imagined content of the game.  We're talking about the real people sitting around the table, and what sort of activity they're engaged in.

For specifics, I'm going to quote from an essay I wrote, if you don't mind.

QuoteBasically, GNS seperates out into three different broad categories the things that players mean by "play a role-playing game."  This is emphatically not about the fictional level of play at all rather ("I like combat" is not a GNS-level preference), it is about the interactions between the players, the actual activities of the human beings playing the game.  What GNS says is that, when people talk about playing role-playing games, they are actually talking about a wide variety of activities at this human level.  So, without further ado, let's give a brief introduction to each of these three activities.  (The links are links to Ron's long essays about each activity.)

Gamism is an activity where the participants show off their guts, tactical thinking, drive and luck, and gain social esteem for doing these things well.  It is comparable to activities such as card games, board games, sports, or car racing.

Narrativism is an activity where the participants make a story which is personally affecting, and gain social esteem for contributing to the story in impressive and thematic manners.  It is comparable to activities such as theatre, poetry slams, freestyle (multi-participant) rap, shared stories, and writer's workshops which aren't publication focused.

Simulationism is an activity where the participants revel in another place, another time, or another world, and gain social esteem from contributing to the sense of place, whether from reiteration of canonical details or from whole-cloth creation being a matter of local taste.  It is comparable to activities such as historical re-enactment, model rail-roading, or many fandoms, especially science fiction fandoms such as Star Wars and Star Trek.

It's pretty clear that these are dramatically different and generally incompatible activities.  If I show up and try to strategize a writer's workshop, or to get a coherent and dramatic story out of a bridge game, or play insist on playing Risk with historical Napeleonic empires, I am clearly just being clueless at best and willfully disruptive at worst.

And, I know the question that comes next, so I'll just prepare an answer to it right away.

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: BrantaiWhat, exactly, are the definitions of Gamism, Narrativism and Simulationism, respectively?  And why will the three other people who answer my question have different definitions?

One of the reasons is that there has been a number of models very similar to GNS. Most didn't get much air time as it were, but the original one from rec.games.frp.advocacy did.

That model was simpler and easier to understand. It also wasn't presented to the world with quite the pretentions that marks GNS. And it was the first. As a result it made something of impact not withstanding the fact that the model (and usenet group) is basically as dead as a doornail.

That impact carries over today in that many people mistake it's defintions for the GNS ones.

The other is that the GNS model seems almost intentionally written to cause these types of mistakes. You can take your choice of cause for this, ranging from "Such overwhelming minds have trouble expressing these complex matters to common people" to "it's done that way on purpose so as to cloud how stupid and pointless the model is in the first place".