So apparently the exact term for what I was thinking about was Ron Edward’s GNS Theory, though back when I was introduced to it someone had written an adjustment to it that added a 4th aspect. The article when down with the site, so I’m gonna explain it and my opinion here. 1/12?

This is not a defense of GNS - it just uses the terminology, so some context would be useful. It stands for Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist - three types of player interaction that a game can design itself around. Go to Wikipedia for how Edwards defined them, but... 2/12?

Edwards also felt that a game could only be successful if it focused on one of these angles above all others. Mixing it up would result in a failure.

This is where I have to disagree, but I’ll get there. Let’s talk about the adjustment first. 3/12?

My introduction was an article on The Forge that tried to expand and cover some of the weaknesses in GNS. The author divided TTRPGs into four focuses: Role Playing, Narrativist, Wargaming, and Simulationist. Each appeals to a different sort of player. 4/12?

Role Playing: forget story, forget strategy, the only thing that matters is how my character and others relate to each other and grow over play. Everything else could be thrown away for all I care. 5/12?

Narrativist: Forget strategy, forget character development, the only thing that matters is the story we all end up crafting at the table. Everything else could be thrown away for all I care. 6/12?

Wargaming: Forget character growth, forget story, I want my character to overcome an impossible challenge or die trying! Everything else could be thrown away, my character included, just for the satisfaction of overcoming an angry god (ie the GM). 7/12?

Simulationist: All that matters is making cool shit and playing with it. Let’s develop the world using a neat subsystem. Let’s construct special character builds that let me play Yusuke Urameshi in a fantasy world! Combat works like a game of Chinese checkers? Hell yeah! 8/12?

Anyone focused on one of the four, playing in one of the other game types quickly becomes a That Guy. Role Players make everything about themselves, Narrativists take the story way too seriously, Wargamers backstab everyone to “survive”, and Simulationists will min-max. 9/12?

Okay, that’s those articles.

But where I lie is this: any TTRPG on the market is best situated to support campaigns w/ certain aspects over others (w/out hacking). Exalted is a Narrativist, Role Play, Simulationist game; Dark Heresy would be a Narrativist Wargame instead. 10/12

Groups playing a campaign should discuss what they want out of it, and should build an experience that incorporates what everyone is looking for out of the experience (GM included - they’re players too). But not every game can do every play style without major modifications 11/12

The takeaway is this: designing for certain play styles is fine, but designing for every possible play style is not only impossible, it’s arrogant. 11.5/12

And for some players out there, they either demand one play style be the only one represented (in this case Narrativist?) above all others (you sound like you were arguing for Role Playing), or demand that only one game system be used to cover every one of these aspects. 12/12