What kind of gamer are you?

[Dauntless]

I found an excellent series of articles discussing aspects of play style and game design that's very intriguing and helped me understand player needs and my own game design much better.

In a nutshell, there are 3 basic types of gamers:
Gamists: The best way to describe these kinds are the powergamers...the ones who revel in challenge and like the concept of "winning". They desire balance so that they know things were equal, showing that it was their skill or wise selection in abilities that made them prevail. The perverse manifestations of this kind are the loop-hole exploiters.

Narrativists: These are the dramatic license people. Rules are just there to get run over when the story requires it. Indeed, with good roleplayers, rules aren't even necessary. Improvisation and the desire to tell a good yarn is the main motivation of this kind. How a story is told is the first priority, with a close second of what the story tells as being the most important goals of roleplaying.

Simulationists: Simulationists want logical consistency in both the rules of the game as well as the setting they play in (not necessarily realism, though that is often the case) in their games. They want it so that they can use the rules to explore the world created for them. Imagine Middle-Earth for example, while it was fantasy, everything was intricately laid out. Their primary concern is in imaginging possibilities...bounded by the constraints of the system they play in (and by system, I mean both the rules and the setting of the game).

I actually already understood in a not-so-codified way these kinds of gamers, but having it spelled out really helped me understand a gamer's needs.

So, why am I talking about this in the Hero System Discussion instead of general roleplaying? Because I think each kind of gamer group can and should realize these elements with regard to the Hero System rules, character design, world building, and play style. It crosses all genres, and it affects everything from top to bottom.

How to modify the Hero System?
Gamist: They want everything calculated to the half character point. They are going to scour the rulebooks for every tactical advantage they can. As a GM, if you feel that certain conditions may give a minus to this kind of player, more than likely he's going to balk and ask where it says so in FREd. So the GM will need to cater to this by creating "balanced" fights and also watching out for rules-abuse. Gamists aren't so much interested in the game setting and game world as in the concept of taking whatever is available, and beating people with it. Setting and backdrop can make it more appealing however, so it shouldn't be ignored even for this gamer type.

narrativists: Aren't so keen about what a character can do, as who they are, and how they do it. It's not enough for these types to say, "I throw a fast strike, with an OCV of 8 versus your DCV of 6". Instead they'll say something like, "after watching the cadence of your moves, I deftly sidestep when you attempt to lunge and smash my backfist into your temple as you come across". For many narrativists, to-hit rolls, damage rolls, and the effects of such are irrelevant...it's the telling that's important. For these players, point totals can be a drag, since they may not create a character that fits their concept. Unlike the Gamist who wants more points to create more powerful characters, the Narrativist may want more points in order to capture the essence of their character. As a GM, you may need to decide whether it's "fair" (a Gamist or even a Simulationist may balk at giving away free points and consider this "unfair", while a Narrativist may not consider it unfair as long as everyone plays in character....afterall, would playing a pauper have as many character points as playing a Prince?). Setting and mood are also very important for this gamer type. The game world will influence how characters are played, so the two tend to go hand in hand.

Simulationists: The key here is consistency. Point totals aren't as important as they are to the Gamist, but they do still have a role in making things fit logically or making them consistent (if a knife does more damage than a bullet for the same amount of points....the Simulationist is going to think its silly without a good explanation). Simulationists require a dramatic exploration much like the narrativist, but the Simulationist, unlike the Narrativist, cares about the rules. They want to explore within the framework of rules and game world around him. Simulationists tend to be realists, so rules may have to be modified accordingly. For example, the debates raging around the effectiveness of armor in FH, or how to minimize getting stunned all the time in melee battles are important to this gaming personality. They are important to the Gamist too...but for different reasons (the Gamist doesn't like the thought of someone having an advantage over his character concept....the Simulationist doesn't care if something is more advantageous or not so long as it models world reality consisently and within the terms of that game setting). The setting is perhaps the most important for this gamer type, since the setting is the sandbox in which the simulationist plays. The more intricate and detailed the setting, the more fun they will have. The setting must also be consistent, and it has to make sense given all the factors of the world.

So, has anyone ever modified how characters were created, the rules from Hero, or anything else to cater to these kinds of gamers? I think the Hero System itself strongly caters to the Gamist type. Afterall, the whole concept of balancing powers and character point totals appeals to those who want things to be equal and fair. Even looking at the forums, I'd say the large percentage of personality types are either Gamist or Simulationist-Gamist (leaning towards Gamist). That's not to say that the Hero System can't be used for Narrativist style or Simulationist styles of play, but it was definitely born from a Gamist perspective.

Check out these articles from The Forge for more discussions about these "archtypes":
Simulationism (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/)
Gamism (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/)
GNS and roleplaying theory (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/)

[Dauntless]

BTW, I think I'm about 60% Simulationist, 30% Narrativist, and about 10% Gamist. So it's possible to be a blend of styles, but usually one will seriously dominate the others.

I originally come from a wargame background, in which the whole point was about simulation and gaming. But for me, the fun part about recreating historical battles wasn't winning (the Gamist perspective) but in considering all the what-if and possibilities that could be done (the Simulationist approach). The Gamist and Simulationist do share concerns about tactics, strategies and the composition of forces...but again for different reasons. The Gamist considers strategy and tactics as a means to an end....victory. The Simulationist may consider tactics and strategy an end unto itself, an exploration into how things are done. But to a Narrativist, none of these are as important as the effects they had on the lives of the soldiers or citizens, how those soldiers fought (bravely or cowardly)...or the ramifications of the battle itself.

