Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism in HERO

[KawangaKid]

Here's a link that discusses the differences between each:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/

Despite the arguments that many have had about Champions / HERO being a very 'roll-playing' oriented game, the article actually defines CHAMPIONS as being a Gamist-Narrativist game. Take THAT "True Roleplayers".

Unfortunately, he has a beef about 'Universal Role-Playing Systems' like HERO, so recent incarnations of HERO have rubbed him the wrong way...

[Hermit]

Ick, Insomnia may keep me up, but it doesn't help my synapses process all that. Still, it's interesting. I really don't know where I fit. I think Narativist mostly, but there are some simulationist traits in me, at least as a GM.

I'll probably just pick 'shut up and game', though that's a bit meaner than I'd want to come off as.

I'm a NICE RPer darn it!
:)

[Nato]

What is "true role-playing" other than playing make believe anyway.

[Shadowpup]

I had to go with Narrative because my players almost always do things to change the world and or game.

[MarkusDark]

Is also making others believe as well.

[Fuzzy Gnome]

Simulationism all the way, baby!!
It's all about exploring powers and SFX, campaign building, exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life and new civilizations, plumbing character's psyches, solving puzzles, speculating about the physics of magic or superpowers or FTL travel, using the imagination!
I hate Narrativism with a fiery, burning passion. I know I should save my hate for something that can return it, but there it is. Although my perceptions are off by about 60 degrees from the author's. I see Narrativism as including the worst of player-vs-player and player-vs-GM Machiavellian politics; if the players can influence the plot through meta-game rules like karma points or drama cards (or logic :rolleyes: ) rather than by currying the GM's favor it's more simulationism (logic) or gamism (metagaming) to me.

[zornwil]

It's hard for me take the article all that credibly when it starts with "My straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated. " Do you folks really beileve that?

[Toadmaster]

Thank you, I did have insomnia last night and this helped alot.

I also was put off by the statement that most gamers didn't like gaming, I've found many gamers are never satisfied with any rule set because they like to tinker, the rules could always be better.

All the talk of the GSN and stability or instability made me think of Dead Poets society "I like Byron but I can't dance to it" or something along those lines (its been awhile since I've seen the movie). In fact most of the examples he gave for unstable games are the games I like best. The stable ones I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. I detected quite a slant away from table and chart based games such as GURPS and HERO and a favoring of the new breed of games that we HERO player tend to make fun of.

It was an interesting article but as far as any real relevance to RPG design I think he is taking the whole thing a bit too seriously, I'd have to vote for shut up and game.

[Tasha]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Gnome
Simulationism all the way, baby!!
It's all about exploring powers and SFX, campaign building, exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life and new civilizations, plumbing character's psyches, solving puzzles, speculating about the physics of magic or superpowers or FTL travel, using the imagination!
I hate Narrativism with a fiery, burning passion. I know I should save my hate for something that can return it, but there it is. Although my perceptions are off by about 60 degrees from the author's. I see Narrativism as including the worst of player-vs-player and player-vs-GM Machiavellian politics; if the players can influence the plot through meta-game rules like karma points or drama cards (or logic :rolleyes: ) rather than by currying the GM's favor it's more simulationism (logic) or gamism (metagaming) to me.

Funny, I see Player vs Player and GM vs Players as being a Gamist way to play. I agree that games that are run that way aren't very much fun. I just hate when the GM railroads the characters into following his plot line, no matter how boring it is to the players. No one likes being run over by the GM Fiat.

To me Narrative can (and does in my games) encompass Simulation somewhat. I run the game to have fun with the players and the neat characters that they come up with. To me what is fun (not funny) rules. I like to flow with the character's actions. I like to have a general outline for the adventure, but I don't specify how the players reach the conclusion. I usually come up with the best ideas for the game when I am actually playing. My most memorable NPCs are ones that I invented while I was actively running. It is all about the characters. That doesn't mean that I make it easy on them. Giving players easy victories is just as bad as making them follow your Tightly scripted plot line.

I think that we are actually close in what we like in a game, but the adjectives mean different things to us.

Tasha :)

[ZootSoot]

I have to tag myself a simulationist, because narrativism is performer rather than participant oriented.

[Jerry A!]

Originally posted by Toadmaster

It was an interesting article but as far as any real relevance to RPG design I think he is taking the whole thing a bit too seriously, I'd have to vote for shut up and game.

