From what I understand the theory goes something like this: RPG gamers are divided into three camps, gamists, narrativists, and the simulationists. Each camp has their own creative agenda when they come to the table, or more plainly, they're all looking for a different experience when they game. In broad strokes, the gamist wants to compete "to win," the narrativist considers the creation of a player-driven story to be most important, and the simulationist most values immersion in their character. At least that's what I think I've been able to ascertain.
Whether or not you agree with this system of classification, it's worthwhile to acknowledge that not everyone has the same motivations for why they like to play RPGs. We all have our own ideas about where the fun lies in these games. When people with different goals game together it can be problematic. But does it have to be?
I ask myself this because I'm generally an introspective person and I'm naturally curious what camp I would fall into. Strangely, I'm not sure. There are aspects of each that at least, on the surface, seem compelling. However many proponents of this theory argue these agendas are mutually exclusive. I don't know how I feel about that. Human beings are perfectly capable of holding conflicting, even contradictory, motives or beliefs. It's part of what makes us such interesting, complex creatures. Also, I wonder if my goals would be the same as a player and a GM, or if I would have different agendas depending on what side of the table I'm sitting on.
I don't think I fit into narrativism. I like creating a good story, but I'm not driving towards some preconceived idea of a satisfying narrative. I want to play to find out what happens, even if that doesn't make a particularly compelling story. I don't particularly care for the actor-turned-author stance where a character's story arc is more important than the dice. Again, at least as far as I'm able to understand this agenda.
I think I would have characterized my younger self as a gamist, not only because I was interested in seeing my character advance in levels, but additionally because I wanted, as a player, to cleverly figure things out and to be rewarded for playing well. I had little use for in-character role-play, usually favoring first-person exposition over direct dialogue. Now, I find myself drawn more towards simulationism, where playing a role well is its own reward regardless of how much XP or GPs are involved. That said, I think I can still have fun even if I'm not fully immersed. What's interesting are the questions, can our creative agendas expand or even change over time, or do our perceptions of our true motivations change?
I've also begun trying to analyze where the players at my current table fit into this theory and how compatible their motivations may be with my own. So far, we've all had a good time during the games I've run, but I have noticed a little strain. One of my friends would definitely be a gamist as a player. His level of fun seems directly related to how well his character is doing in-game. If he's killing a lot of monsters and accomplishing tasks, he's happy. If his character is on his last couple of hit points and having a hard time hitting anything, he gets mopey. He begged to play a Paladin despite my initial suggestion we stick to the four core classes. He wanted the extra powers, but later mock-complained about needing more XP than everyone else to level up.
Interestingly enough, this friend has run a couple of games I've played in (4e and DCC), and he had a very railroad-y approach to the game. He wrote his adventures out as a series of story scenes that the PCs had to hit. His satisfaction depended on the players running through the story as he designed it. Once I heard about the GNS model, I recognized pretty quickly how different our play styles were once I had the vocabulary to articulate it. The question remains, is there enough overlap between us to play together? Or does the fact that we're very good, old friends smooth over any of the potential sticking points?
I guess what I try to focus on are the places where our play styles do overlap. Despite driving "to win," my friend is an excellent role-player, very comfortable with in-character dialogue and eager to play through a scene versus waiting to roll dice. He also enjoys when he can become immersed and is nonplussed if another player upon hearing the description of a creature says, "Oh, it's Stirges." There are also shared preferences outside of creative agendas where we can find common ground - for instance genre, session pacing, and tone (mix of gravitas and humor). We've been able to find a happy medium somewhere in the middle. Whether or not that continues to be the case once his character dies remains to be seen.
The GNS theory is an interesting idea and can be a good shorthand way to figure out if you're on the same wavelength as someone else, possibly saving yourself time and headaches playing with people who aren't looking for the same experience as you. At the same time, I don't think it's the end-all, be-all. These kinds of divisions, whether natural or contrived, tend make people breaks into antagonistic tribes, claiming their way is better than any other.
RPGs already bring out an inner defensiveness in their practitioners possibly due to how vulnerable players are while role-playing. Good role-playing involves a certain amount of trust and openness between players which leave them exposed to criticism, prone to feeling silly. In light of this vulnerability, it can be easy for players to be defensive and insecure of whether they are "doing it right." Sure, RPGs have rules (sometimes lots of them), but in the end, what we're doing is pretty squishy and open to interpretation. That's part of the magic.
I'm not sure if I'll ever make peace with this theory, but if nothing else, it's an interesting exercise which hopefully helps us be honest with ourselves about what we're really after in playing these games.