Because the Hero System is built primarily from a Gamist-Simulationist perspective (leaning towards gamist in my opinion), I think this affects the level of enjoyment different players will have. The great strength of the Hero System is of course it's logical consistency in the rules (which is what appeals to me as a Simulationist gamer), such that it can be tweaked in a great variety of ways to produce meaningful results. Just look at Star Hero and Fantasy Hero for guidelines on tweaking FREd rules to get the right feel and flavor of the genre you want.

I really think further genre books would take great benefit by looking at genre possibilities and rules modifications/expansions in this light.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Well, based on the criteria listed above, I would rate myself as such:

Gamist: 10%

Simulationist: 40%

Narrativist: 50%

While oftentimes my discussions with others on this board make me seem more Simulationist than Narrativist, thats just when discussing "The Rules". When I actually play or GM, I'm all about The Story.

[Blue Jogger]

Ok, I like to think that I have a good mixture.

I've argued for dramatic license when rules are getting in the way of a valid non-combat concept. It costs X and we'll handwave the rest. Since new ideas are rare in Champions, I tend to want to preserve them using dramatic license.

I like the simulation qualities of Hero Games. I don't want to hear, "You hit him." I want to hear, "You hit him in the head, 'AAAGGHHH!'" or "You hit him in the head, the shot bounces off, 'Ha ha ha. Puny man, you can't stop me. No one can stop me!'" We are encouraged by the GM to really focus on the details to invoke imagination.

And yeah, I got an inner powergamer. "I bought this as 4D6+1, just so I can push it to 5 dice. Take 5 dice! DIE VILLIANOUS SCUM! Yeah, I made my EGO roll, Eww, 19 END, you can smell the ozone as I burn away that soul energy. 20 BODY and 20 STUN. What he's still standing??? One more time. Pushing again for 5 dice. Yeah, made it, even with the house rule of additional minuses because we push all the time. WITH MY LAST BREATH, I WILL FIGHT YOU! 15 BODY and 45 STUN. Another 19 END, rolling STUN loss. Yeap, that did it. I'm unconscious."

[Rene]

Great thread!

I think I'm about 80% Narrativist. The story, the drama, the character's personality are all very important to me. I love to try to really put myself in the character's shoes.

I'm the kind of gamer who thinks a lot in terms of symbolical meaning too. The story, the plot, the character, they all have to mean something. And the superhero genre, particularly, is wonderful in dealing with metaphor.

And I usually like to have stories custom-designed for the PCs. Like in a movie or a novel. I dislike the "simulationist/gamist" approach of creating characters totally independently of the world and the adventure and then throwing everything together.
More realistic in a way yes, but I'm not one for this kind of realism.

Nonetheless, I have my gamer and simulationist sides too, though they're not very dominant. I like to tweak the rules to depict well a character concept or situation and I usually dislike just waiving all the rules (though many times I find it necessary to be flexible in the interest of drama). So I'd say I have about 10% of simulationist and 10% of gamist.

[Arthur]

Great thread.

I'd rate myself:


50% Simulationist

30% Gamist

20% Narrativist

In Hero, "Simulation" needs to be clarified: what it simulates is heroic fiction, not strict reality. Someone's sig here states that nicely. The primary thing that drew me into RPGs long ago was the idea of being able to quantify everything. Instead of just make-believe of "my character is strong and tough while yours is an intelligent wizard", I had actual numbers to go by. For a math geek with imagination, it was the Shangri-La of games.

Gamist translates to "powergamer". Yeah, I have a streak of that. I like to play powerful characters. However, all those efficiently spent points MUST be within a well-defined concept, otherwise it's just an exercise in simple arithmetic.

Narrativist is actually linked to Simulation. Good heroic fiction has a story, and that is what is being simulated. However, I do understand why they are listed separately here - it seems to have more to do with gaming styles than strict interpretation of the terms. To me, once again, it's a meaningless exercise in simple arithmetic if there isn't some sort of story behind it. However, I do derive the most enjoyment from the number-crunching. It's just not enough in and of itself to make a good game.

[Killer Shrike]

When I was younger, I was prolly a 50% Simulationist, 40% Gamist, 10% Narrativist. Im a Libra ;) so I like balance, but I also like efficiency. I specifically dont exploit loopholes -- thats to far into metagame thinking, but within concept and within internal consistency boundaries, I do squeeze every last advantage out of something. Tweak tweak tweak until its "just right" -- which it never is. Did I mention Im also a perfectionist?

The setting and the continuity have always been majorly important to me however, even when I was playing red box D&D as a kid. Everything needed to make sense in context. To me clever game manipulation wasnt twisting another +1 to hit or whatever, it was using elements in the setting to my advantage (Simulationist-Gamist pretty high at that point).

As I got older I shifted to more of a 50% Sim, 40% Nar, 10% Gam. Im much more interested in the setting and how the characters interact in it than I am in who has the bigger damage-causing implement. Its all about in-character and appropriate to the setting for me. The last vestiges of Gamist in me are that I still make very efficient (but legal) characters, and I want my character to be potent in the context of the game. Im not enough of a Nar to be interested in playing a 6 year old child or a useless shield-carrier "for the challenge of it all". I also believe in self-policing. I want to be good enough to make an impact and make a contribution to the group, but I dont want to be so good it forces the GM to point-scale the opposition to resist it and thus creating an arms race.