I agree on the shut up and play. I got the impression from reading the article that he attributed certain types of players to certain rulesets. Maybe from his own personal experiences? Maybe he plays each of the games he listed out with different player groups.

I know from my experience that my group always behaves the same regardless of the rule system being used.

Bad players (and thus gaming sessions) does not equal bad rules!

[Ghost Archer]

Originally posted by Jerry A!
I know from my experience that my group always behaves the same regardless of the rule system being used.

I have always found it amusing how so many of my players fall into Hero's catalogries of "Plumber", "Combat Monster", etc. and it doesn't take long to sort out who's what and they NEVER change. So, I usually tailor my GMing style to fit the players of the moment. Personally, I prefer Narrativism as I log everything said in a game using WebRPG and write it up later for posting in our Yahoo Group. Makes good reading for all and keeps a record of the happenings throughout the campaign.

[Pol Rua]

Gonna go with shut up and play on this one as well.

It's a game folks. What that means is that it is a diversion. A bit of fun. Remember fun?

Whatever floats your boat is 'right'.

I used to know a guy. Terrible storyteller. Awful hackneyed plots. I would stab myself in the brain with an icepick rather than be in one of this guy's games.

But he always had players. And they always seemed to be enjoying themselves. And they always came back next time for more.

Therefore, I consider him to be a 'good' GM.


...


That said, the icepick thing stands.


________________________________________________
Pol.

[Bazza]

Originally posted by Nato
What is "true role-playing" other than playing make believe anyway.
Nato: this is what I thought and wrote about "role-playing" in the year 2000 as I reflected upon my hobby in the new millennium, well close anyway. I still agree with it, but I have learnt quite a bit more about role-playing since then. I hope you get something out of it.

What I see Role Playing to be.

Role Playing to me is a magical ritual. It involves going from the Macroverse (reality) to a Microverse (fantasy). It is the exploration of one's macroversal personality through the tool granted by the game to develop it through the playing of roles. The game grants the person the opportunity to take on roles that reality doesn't allow them, or roles that are more introverted. Hopefully the game allows the person the ultimate in free expression, to be themselves, to release their full personality, the one that reality constrains.

Role playing is playing a role that can be different to what the role fate/destiny, the macroverse has dictated or the person has chosen. This enables the personality of the person to develop and expose it through different scenarios in a safe (?) environment. I say "safe" because of some players are more likely to express themselves more freely then other players may like.

This entering of two different worlds, the macroversal and a microversal (much like C.S. Lewis' Narnia or Tolkein's Middle Earth) and the development of the mind and spirit is the ritual, it is the real magic of the game, the essence that we keep coming back for. It is a sort of religion, and most religions have rituals. Others may see it in a more New Age viewpoint as "personal development", which it is, by there are much more deeper levels that any book of "personal development" will tell you about.

The spiritual aspect is undeniable. Too many players have felt loss when a character, to which they have invested time, energy, matter and thought into, dies. The person "dies" with that character; it is traumatic experience and I dare say that 'only other players can understand' (paraphrased from my favourite song, Khe Sahn (http://www.coldchisel.com.au/l1_khesahn.html)).

One thing that role playing is not is "roll playing." What the dice represent in role playing will try to be shown below. In any situation a person has a choice to make about that situation, to make it or not to make it. In life there is luck, destiny, fate etc. This is what the dice rolls simulate, that random influence that effects all of us. There are two different views, generally, we make our own luck, and we forge our own destiny, through experience. No matter what the dice say (within reason) the above two premises' apply. This will then determine the behaviour of that character.

Those who "roll play" are yet to fully understand what "role playing" is all about. The roll players are in many ways their own victims, they let the dice dictate to them rather than to "dictate to the dice". They are subservient to destiny, fate, luck rather than the other way around.

I'm reminded of a terrific example: astrology. A lot of people see what the stars tell them for the day as an absolute while the medieval astrologers saw them as a means to help in a positive way. The astrologers saw the stars in a more objective way that they could change the destiny of their lives rather than being totally subservient to the star's whims. If you substitute stars for dice, well everybody could see that now.

The other thing that role playing emphasizes is experience. In the game you get rewarded by doing and this philosophy, empiricism, is one of the most dominate ones in role-playing games.