What kind of gamer are you?

[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]

Re: Sneeches!

 

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.

 

 

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.

[Guest Keneton]

Re: Re: Sneeches!

 

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

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

 

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.