One of my players is a hardcore Gamist -- maybe 95% Gamist -- and some of his point whoring system tweaks really irritate me because to my perspective whats the purpose of making a soulless uninteresting pile of numbers, with abilities completely out of line with whats appropriate to the setting or the power level of the other PCs? Definitely different perspectives....

[Rene]

And I kinda disagree that HERO is heaven only for gamists and simulationists. :) No doubt it's very through system has it's appeals to those kinds of gamers, but it offers something a narrativist (though a narrativist who still mantain a certain level of interest in the rules, of course) considers very important: flexibility.

Most other systems restrict you to certain classes, a certain style of game (GURPS = realism), or a certain kind of background. HERO is the game for those narrativists who want to re-create their favorite novel or movie. I also always found HERO keeps working wonderfully when you want to discard/don't use more complicated rules, because it has a very solid basic core of rules.

And I have enough of a simulationist in me to have my creativity sparked by a system so flexible as HERO. Of course a 100% narrativist would have no use for the HERO system. But then again, a 100% narrativist don't need a system

[Tempuswolf]

I think some of the new Hero5E rules when mixed with the Gamist mindset makes binary poison for a campaign: Megascale, Sweep(ing one opponent), Multipower Attacks, Naked Power Advantages. I feel like GM Van Helsing waving my Narrativist fetish in one hand, my Simulationist in the other, trying to keep Gamist Dracula at bay during chargen.

[OddHat]

Simulationist: 50%
Narativist: 40%
Gamist: 10%

Like Killer Shrike, I was almost a pure Gamist when I started playing. I think GMing started pushing me more into the Simulationist and Narativist camps many years back. I still tend to put a lot of stock into The Rules, more than I probably should, but my main goal as GM or player is to make the story as good as it can be. My gamist aspect comes through in my love for absurdly point efficient characters and cheesy tactics (Invisibility coupled with invisible power effects attacks...). I don't use them much, but the urge is always there. ;)

[Snarf]

And I kinda disagree that HERO is heaven only for gamists and simulationists. No doubt it's very through system has it's appeals to those kinds of gamers, but it offers something a narrativist (though a narrativist who still mantain a certain level of interest in the rules, of course) considers very important: flexibility.
Totally agreeing with you. When I used GURPS, I pretty much had to choose powers from a list. If I wanted to include something new, for story purposes or whatever reason, I would have to handwave it pretty often.

This isn't a problem with Hero because it's designed for flexibility with balance. It lets my inner narrativist and gamist cooperate.

Narritivist: 50%
Gamist: 25%
Simulationist: 25%

[Dauntless]

I was thinking about the very first time I played the original Star Wars game from West End Games, and how everyone in the group but one wanted to play a Jedi. From that group, I'd say two were powergamers, two were simulationists, and the other two were narrativists. The narrativists loved the idea of playing a Jedi because of the roleplaying opportunities of having to control one's emotions and the constant struggle between the dark and light side. As for me being in the Simulationist camp, I wanted to see what it would be like to have powers beyond human ken, and how they would affect my playing of that character and others reactions towards my character. The powergamers simply felt that being jedi would allow you to be more powerful. The lone exception was the other simulationist (although he was borderline sim-narrative) since he had his heart set on playing a fighter pilot.

But the thing that struck me as absurd was that Jedi are supposed to be rare. The gift of Force sensitivity is something extremely rare in the Star Wars universe. So having everyone in the group wanting to play one struck me as odd and not consistent within the logical framework of the Star Wars universe. But that was the Simulationist in me speaking. The narrativist people had no problems about having lots of Jedi, and the powergamers were somewhat reluctant since they thought they had lost their ace-in-thehole, but on the other hand it was less likely that the NPC's they came up against would be more powerful (one of the gamists was what I'd call a good powergamer...he wanted to gain his objective, whether it be money, victory, possession of an item etc, for the benefit of the team as a whole...the other gamist was pretty much out for himself). But we eventually created a training cadre of the new class that skywalker was training...so that appeased my need for logical consistency to explain why practically everyone in our group was a rare jedi.

I've been thinking about a similar sort of issue in Fantasy Hero concerning magic use. Depending on your game world, if magic is rare but powerful, the different kind of gamers will want it for different reasons, and the GM may have to plan accordingly. I wouldn't mind giving a character like Gandalf to a Narrativist (as long as he wasn't a power-hungry narrativist)...I'd think twice about giving a Simulationist a character like that, and I wouldn't allow it at all to a Gamist. That's the narrativist in me, since I feel that who the character is more important than what he can do (given reasonable constraints...so it's a matter of trust). I feel that as long as the player can play the character in a manner which fits the game world (that's the simulationist in me) then I say let him play an "unbalancing" character.

In a Star Wars setting....according to my Simulationist mindset, Jedi are rare but are more powerful. If a player wants to play a Jedi character, let him, and let his character have more points than others. But to the gamist mindset, this might be unfair, unless either he wants to play a Jedi, or if he feels his fighter pilot character (say Wedge for example) should be built off as many points as a newly knighted Jedi. I think balancing constructs are primarily for the Gamist type....and to a lesser degree the Simulationists so that we can gauge whether something isn't quite right logically speaking (if STR 10 character can do more damage with a knife than a STR 20 character can with a broadsword....we're going to wonder what's going on and need a logical explanation of why...for example perhaps he's extremely skilled and bought extra DC to reflect his uncanny ability to target vital anatomy).

