I've heard Gleichman (admittedly, not a very reliable source) once argue that it was biased in favour of Dramatism, just like GNS was biased in favour of Narrativism. Is that true? Asking that question mostly towards John Kim himself.
Quote from: Rincewind1;729425I've heard Gleichman (admittedly, not a very reliable source) once argue that it was biased in favour of Dramatism, just like GNS was biased in favour of Narrativism. Is that true? Asking that question mostly towards John Kim himself.
Any suggestion as to
how it's biased? Does it call Sim enthusiasts brain-damaged? :D
Both sides are biased against the gamists. Calling us 4rries and WoW kiddies or, the harshest insult of all, boardgamers.
Quote from: Rincewind1;729425I've heard Gleichman (admittedly, not a very reliable source) once argue that it was biased in favour of Dramatism, just like GNS was biased in favour of Narrativism. Is that true? Asking that question mostly towards John Kim himself.
Bias is mostly a matter of opinion - so I don't think I'm any more qualified than someone else to judge bias. I did make considerable effort to present positive aspects of all three sides of the model.
Still, if anything I think it is biased in favor of Simulationism. At least, people who vocally defended simulationism against criticisms (notably Mary Kuhner and myself) were central in developing the model - while people who more vocally defended dramatism were more on the sidelines (like Kevin Hardwick and David Berkman).
Quote from: jhkim;729483Bias is mostly a matter of opinion - so I don't think I'm any more qualified than someone else to judge bias. I did make considerable effort to present positive aspects of all three sides of the model.
Still, if anything I think it is biased in favor of Simulationism. At least, people who vocally defended simulationism against criticisms (notably Mary Kuhner and myself) were central in developing the model - while people who more vocally defended dramatism were more on the sidelines (like Kevin Hardwick and David Berkman).
Holy blast from the past, those are names I'd not heard in a long while!
What is GDS?
Quote from: danbuter;729488What is GDS?
Gamist-Dramatist-Simulationist, from the venerable Three Fold Model. Roleplaying game theory from last century.
Also in response to the original question, my recollection is that Gamist got a bit of a rough deal. This was before D&D 3e which, however you may feel about the system, it did a lot to clean up and promote the "gamist" point of view. Or at least that is the impression I get.
Quote from: Soylent Green;729489Gamist-Dramatist-Simulationist, from the venerable Three Fold Model. Roleplaying game theory from last century.
Also in response to the original question, my recollection is that Gamist got a bit of a rough deal. This was before D&D 3e which, however you may feel about the system, it did a lot to clean up and promote the "gamist" point of view. Or at least that is the impression I get.
Sorry - here's my page on an overview. The "Threefold Model" is an idea from the early 1990s on UseNet that I wrote an FAQ and other essays about. Here's my page with an overview.
http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/
While 3E may have helped popularize some gamist notions, I don't think that it changed anything in the model. The notions of builds, optimization, resource management, and tactical combat were very much part of rgfa discussion from GURPS-vs-HERO arguments, Shadowrun, and other games.
I think the thing about GDS which makes it useful to me is that it grew as a result of conversations between people. Yes, it was a particular subset of people on a particular forum, so you've got to view it critically - it's not the beautiful objective truth, it's a flawed lens which brings some things into focus and obscures other things and you need to show some savvy in how you apply it. And yes, those conversations between those people often revolved around them entirely failing to understand what each other's playing style was like and what each other actually enjoyed about RPGs.
But the crucial thing is that it comes from a place of trying to understand each other, and it doesn't give one person's voice a particular prominence. Conversely, GNS was a) mostly developed by Ron Edwards - yes, he would revise his Big Model as a result of conversations on the Forge, but the theory was still built out of a bunch of Ron essays and b) mostly developed with an eye to promoting Ron's (very narrowly defined) narrativism.
Hey, I'm famous! I played with John Kim!
http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/cons/genconindy2006.html#reservoirwitch
It was pretentious twaddle that got supplanted by even-more-pretentious twaddle.
Quote from: RPGPundit;729843It was pretentious twaddle that got supplanted by even-more-pretentious twaddle.
Hey, the Pundit and I agree on something! That doesn't happen often.
Quote from: RPGPundit;729843It was pretentious twaddle that got supplanted by even-more-pretentious twaddle.
On the Troll Scale(TM) I give this a 0.5 out of 10.
I never pay much attention to these threads.
However, the other day my niece was over here (Singapore) from the UK as a break before the start of college term.
Anyway she is a lit student and for some reason game stuff came up and she was talking about a story game her mates had been playing last year that was based on a deck of cards and you riffed off a story.
Now games are something we have ever talked about but she has been part of my Murder Mystery team in the UK for a couple of years.
So anyway I was explaining the differences between an RPG like D&D, the MM format and this story game. It was easiest for me to talk about games having three aspects, Narrative, Simulation and Gamist. So the game she was playing was narrativist with a bit of game chucked in, simple rules easy to understand that give some structure. The Murder mystery stuff are Narativist and Simulationist, all the actors and even a few of the guests are engaged in trying to simulate the situation, but there is a narrative component because there is the plot and the outcome is pre-determined. the gamist bit is tiny there are no rules but there is a format and at the end there can be a winner. Then I talked about a board game and showed her Tannhauser and Arkham Horror, in these games you play a role but its just window dressing for the game and the gamist bit is the dominant part.
So then I explained how RPGs works and all three of these parts are mixed in and how you can kind of play with the elements dialing some up and dialing some down. I explained how some were very gamist and the rules and understanding the rules was key to successful play but that other games were almost freeform and the most important part was the roleplay simulation part and that others were more about plot and that some let the players add stuff to the plot from small stuff, "I have the blood of Amber in my veins", to medium stuff , "I burn a hero point to find a guard's uniform my size in the locker", to big stuff, " I burn a plot point so that the barkeeper is actually an old retainer of my father's from the Northern Wars". Then I explained the mix is a strength of RPGs because different groups of people can mix and match these elements and get to the game they like to play. The obvious thing for a game to do therefore is to make itself flexible enough to fit any combination and that, I argued was the strength of D&D. The basic rules were easy to understand but could be built on to make more complex combinations, the roleplay bit was well supported but not mandatory and a referee could make the game more or less narrative as they desired.
Anyway long story short and all that. I found the 3 aspects to be really useful way to describe how the different bits of the gaming hobby fit together and how the story game she was playing is on the same continuum as the Murder Mysteries and the Arkham Horror game and RPGs themselves.
So I guess, thans John Kim you helped me out there even if I only have knowledge of your essay through reading shit on here and have never actually bothered to read it myself. Anyway the ginger biscuits I have been cooking are ready so tiem to close this up and get a nice cup of tea.
Quote from: jibbajibba;730020So I guess, thans John Kim you helped me out there even if I only have knowledge of your essay through reading shit on here and have never actually bothered to read it myself. Anyway the ginger biscuits I have been cooking are ready so tiem to close this up and get a nice cup of tea.
Heh.
You're welcome, I guess...
The thing about the Threefold Model is that its pretty intuitive for those who are experienced in RPG differences. It's true that Ron's GNS is better known in name because of the controversy and games that it promoted. However, nearly all of the wider usage follow the Threefold definitions rather than Ron's.