Johns FAQ, Part 1
Magnus Lie Hetland
The rec.games.frp.advocacy FAQ
==============================
PART I: The Threefold Model
1) What is the Threefold Model?
2) Which one am I? Drama-, Game, or Simulation-oriented?
3) Stop beating around the bush!! What is it already?
4) Don't those categories overlap?
5) This model sucks! How can I make it go away?
6) But I produce stories that are *always* believable. Aren't my
games both fully dramatist and fully simulationist?
7) So dramatism is ham actors playing through arty nonsense,
gamism is munchkins who want to beat the GM, and simulationism
is rules-lawyers who argue over ballistics?
8) I don't think I'm either dramatist or simulationist. I like
gaming, though, so I must be gamist, right?
(Part II of this FAQ deals with "plot", and Part III deals
with "diceless roleplaying")
WARNING: Most of the content of the FAQ was written in 1997, and
has not been significantly updated since that time. Thus, much of
the material here might not be relevant for current discussion.
Copies of this FAQ can be found on the WWW at:
"http://www.darkshire.org/~jhkim/rpg/styles/index.html"
The FAQ is posted bi-weekly to rec.games.frp.advocacy by
Magnus Lie Hetland <Magnus....@idi.ntnu.no>
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
1) What is the Threefold Model?
The Threefold Model is one way of grouping many aspects of
"group contracts" into logical categories. Full group contract
includes every facet of how the game is played: not just the
mechanical rules, but also how scenarios are constructed, what
sort of behavior is expected of PCs, how actions not covered by
the rules are resolved, allowance of outside distractions, and
so forth. The Threefold divides up many of these into categories
known as Drama, Game, and Simulation.
An important part of the model is recognizing that there are
valid different goals for gaming. Many models of RPGs or gamers
tend to have derogatory categories of "munchkin," "poser," "rules
lawyer," etc. which are contrasted with "true role-players". The
Threefold model is intended to promote looking at different styles
as just other ways of play.
Role-playing games don't simply classify into good and bad.
The exact same game which one player enjoys, another might dislike.
Rather than say that one or the other has bad taste, it is more
useful to try to make sense of patterns of what different players
and GMs enjoy. The Threefold is one method of classification,
which divides styles up into how much they are Drama-oriented,
Game-oriented, and/or Simulation-oriented.
What the Threefold applies to is an open question. It is
frequently used to look at GM decisions during a session about what
should happen in the game-world, and to a lesser extent at adventure
design during a campaign. As for other parts of the "game contract",
there are different views about its applicability. It may or may not
apply player behavior, out-of-game methods, system design, campaign
design, or other topics.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
2) Which one am I? Drama-, Game-, or Simulation-oriented?
Most likely, none of the above. Your individual style cannot
be pidgeonholed into a single word. More to the point, you probably
use a mix of different techniques, and work towards more than one
goal. You may tend more towards one corner of the triangle, but
you probably value a mix.
[...]
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
3) Stop beating around the bush!! What is it already?
OK, here is the short definitions:
"dramatist": is the style which values how well the in-game action
creates a satisfying storyline. Different kinds of stories
may be viewed as satisfying, depending on individual tastes,
varying from fanciful pulp action to believable character
drama. It is the end result of the story which is
important.
"gamist": is the style which values setting up a fair challenge for
the *players* (as opposed to the PC's). The challenges may be
tactical combat, intellectual mysteries, politics, or anything
else. The players will try to solve the problems they are
presented with, and in turn the GM will make these challenges
solvable if they act intelligently within the contract.
"simulationist": is the style which values resolving in-game
events based solely on game-world considerations, without
allowing any meta-game concerns to affect the decision.
Thus, a fully simulationist GM will not fudge results to
save PC's or to save her plot, or even change facts unknown
to the players. Such a GM may use meta-game considerations
to decide meta-game issues like who is playing which character,
whether to play out a conversation word for word, and so
forth, but she will resolve actual in-game events based on
what would "really" happen.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
4) Don't those categories overlap?
True, these goals are not *constantly* at odds. On the
short term, a given conflict might happen to be both a fair
challenge and realistically resolved. However, every game
will have problems, including undramatic bits, unrealistic
bits, and unbalanced bits. The Threefold asks about how much
comparative effort you put into solving these.
Even a perfectly simulationist or gamist campaign will have
dramatic bits in them. After all, people will tell stories
about things that happened to them in real life, or even about
what happened in a chess game they were playing. Similarly, a
dramatist campaign will have some conflicts that are a fair
challenge for the players, and some events that are realistic.