Sometimes I even find it more enjoyable to play lesser point characters versus slightly higher point characters (about no more than a 33% spread). Perhaps this is from my wargame background from playing the "losing side". For example, playing the confederates at Antietam and Fredricksburg, to the French at Borodino and Waterloo. There's a certain challenge in playing the underdog and "hopeless" character that's appealing to me.

The best scenario for a GM is that all his players are of one type...that way he can cater his games to that type. The trick is when everyone is different or all the players are balanced between gaming styles. Sometimes it's a bit harder to create a game world and customize the meta-rules to appease everyone...but I definitely think it can be done.

[Zed-F]

Hmm, it's a bit of a tough call for me, as I don't get much opportunity to actually play anymore.

I like to design efficient characters, regardless of the game system, and I have played characters that under the right circumstances can be over-powered... but character concept is paramount, and internal gameworld consistency is important too. My favourite character was a D&D character that I ported over from a Vampire: the Masquerade game for a Ravenloft (quasi-horror) campaign. Most of the time, she was useless -- don't ever let her near you with a first aid kit -- but under the right circumstances, she would frenzy and turn into a killing machine. Most combats she would sit out 3/4 of the fight, trying to stay out of combat, until one or two foolish mobs cornered her, and got shredded for their efforts in about 2 seconds flat.

When I'm designing Hero characters, character concept and efficient design are still the primary considerations. I'm not into powergaming in the sense of liking high-powered characters or crisis-style plotlines, but I do like to have characters that are both well-rounded and relatively powerful for the amount of points available. I also like a campaign to have limits enforced to ensure that certain expectations about the game can be validly held, and to help prevent overly abusive rules manipulations from occurring.

I guess I would say I'm about 40% Narrativist, 40% Simulationist, and 20% Gamist. Or maybe 45% Narrativist, 30% Simulationist, and 25% Gamist. Something like that, anyway. :)

[Rene]

The first message by Dauntless discussed the three archetypes of gamers and how they relate to players. But I was wondering if we can apply those archetypes to GMs too. Why not? I guess I can broadly classify all the GMs I had in those three categories too.

The Narrativist GM: This is the guy that, first and foremost, is telling a story. The Good Narrativist GM is the one that tells a story together with (and for the enjoyment of) the players. He'll take pains to let the characters affect the outcomes and the outcomes reflect the characters. Everything must "fit" dramatically. The Bad Narrativist GM is telling a story to the players and that is it. He'll accept no input and usually will have NPCs in the main roles, or if he allows the PCs to be in the spotlight, he will railroad the PCs mercilessly. Those guys are egotistical SOBs.

The Simulationist GM: This is the guy that creates his campaign as a beautiful architectonical piece. The Good Simulationist GM makes the players feel like they're part of this intrincate and highly-realized world, using his simulationist skills to enhance the enjoyment of the players. The Bad Simulationist GM is the "let the dice always fall where they may" guy that shows zero regret to kill the entire part because someone slipped and rolled bad or something. He isn't evil, he is just unemotional.

The Gamist GM: This is the guy that loves to challenge the players. The Good Gamist GM is a fair sportsman, he enjoys crafting fights, puzzles and encounters like that, but he will take into account the character's (and the player's) level of skill and will give them a fair chance. The Bad Gamist GM delights in torturing the players with nigh-impossible encounters. The worst specimens will not kill the characters. Instead, they'll have NPCs to save the day after hours and hours of frustration. And they'll laugh as the NPCs reveal how the characters should have acted to kill the monster/solve the puzzle. Those guys are evil.

I must say I prefer Narrativist GMs (and I'm a Narrativist GM myself too), though I have had some very good experiences with some Simulationist GMs. Hardcore Gamist GMs will either bore me (when they're easy enough for me to "beat") or make me feel like I'm doing a exam (when they're not easy to beat). Not fun.

[Tim]

As a player, I'm probably:
50% simulationist
40% narativist
10% Gamist

I'd rather the Narative be higher, but I'm not all that good at interaction part of the game.

As a GM I'm probably:
60% Narativist
20% Simulationist
20% Gamist

I'm a very free form GM and do little planning besides a broad outline. My games tend to be heavy on in party RPing and clearcut fights, light on NPC interatction.

[Lord Mhoram]

As a player I am something like a 70% Narrativists adn 30% Gamist. .

A quick example of the three I remember reading somewhere... There is something in a group a buildings the PCs need. The simulationist picks one, and when the PCs find it, they find it. The narrativists picks the most dramatic point to have the characters find it, and a gamist picks which would challenge the players most.

For me it is all story and character. The trouble is I love HERO combat, and build combat monsters, so I am very much a gamist that way (although I detest logic problems and puzzles to solve, I can never do it). In some ways I am the combinations of worst player types. When building or designing characters I tend to minimax, and build really efficient characters. Then I have a really intricate background and complete personality, so when I play I completely forget abou the minimaxing and just play (which means I will do stupid things in character which a normal powergamer would never do), which can mean I am something of a spotlight hog (although I try and watch it, and back off). So in the end at worst I am a powergamer/attention stealer... however I am a long term GM so I watch myself, and back off on these tendencies, so I don't ruin things for anyone else.


