summ( )n

as games are at the top of Summ()n’s toolbox i thought it would be fitting to provide some game theory. after all, what’s the fun of practice if you don’t have theories to get into flamewars about? so to start off i’m going to write a bit about RPG theory (notice: no MMO before that). hereby i’m also giving away my long history of playing ‘pen and paper’ roleplaying games. since there’s been a lot of theorizing about roleplaying games over the years this will the first post in a series. to find out what roleplaying is, go here.

while there is a lot of depth to the theoretical side of playing (and designing) RPGs let’s start simple: the threefold model.

one of the most important observations (*) about playing RPGs (henceforth: gaming) is that it is sometimes hard to get players within a group aligned on what exactly the purpose of the game is; ‘why are we playing this game?’ aside from the too straightforward answer that it’s about having fun, it seems that different players have different thoughts on what they want to get out of gaming. luckily, these different goals can be captured in three distinct categories or ‘styles’: gamism, narrativism, and simulationism. hence the name threefold model or GNS theory.

gamism gamist play is about competition among players (the real people, often players vs GM) about metagame goals; it includes victory and loss onditions for characters, both short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people’s actual play strategies. the idea behind gamist play is that the competition among the players is a source of fun. it is not a “distraction from” or “failure of” roleplaying but rather an addition to or even the goal of playing. gamist play usually focuses on overcoming obstacles/winning or character advancement. characters face successively tougher challenges and opponents. decisions are made based on what will most effectively solve the problems faced. game mechanics usually focus on conflict resolution.

narrativism narrativist play focuses on collectively constructing a story through events during play. the idea behind narrativist play is that there are moral or ethical ‘questions’ that interest or challenge players. the ‘answer’ to these questions is produced via play and the decisions of the players, not by pre-planning. narrativist play usually focuses on creating a shared story. character advancement is less important than character development. decisions are based on what would best further a dramatic story or address a central theme. game mechanics are usually not really relevant (it’s about what you do, not how it works).

simulationism simulationist play is about exploring in-game features such as character, situation, or setting. players try to imagine or feel these features to the greatest detail possible in in-game, internally causal terms. imagining is prioritized over any other aspect of role-playing, most especially over any metagame concerns. simulationist play usually focuses on the plausibility of in-game events. decisions are based on what would be the most realistic within the game’s setting. rules and mechanics try to simulate the way things work in the game world. game mechanics focus on plausibility and are usually very detailed and extensive.

although developed from a RPG point of view, GNS theory is applicable to broader gaming. in our Nederland 2024 game we’ve also encountered different modes of play between players. while some players had a plausible story about the future in mind, others were bending rules in order to achieve personal or meta-game goals.

now that we’ve covered some basics about gaming, next up are more aspects of RPGs: the BIG model.

source: i ripped most of this theory off the Forge. Ron Edwards is a pioneer in this matter. some of it is actually in my own words based on a presentation i made a few years back. come to think of it, i think i could actually be bribed to give this presentation.

(*) the other most important observation is that D&D needs more women

This was one of the presentations in Vanabbe Museum, as a part of the Dutch Design Week program; I need to write more about this particular program, I liked quite a lot of the works and projects presented there. This one, by the UK duo [names?] was quite hilarious. The plot is they allegedly designed a very sophisticated system of measuring the ‘true value of art’, based on the analysis of brain activities. Visitors had been asked to fill a ‘scientific questionnaire’, after which they watched a few art-work while wearing a ‘brain wave detector’ (a helm). Their ‘brain activity’ was projected in a ‘real time’ on the wall, illustrating their ‘true’ attitudes to the objects they’ve seen.

An excellent example of a very provocative ‘design probe’ (and sooo close to what we ourselves wanted to do at the DDW, with our Walking Backward to the Future installation. Great job!