What Kind of a Player Are You?

[Keklas Rekobah]

I recently started a thread on GNS theory, and began to wonder what kind of RPG player each member of CotI considers him- or her-self to be -- Gamist, Narrativist or Simulationist.

Gamists prefer to make in-game decisions based on what will most effectively solve the situations posed by the referee.

Narrativists prefer to make in-game decisions based on what would best further a dramatic story or address a central theme within the adventure.

Simulationists prefer to make in-game decisions based on what would be most realistic or plausible within the game's setting, on how the rules try to simulate the way that things work in that world, or at least the way that they could be thought of working.

Please take the survey, and leave comments in this thread.

Thank you,

KR

 

[sabredog]

Narrativist-Simulationist:

While I stay flexible in the ongoing narrative in order to keep things moving, enjoyable, and dramatic (Space is full of adventure, combat is exciting and fluid, heroes get more breaks...), I also keep things realistic as possible in the overall mechanics of the game (Space is harsh and unforgiving, combat will get you killed, unlucky heroes die too...).

I have found that actually enhances the dramatic sense by ensuring that the players know, for instance, that if they do something really nuts that they have a good chance of getting killed. And therefore, if they survive it makes the whole experience better for the narrative.

 

[aramis]

I'm Narrativist-Simulationist; both take equal parts of my time. I want enough reality to make sense, and enough story to give context to the simulation; when the two come into conflict, I am inconsistent in how I resolve.

 

[far-trader]

Narrativist stuck with Simulationist rules and Gamist players...

...seems like most often anyway

But I like all three in ways. I'm probably pretty much center of the graph.

...and where do I get a High Passage ticket to Planet X?

 

[Jame]

Don't know, don't care (well, I care, I just don't know). I reserve the right to do any and all of these, based upon the game, the referee, the day, the hour and how I feel at that particular time.

Besides, I really don't know.

 

[spinwardpirate]

I picked "Other, please explain" mostly because my group and I can really cover all of the bases, depending upon what the system is, who is in the group at the time, what sort of mood we are in, etc.

The bottom line for us is we want to have fun, and we'll accomplish it in any number of ways.

 

[Gray Lensman]

Whatever seems to work best and move the session along

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

... The bottom line for us is we want to have fun, and we'll accomplish it in any number of ways.

Truth, well said.

 

[aramis]

I picked "Other, please explain" mostly because my group and I can really cover all of the bases, depending upon what the system is, who is in the group at the time, what sort of mood we are in, etc.

The bottom line for us is we want to have fun, and we'll accomplish it in any number of ways.

Truth, well said.

And, essentially, non-answers. The whole point of the exercise is to see what styles of play generate fun for the individual.

 

[far-trader]

To clarify my answer above, re aramis' "non-answer" point, my choice above is in order of preference. I'd take narativist over the others any day. But some kind of rules help, and they are typically simulationist. And most other players seem to me more gamist than anything. Of course my own play style might be seen differently from the other side of the table. And the tone of the game and other gamers will often dictate my own. It's really hard to play narrativist if the ref is running simulationist or the other players are all gamist. Know what I mean?

 

[Icosahedron]

Simulationist-Narrativist, with a hint of Gamist.

For me, the most important factor in any game or story is to create an alternative, believable reality.

This means that my primary consideration is that the virtual world I enter/create must feel real, it must be internally consistent, it must follow its own laws of nature and it must have a basis in logic and common sense. I must be able to suspend disbelief.

In short, it must be an accurate simulation.

After this, I look for a good story, an interesting and exciting plot, something to capture my imagination. The last thing on my mind is:
"Ho hum, I'll just kill these five orcs and pocket their five gold pieces, then I can go up a level and kill five 'great' orcs and pocket their fifty gold pieces, then I can go up a level and..."
How boring is that? Why do you think I took up Traveller in the first place?

And don't get me started on a dragon sitting for ten centuries in a twenty foot room just waiting for me to kill it, with not even a pile of dung in the corner...

However, there is some gamist in me.

For example, no matter how logical and character-developing it would be for my character to spend twenty minutes chatting to a clerk about the weather, if I know that this NPC is just a mook placed there by the GM to facilitate buying a weapon, I'm going to move on and cut to the chase.

From the choices given, I've gone with Narrativist-Simulationist.

 

[saundby]

Symbiote.

I respond to my players, or, when playing I go with the campaign and party. Each style has its own joys, and watching any group's mechanics is interesting to me as well. (Symbiote-Observer?)

 

[spinwardpirate]

And, essentially, non-answers. The whole point of the exercise is to see what styles of play generate fun for the individual.

And my answer was, it depends on the circumstances.

 

[kafka47]

Narrativist-Simulationist is the way, I think best describes my player type. As it is similar to how I ref. Rules are there but so is an element of fun. A good Ref can always accomodate both.

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

Interesting side-note: As of this posting, only 42 members have responded to this poll. This means one of the following is true:

1) Out of all the CotI members, only 42 have seen fit to respond to this poll (most likely).

2) There are only 42 active members left on CotI, and every one has responded to the poll (less likely).

3) There are fewer than 42 members left on CotI, and at least one of them is a sock-puppet (even less likely).

4) There are only two members left on CotI -- one of them is reading this post right now, and the other is sock-puppetting for everyone else (least likely).

 

[aramis]

Interesting side-note: As of this posting, only 42 members have responded to this poll. This means one of the following is true:

1) Out of all the CotI members, only 42 have seen fit to respond to this poll (most likely).

Well, there are at least 11 registered members, 10 guests, and one ex-spammer, online right now.

(Just banned another spammer.)

 

[Leitz]

Gamer who likes a good story. (Gamer-Narrativist)

Using the character to solve a problem, working with other characters and the DM to give the problem some depth. I love writing back stories for my characters, or side-line events that don't really affect the in-game stuff. Definately not a gear head or ship builder.

L.

 

[Commander Truestar]

Simulationist - Gameist...

I mostly think that my character, in any situation would be trying to resolve those issues they are mired in while perhaps fading into the Narrativist a bit for those situations he has mired others in(if that applies). But mostly, I am playing the character to best suit that character. Then to resolve those issues they must get through to succeed.

Mind you: this is "Player" since I am in a vastly different mind mode when I am the GM. May of the commens so far are, to my mind, GM based. Drama is something the GM creates by placing the characters in situations that then combine with their choices and actions. If a character wants to be dramatic about an action...say playing up a wound...that does not(IMO) create drama over all. The reaction(s) of the other character(s) may create a dramtic situation. Or they just might shoot the over dramatic character someplace fleshy and say "Now you have something to complain about..."

Marc

 

[Madarin Dude]

Narrativist Simulationist with a twist to it. ( I picked other) I like games that are really character driven and like having a character that has unique and often unusual qualities most of them are not of the gamist sort more of trying to make a character that is more in the likes of a Cohen brothers film. I also do not take my games as seriously as some when I play I try to add some humor and there certainly is two schools there too.

 

[soloprobe]

Simulationist- Gamist ...I guess

Everybody seems to hide behind MY character at the first sign of trouble..