Knowing the tendencies of a group can be helpful. Our group had me and two total narrativists, and a new player who is an almost complete simulationsist/gamist. He was always dissisfied with the combats, because tactics weren't a big deal. Then he ran a game that was an unmitigated disaster, because he GMed a simulationist/gamist approach and we all went narritivist, doing dramatically appropriate things that got us captured and worse.

We all realized what had happened, after some analysis. But had we "defined" ourselves it probably would not have happened.

[Snarf]

What about the Killing-Timeist? The guy you discover doesn't care much about any of those three things, doesn't know a lot about the game, and just uses it as an opportunity to be a jackass or occasionally kill stuff.

[Keneton]

50% gamist
10% narrativist
40 Simulationists.

My palyers are like minded in most cases. Dont get me wrong, I can role-play with the best of them but I like action too much to ignore mechanics and rules.

:D

[Rene]

Originally posted by Snarf
What about the Killing-Timeist? The guy you discover doesn't care much about any of those three things, doesn't know a lot about the game, and just uses it as an opportunity to be a jackass or occasionally kill stuff.

Those folks aren't even gamers. Sadly, I played with far too many of them. :(

I guess I should feel grateful that at least I've never had one of those nightmarish surreal experiences narrated in the "worst game experience" thread. I've been in few horrible games, but in a lot of mediocre ones, I guess.

[Rene]

Originally posted by Keneton
50% gamist
10% narrativist
40 Simulationists.

My palyers are like minded in most cases. Dont get me wrong, I can role-play with the best of them but I like action too much to ignore mechanics and rules.

:D

Nothing wrong with that, but I have to say I like action too, even though I consider myself a narrativist. I have to admit I rather dislike that kind of narrativist game where all the characters spend all their time sipping at tea and discussing how they were abused when they were children.

The GM/players that really get my respect are the ones that can roleplay IN COMBAT. There is nothing better than a GM that can make a combat scene memorable from a storywise, character-driven point too. It's not easy.

[Sketchpad]

I would say I was 60% Narrativist, 34% Simulationist and 6% Gamist ;)

Unfortunatly, most of the time I'm in a group of 75% Gamists ... though I've lucked out recently and have a solid group of storyplayers :D

[Captain Obvious]

Man, I was all set to say I was a simulationist, but then everyone had to go and break things down into percentages. I don't know how I fit now.

It seems to me, though, that narrativist and simulationist have significant overlap. When I was running my Lankhmar campaign, I stole adventure ideas from any source I could get my hands on, but most of them didn't make the cut, and many of those that did were altered considerably. A story in the wrong setting isn't a good story at all.

[NuSoardGraphite]

As a GM (Which I tend to be primary GM for most of my gaming groups) I break down like this:

Narrativist: 50%
Simulationist: 25%
Gamist: 25%

[Keneton]

It seems from comments on this board that the narativist are pointing fingers at the gamist like "We are the star-belly sneeches and were the best sneeches on the beaches! We've got stars on thars!"

I can role play with anyone. The genre is about KICKING BOOTY! If you want to talk about how your character makes pancakes and role play your trip to the car dealreship go ahead.

Conflict and tension drive stories. No conflict, no story. This is basic literature. After my villan stomps you a few times you will hate him. You will feel great when you defeat him. You will mean it when you shout "This is the last day you're reign of terror Superfiend. Today you will meet Justice!"

Mechanics bring reality to the game world. I dont ignore the rules to tell a story. A story makes sense when it flows within the rules. Do I bend them occasionaly, yes. Do I dismiss them out of hand, no.

Anyone that feels superior to me because they are in a group of role players look out. I have my cake and eat it too. Any player in Unearthed Mechana or Star Hero knows what I mean. A good GM does it all baby!

If you are the GM and your player runs the game...shame on you. You shouldnt be GM if you cant control your players. I just dont understand the Superhero game without combat. Its touch football. And the NFL is not touch football.

:D

[Spectrum]

I see myself as mostly a narrativist. I like to do stuff with my character that I think is just cool. My particular playing style as a couple of friends have said is "style over substance." I'm currently in an Exhalted campaign and on of the optional rules that we use in the game is the "stunt rule" where you can get extra dice for actions based on how you describe them.

[RadeFox]

Simulationist- 70%
Gamist - 15%
Narrative - 15%

Cool posts, neat way to explore folks gaming styles! :) I like the narritive ideas, but I always want them to be within the bounds and limits of the game and world as established.

[Rene]

Originally posted by Keneton
Anyone that feels superior to me because they are in a group of role players look out. I have my cake and eat it too. Any player in Unearthed Mechana or Star Hero knows what I mean. A good GM does it all baby!

If you are the GM and your player runs the game...shame on you. You shouldnt be GM if you cant control your players. I just dont understand the Superhero game without combat. Its touch football. And the NFL is not touch football.

:D

I never thought (or even implied) that "narrativists" are "better" than any other kind of player. There are horrible "narrativists" out there, as well as horrible "gamists".

There is a misconception that all "narrativists" want to narrate stories akin to art movies or something. I hate art movies. With a passion. I want to narrate high-intensity epic situations.

