Demiglot
Editor
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Articles: 2
Comments: 5
Location: Stamford, CT |
| Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:00 am |
|
|
It's difficult to classify role-players.
Many people have tried to do it...
If one does a bit of research it's easy enough to come across various theories, dating back a couple of decades. Each of these seems to work within it's own context and there certainly isn't a lack of thinking or writing about role-playing.
So why another article on the subject from a relative amateur like me?
Mostly for the sake of simplifying some of these ideas and sharing them with players I know. I feel many role-players appreciate reading about role-playing ideas, but are intimidated by what can seem like overly complex theories. So with that in mind, I'll try to keep this short.
And so...
A brief history: In the early 80s Glenn Blacow published an article called "Role-Playing Style: Aspects of Adventure Gaming” in which he divides players into four categories; Power Gamers, Role-Players, Wargamers & Story Tellers. These ideas were later expanded on by others, sometimes with the name “The Fourfold Way”.
Around 1997 the so called “Threefold Model” began to develop. This was built upon by Ron Edwards at Indie-RPGs.com (The Forge) into the modern “GNS Theory” which describes three kinds of players; Gamists, Narrativists, and Simulationists.
In 2001 Robin D. Laws published a book entitled “Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering” which includes the description of seven types of players; The Power Gamer, The Butt-Kicker, The Tactician, The Specialist, The Method Actor, The Storyteller and The Casual Gamer.
Both GNS Theory and Robin's Laws appear to be based on the original Fourfold Way.
In 2003 another useful classification was written by a friend of mine who sometimes goes by the name Davyn, but is more often known as Jythri these days, at VagabondsRest.com. This is called “The Davyn Roleplay Scale”. It rates role-players on a scale of 1 to 10, with each step described concisely. This kind of rating can help explain why some players may role-play differently even though they may be classified as the same under one of the above theories.
Now, personally I find all of these theories useful to some degree, but none of them is completely satisfying as far as an everyday perspective on role-players from the point of view of a fellow gamer. Without going into my specific quibbles (I'm supposed to be keeping this short) I'll just say that the established theory that I find the most useful is GNS Theory. My main critique of it is only that it is somewhat complex and can be unapproachable for the average player.
To briefly summarize, Wikipedia describes GNS Theory as three different motivations that gamers have to make decisions:
| Quote: |
- Gamist decisions concern competition and challenge.
- Narrativist decisions concern story and theme.
- Simulationist decisions concern experience and celebration of source material.
|
I think these three definitions work very well for describing different archetypes of role-players.
These kinds of role-play are certainly not mutually exclusive or set in stone. Most role-players identify with all three modes, in fact. I would go so far as to say that you actually need to incorporate all three modes of play to have a complete role-playing experience.
However, I do think that people tend to lean towards one classification or the other. If you picture a pie chart with three different sections, most role-players are not going to be perfectly balanced with three equally sized pieces of pie.
I'll actually go a little further and modify the GNS Theory ever so slightly to better describe what I'm saying.
Starting with the Gamist mode of play. Gamisim is not role-playing. When one is pursuing the Gamist elements of play one is generally thinking about metagame factors, especially as they relate to competition. Elements such as PvP combat, puzzle games and game play mechanics are all Gamist interests.
To coin a term that will distinguish what I'm describing from GNS Theory, I'll call the player who focuses on Gamist elements the “Gamer” or “True Gamer”.
True Gamer - A player who focuses on competition and challenge.
A True Gamer in this tradition is often only casually interested in role-playing, if at all. That's not to say that role-players can't enjoy Gamist elements of play, as I said above it takes all three modes to have a complete role-playing experience. However, most players who focus on Gamist elements to the exclusion of Narrativist and Simulationist elements would probably classify themselves as a True Gamer.
Which leaves us with two archetypes for serious role-players; the Narrativist and the Simulationist.
For players who take more than a casual interest in the hobby and the art of role-playing there seem to be two basic approaches to craft. Again, most players draw from both disciplines but when it comes time to make decisions about a character and their story, generally one mode will be more important than the other.
Again, in order to distinguish what I am talking about from the ideas in the original GNS Theory I'd like to coin a couple more terms here. I'll refer to the Narrativist as the “Writer” or the “Writer Role-Player” and the Simulationist as the “Actor” or the “Actor Role-Player”.
Writer Role-Player - A player who focuses on story and theme.
When a Writer is role-playing they set out to tell a story. The setting of the game is important as a context for that story, but the end goal of the experience is to create a compelling tale for the players involved. They may spend hours writing outside of the game and develop their characters' histories in detail. The Writer will often bend the lore of a setting in order to achieve a more interesting result, though most will refrain from the outright transplanting of themes external to the setting.
Actor Role-Player - A player who focuses on experience and setting.
When an Actor is role-playing their goal is as complete a sense of immersion as possible. They research the relevant lore meticulously and make every effort to fit their character concept into that mold. The Actor's goal is to breathe life into a character that grew out of the world of the game and experience that world as fully as possible.
In general Writer and Actor archetypes can coexist nicely. As I said above most role-players actually identify with both mindsets. The problems tend to arise when a Writer introduces an element or theme that strikes the Actor as being too divergent from the lore of the setting.
Compromise is difficult in these situations. It can be difficult for a Writer Role-Player to make concessions as their characters and storylines are a product of their creative effort and very important to them. Likewise it can be difficult for an Actor Role-Player to concede, as anything that is outside the base storyline of the setting is disturbing to their sense of immersion and hence their enjoyment of role-playing in the game. A successful resolution cannot always be found but what has worked for me in the past is to examine the story element or theme in question closely and search the lore of the setting for an acceptable equivalent. Generally both parties are willing to work together as long as neither is being unreasonable.
Note that my descriptions above do not take into account the degree of interest, commitment or experience that a player has. I'm only talking about the most basic motivations that drive players to make the decisions they do.
In closing I would just reemphasize that most role-players really do identify with all three mind sets. The division into three archetypes is only useful as far as it helps people to communicate their gaming priorities to others. They should not be interpreted as a wall to separate different kinds of players, or restrict a player from pursuing whatever mode of play they enjoy.
At the end of the day we all play to enjoy ourselves and whatever mode you most enjoy is right for you. |
|