But an equally-skilled gamist GM, who doesn't put effort into
the quality of the story, will be able to make better
challenges. Similarly, a simulationist GM, who focusses only
on in-game resolutions, will be able to make things more
"realistic" for that game-world.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
5) This model sucks! How can I make it go away?
You can't make it go away entirely. It is an idea which
some people are bound to talk about. The way to reduce its
usage in discussion is to not talk about it.
It existed before the FAQ
was around, and will still bethe this FAQ was written precisely because the model was
frequently asked about.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
5) But I produce stories that are *always* believable. Aren't my
games both fully dramatist and fully simulationist?
Simulationism is not defined in terms of believability, it
is defined in terms of method. For example, you as GM you could
have a storyline in mind, and set up the background and characters
so well that during the game, the storyline occurs without your
having to noticably fudge. A very simulationist player might not
notice that you constructed the events to produce that story.
However, if she found out, she would feel cheated: you would
have violated her preferred contract.
Rightly or wrongly, a pure simulationist isn't simply trying
to produce a story that is believable. He is trying to actually
find out what would "really" happen by modelling what is in the
game world. Of course, it is impossible to perfectly simulate
this, but he finds interest and value in the attempt.
For example, say the PCs are know that a target is hiding in one
of eight hotels, but they cannot find out which except by searching
them. A dramatist GM might decide based on pacing to have the
second hotel they search be the right one, so that the game doesn't
drag as they go through one after the other. This is perfectly
believable, but a pure simulationist GM will refuse to do this.
Most likely, she will decide on one in advance and let the players
choose what order they search in. The players might find it
immediately, or they might have to wade through seven others.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
6) So dramatism is ham actors playing through arty nonsense,
gamism is munchkins who want to beat the GM, and simulationism
is rules-lawyers who argue over ballistics?
No, those are rabid stereotypes. Even if the stereotypes
have some truth to them, the Threefold is not about just the
lowest common denominator. There are good and bad examples of
each type of game.
A pure dramatist might run a gritty, low-key drama where
the PCs are true-to-life characters who perhaps concentrate on
their work. In this case, the dramatic story might be framed
around how they relate to each other and the tension produced.
A dramatist campaign could also include comedic campaigns,
where the in-game action is tailored for humorous effect
rather than classical "drama". The key is that in-game events
are tailored based on how satisfying the storyline of the
campaign is.
A gamist could run a mystery game where the PCs are
challenged to find the killer based not just on physical clues,
but also on the personalities and motivations of the suspects.
Note that this is similar on the surface to a dramatic story,
but the emphasis is on making it solvable yet challenging to
the players. A purely dramatist mystery might make a better
story, but a purely gamist mystery will be a fairer test of
the player's wits.
Simulationism by definition is going to try to be "realistic"
within the game-world, although it may have natural laws different
than the real world. However, the players are not neccessarily
obsessed with rules or physics. A simulationist game could just
as well focus on political discussion between important figures,
or rebels fighting a propaganda war to win over the masses.
Several posters have run diceless simulationist games.
A purely simulationist mystery would start with determining
how the crime was carried out based only on in-game factors.
The logical consequences of this might mean that the players can
solve it easily, or that they can't solve it at all, or that
they can only solve it by turning it over other authorities. An
absolutely pure simulationist GM won't go back and change things
to make the mystery work better for the PCs.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
7) I don't think I'm either dramatist or simulationist. I like
gaming, though, so I must be gamist, right?
Gamist was *not* intended as a catch-all for anything that
isn't included in the other two categories. It is specifically
about setting up fair challenges for the players to face. The
Threefold is not intended as a be-all and end-all of gaming,
nor is it neccessarily complete. Several people suggested a
fourth group of styles, which was "Social". However, discussion
died down as there was no consensus about what that meant in
contrast to the other styles, or even whether one could even
discuss it on the same level.
Many aspects of gaming are not covered by the Threefold. For
example, any of the three can vary from "Light" to "Serious".
"Beer-and-pretzels" usually refers to Gamist dungeon-crawls, say,
where you are trying to beat the monsters. However, there are
also non-serious dramatists, say who run cheesy superhero plots
where the hero always beats the villian. Note that this is
not gamist since there is no challenge to it -- the hero always
wins, it's just fun seeing how she does it.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-