And it's clear that combat is essential to the superhero genre (and many other genres). But there is combat and then there is combat, if you know what I mean. The guy that can roleplay in combat gets my wholehearted respect. I don't care if the combo maneuvers he chooses are the best tactical options (the gamist viewpoint), what matters to me is that he makes his actions sound and look dramatic and adequate for the character and the scene. Like in a good movie or novel.

That is all.

Likewise, mechanics are a important part of action-based genres. But I'd say they're only one of the things that give reality to a game world. Anyway... I always thought every GM worthy his salt must know all the mechanics from a system really well. Even if just to better know what to ignore and what to bend.

[Keneton]

Originally posted by Rene
I never thought (or even implied) that "narrativists" are "better" than any other kind of player. There are horrible "narrativists" out there, as well as horrible "gamists".

There is a misconception that all "narrativists" want to narrate stories akin to art movies or something. I hate art movies. With a passion. I want to narrate high-intensity epic situations.



That is true. You did not say, but some have. You will hear catch phrases like mature gamers, hack and slash gamers and rules lawyers.

Most of these are just symptoms of bad GM's not aspects of play style. I know the rules, how to kick butt, and also how to role play.

I never implied or thought that you felt that way. Your comments were/are well thought out. Read between the lines on other posts and you will see what I am saying. Look at other threads an you will see.

Go to Gen Con and Origins and you will see many different camps playing Hero. Read the post of many so called mature gamers and their opinion of combats being too slow and too cumbersome. Some play with no combat, no tacticle movement, no conflict. Booo to them. They should play Amber! Make mine Hero.
:D

[Dauntless]

I think you have to have the "right game for the right player". I agree that no gamer type is better than the other except rules-exploiters and argumentative rules-lawyers...they suck.

I think all parties are guilty of lambasting others though. Narrativists think Simulationists are hung up on realism. Simulationists think Gamists forget about the means by focusing too much on the end. Gamists think Narrativists are too subjective.

The trick is in understanding how players want their games to play like since this is what they find "fun" about roleplaying. I think it's fairly easy to accomdate 2 of the 3 game styles, but I think it's extremely hard to have all 3.

The Gamist-Simulationist is the easiest hybrid to set up. Both sides have concerns about point totals and rules...they just have different reasons for why they care. The gamist won't care if you introduce an unrealistic piece of equipment....as long as he can have it. The next easiest hybrid is probably Simulationist-Narrative. The simulationist wants to play within the construct of the game world and will get enjoyment out of exploring the possibilities of that world...including getting into character. However, while a narrativist doesn't care if something doesn't make logical sense as long as it tells a good story, this will bother the simulationist (for example, if you have a world with high magic, and it's easy to make self-powering teleportation portals....why will people need lots of caravans or ships...such things will have to be explained to the satisfaction of the simulationist). The other difficulty is that the Simulationist cares about rules, since the rules "simulate" possibility...if the concern for accurate rules bogs down gameplay, the narrativist may balk. The hardest hybrid is the gamist-narrativist campaign. While it's possible to be a good roleplayer but want to "win" at whatever you do, the fixation on balance and rules may bother the more pure narrativists who feel character concept and letting the story flow be more important. It's definitely possible though if done right.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Ah, some good discussion going on here!
Strong opinions being laid out on the table, yet everyone has remained civil (thus far). Thats why I love this board!

Allow me to put in my two cents worth.

I disagree that no one gamer "stereotype" is better than another. I'd much rather play with a 100% Roleplayer (or even a 100% Munchkin, as they are easily controlled) than a 100% Ruleslawyer any day. They are most certainly a "mood killer".

I encourage people in my games to be Narativists (Roleplayers) because it helps me weave a good story. If the players assist you in this endeavor, it makes the GM's job 200% easier.

I don't mind playing with Munchkins and Powergamers. They are usually very easy to please...just give them at least 1 combat situation per game session and give them lots of combat situations where their characters can whoop-ass all over the competition from time to time to make them feel good. Every 3 or 4 game sessions, give them a slaughterfest where they can use their characters to the fullest, and they'll keep coming back to your game and you'll be The Bestest GM Ever. As long as the Munchkin isn't too loud/boisterous and doesn't get the other PC's into trouble (too often) then the other players usually can get along with the Munchkin fairly well, or at worst, simply ignore them.

The hardcore Rules Lawyer just simply sucks. They can't be reasoned with. They interrupt the game with their incessant whining. They step all over the toes of the other players, whining to the GM that "They can't get away with that action" and other such nonsense. They argue with the GM constantly about his rulings and whether or not they mesh with the "Spirit of the rules as they were written" etc, etc. Rules Lawyers will suck the fun out of a game session faster even than the annoying "Significant Other" archtype.
And this has nothing to do with the GM. The only difference between a good GM and a bad GM in this situation, is that the good GM won't invite the bastard back for additional sessions. (a difficult situation if the Rules Lawyer is a long time friend)

I don't mind a player who has elements of the Rules Laywer (Gamist as they're called here) as long as they respect the authority of the GM and don't interfere with the overall groups ability to enjoy the game.

[Dog Soldier]

From the definitions given I suspect that everyone here is in fact 100% Simulationist. I've played with Gamist, if it had Stats they could kill it. I've played with Narratist. Entire gaming sessions were the character sheets lay neglected on the table. Neither of those two types would even be having this discussion :D

[hex706f726368]

Wow! I'm really surprised by all the dominant narratists replying. Maybe it's just me, but the game seems to call out to the gamist in everyone.

I'd say I was:

50% gamist
25% narratist
25% simulationist

Half the fun for me is building characters. :D

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by hex706f726368
I'd say I was:

50% gamist
25% narratist
25% simulationist

Half the fun for me is building characters. :D I'm the same way, but I'd break it down differently for me. I'm probably 40% narratist, 35% simulationist, and 25% gamist.

[BlackSword]

I would say the best style is definitaly a mix. You need some gamist aspects (at least in Hero) because everyone must operate in the same rules, otherwise people begin to whine, "Why can't I do that?" "Well you didn't think of it, and he did so he gets to outside of the rules and you get to clean up after him." Narrativist is good because otherwise you might as well play a war game without a good story (though I do enjoy playing wargaming as well). And simulationist is good for keeping everything real and more down to earth (for that particular genre). Obviously anyone of these three can be abused, and each area has its good and bad examples to take from it. Myself I am probably more 40 simulationist 40 gamist and 20 narrativist. I don't tend to be good at describing my character's action in play, but I enjoy writing up recaps at the end of session for players who missed and as a campaign history.

If you want to see some people who get really touchy about the different classificatinos jump over to the NWN forums. Some people want to completely role-play in a D&D CRPG, while others are pure power-gamers, and so you get to hear the wonderful complaining going from side to side. Both sides tend to go way overboard and miss the point that the game is meant to have fun. With any game you have to do some power gaming during character creation, my example for D&D is that you wouldn't make a cleric with 10 wisdom so you don't get any divine spells, if thats what you want you make your character a pious fighter.

[Snarf]

Originally posted by hex706f726368
Wow! I'm really surprised by all the dominant narratists replying. Maybe it's just me, but the game seems to call out to the gamist in everyone.
I think Hero is just as encouraging to narrativists, because it allows you to create abilities, disadvantages, and so on to fit the story, rather than having to choose them from a list or completely ignore the rules. It takes some work, but you can usually create any character, world, or storyline you want within the rules.

[Victor]

This is tough...

I can easily say I'm around 65% Simulationist, maybe even a tad higher. That's the basis of my Love/Hate relationship with the HERO System. I often get into a meta-simulationist mode, too... exploring how adding a rule here, or changing something there affects other parts of the system, as much (or more) for the sake of tinkering than any intent to necessarily use those alterations.

That sometimes makes it hard to digest a large text like FREd or the FHonebook, and end up remembering all of it was it was actually written. Is it a behavior pattern, or an illness? I don't know.

Finding the divider between Gamist and Narrativist is much more troublesome for me, though. I think I tend to waffle a lot between the two, going back and forth between 25%/10% and 10%/25% depending on what's going on in the particular game session at that time.

[Rene]

Originally posted by Dog Soldier
From the definitions given I suspect that everyone here is in fact 100% Simulationist. I've played with Gamist, if it had Stats they could kill it. I've played with Narratist. Entire gaming sessions were the character sheets lay neglected on the table. Neither of those two types would even be having this discussion :D

Well, no one here is a a pure Narrativist or a pure Gamist, that is for sure. I think pure "whatever" is a somewhat rare type of gamer. All of us are interested enough in the system. I consider myself more of a Narrativist. I'm not particularly bothered by less-than-perfect rules use and I'm not a realist at heart (so I don't consider myself a Simulationist), and I think losing with flair can be as good as winning (so I don't consider myself a Gamist). Still I have enough of a Simulationist in me to feel better when I have the rules as a safety net when I GM or play. I don't always use the rules, but I like to know they're there whenever I need them, you see.

[Dauntless]

I think there's a difference between a Gamist and a "Rules-layer" or "power gamer". A gamist is interested in "winning". But victory can come in several shapes and forms, but it's usually something rules bound, or some kind of quanitifiable object to get. For example, a player who just wants to increase his character's levels, character points, etc would be a Gamist. A player who wants as much wealth as possible, or the best kill ratio would be a gamist too. Instead of focusing on subjective things like story and roleplaying, a gamist will focus on the empirical or quantifiable. These kinds will tend to be the "Pro from Dover" more often than not.

However, I agree that rules-lawyers and power-gamers suck. Both are deviants of the Gamist type. The key to remember about all the types is that they want to have "fun". But the rules-laywer gets his fun from making sure every rule is exploited to gain him maximum advantage. Similarly, the power-gamer throws out any sort of character concept in order to create what he considers the most efficient machine possible...often combining the trait of the rules-laywer to find loopholes to make his creation even more powerful. Often, they are argumentative, and as you said, "mood-killers".

But just regular gamists I have no problem with. In fact, I posit that the Hero System is designed more for gamists than any other group. The whole concept of balancing out costs is a very Gamist concept. For example, if you read Fantasy Hero, there's a blurb talking about why "Absolute Powers" were frowned on in the Hero System because they were too unbalancing. And yet many genres (especially magic) is rife with them. Because the Hero System hinges around character "equality" this caters to the gamist mindset that everything has to be fair. Fairness is not that relevant to either Simulationists (reality isn't always fair) nor Narrativists (sometimes its fun playing the underdog). You can use the Hero System almost purely as a wargame...with characters on hex maps and writing down actions for every phase. So regular gamists are alright, they just want to win...we all do, they just want it in a more concrete and less-subjective form than the other types.

[Mordacius]

A gamist is interested in "winning". But victory can come in several shapes and forms, but it's usually something rules bound, or some kind of quanitifiable object to get.
Got it in one.

I'm a gamist. When I play, I care about the details of the story, and I want a good, logical world. But the thing I really look forward to is a chance to kick ass. Lets me blow off steam.

I don't see anything wrong with this, because for me, this means outsmarting the competition, be it tactically or politically. It's not enough to beat the enemy: on a good day, they should never see it coming.

Also, it means making winning a team effort because the other players are valuable paw-...er, they're my friends, and it wouldn't be fun for them if I hogged center stage all the time. (I kid: only their characters are valuable pawns. ;) )

And while I do make powerful, efficient characters, I often handicap them to keep things interesting. Frex: the last time we played D&D, I made a Sorcerer with no combat spells, who waded into melee with a longsword right next to the party Fighter. Led to some truly excellent moments.


However, I agree that rules-lawyers and power-gamers suck. Both are deviants of the Gamist type.
Amen to that. Both of those types of people try to remove any possibility of losing from their games. I don't see the point in showing up, without a chance to fail.

[Mr. Negative]

I just wanted to comment on two things that emerged from this discussion that emphatically were not part of the original Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist essays:

First, combat, wanting combats, or creating combat-capable characters isn't Gamist. All three types of gaming can accomodate and encourage combat. For examples:

Narrativists might want to roleplay a disgraced knight, or a wandering samurai, or a feckless but undefeated swordsman. They might be frustrated because the rules don't allow them to be as capable in combat as they envision their characters to be, or a Narrativist game might allow them to be deadly in combat, simply because that is how their character is conceived.


Simulationists who desire combat would want that combat to "make sense" in the game world. If firearms haven't been invented, making plate armors obsolete, then fencing weapons would be rare or non-existent. Fencers fighting heavily armored knights would lose quickly, as they couldn't hurt their shielded opponents. A simulationist would be frustrated in a game where unarmed, unarmored monks were just as effective in combat as knights, because, if they were, why did we develop weapons and armor in the first place. They would enjoy combats that seemed believable or historically accurate.

Gamists tend to want an equal chance in combat. If characters A and B have spent 40 points each on combat skills, then both should be equally effective. More than an accurate simulation, or a story to integrate into their narrative, Gamists want a challenge that they have an opportunity to win, not based on story needs, but based on their character's design and usage. Gamists might be frustrated by GMs who present a fight that they MUST win, or MUST lose, to advance the storyline. A gamist wants to know that they won the fights on their own merits as a player.


Also, Gamists are not necessarily combat-oriented, or combat-monsters. A gamist is concerned with the challenges encountered in the story, as challenges (not as part of their personal narrative). For instance, a Gamist running a thief might want to know what kind of skill levels he needs to have to be a good lockpick. He wants to know that if he puts X points into being stealthy, he will be effective at being stealthy. This isn't limited to the points based system. If a Vampire gamist player puts 5 dots into a skill, and 5 dots into the attribute that skill uses, he wants to know that he is going to be successful with that skill a LOT, whether that is Dexterity+Melee or Perception+Search. The gamist wants to match himself against the challenges in the game, and wants to have some idea of how his character design will help him against challenges.

Thus you could argue that:

Hero encourages Gamist play as it uses a consistent points-based system that starts out players on level playing fields and allows them to be matched up against points-equivalent opponents.

HERO encourages Simulationist play as it's system is easily modified by the GM to reflect the reality of any campaign world you might imagine.

HERO encourages Narrativist play because the open-ended character creation process allows you to create the character you envision.

but you might also argue that

Hero discourages Gamist play because the rules allow certain combinations of skills and powers to be disproportionately effective (say free equipment for warriors but no free spells for wizards).

Hero discourages Simulationist play because the open-ended nature of the game allows and encourages Players to use powers, skill, and attributes that may be disruptive to the setting (Precognition, Teleportation)

Hero discourages Narrativist play because the points limitations on characters prevent certain character conceptions with high points totals (a god disguised as a wizard).

[zornwil]

I think HERO is pretty strong material for any type of course but while I agree there's some affinity for gamist, there's also an affinity almost as strongly towards simulation, given its degree of detail and its flexibility.

For myself as a GM, I'd say it depends on in-combat, out-of-combat.

In-combat: 40% Gamist, 30% Simulation, 30% Narrative (I'd ilke to change that mix to like 50% Narrative, 25% Gamist, 25% Simulation but I just get caught up in effects and mechanics personally (he hit with this attack, you are stunned, it must be so) - fortunately players provide some good narrative to make up!)

Out-of-combat: 50% Narrative, 35% Simulation, 15% Gamist - I'm pretty happy with this for my GMing style and interaction with players, it seems to work well

For myself as a player though:

In-combat: 40% Narrative, 35% Simulation, 25% Gamist, roughly, it's pretty even though I'm not combat-effective and not too concerned with it if the GM is sharp enough to compensate just a tad

Out-of-combat: 60% Narrative, 30% Simulation, 10% Gamist, at least that's my guess

[Tech]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth
I'm the same way, but I'd break it down differently for me. I'm probably 40% narratist, 35% simulationist, and 25% gamist.

I'd say I'm.... 100% me, yup! Actually, I don't care for breaking myself down into easy-to-digest-personality- I'm too complex for that... and that's from my friends. :)