Is Warhammer ”narrative”, ”simulationist” or “gamist”?
I don`t have the box yet. But from what I have read the game takes a “narrative” inclination or perspective. And lacks totally a “simulationist” view of the rules. But it has some elements of “gamist” in the rules, like the re-charge time of card abilities (is that term right?). So what does warhammer feel for you? And how would you rate it according to how the system is? Is there other rules that you can think of that have other elements in them?

Example: Me Mal
1)Narrative
2)Gamist
3) simulationist

Mal Reynolds said:

I wouldn't argue with your eval. I think the intent is to tell the best story possible. While I enjoy some simulationist games, I can totally appreciate the narrative take this game offers. That said I don't think it's the most narrative RPG I've ever played and has many gamist elements, but I don't think that's a bad thing either.

I tend to avoid -isms and discussions about them :-) But that having been said, I haven't actually played the new Warhammer yet buuut... I can tell you what I hope. I hope it is *not* simulationist, if that term means having a mechanical rule to represent every little thing that might happen in the game world. That stuff is just too anal and too dull for me. I want to get caught up in a good story while also playing a great game. I'm not at all interested in "as realistic as possible" simulations.

So I hope your evaluation is correct:)

Before I write this, let me just say, what I'm writing down in no way reflects how I feel about play-styles, personal preferences, or anything else. Warhammer 3e is a great system and I am by far not a hater. I am simply analyzing this system from the 3 catagories listed in the post. Please, take all of this with a grain of salt, there is no wrong way to play and I'm not saying one style is better than the other, I'm simply breaking it down by the three catagories. Alright? Great.

Okay, Warhammer tries too hard to be gamist and narrativist and those two elements totally compete with each other in the system. The dice are totally narrativist, they are, but they get strapped into gamist mechanics - such as the default fatigue system or the exact effect by card description. I know, I know, you spend boons to get a specific effect gained, but there are so many specific effects spread over so many cards, it drives the effect option (from the system alone) into a very gamist mechanism. I know you can run it differently, and it's up to your group and whatever, but read the cards, look at the system's intent, and you will clearly see the cards are very, very gamist and designed to not necessarily limit you, but spell out effects. For instance, a card gives white dice if you bring a present to meeting. What happens if you bring a present but don't have the card? What happens if you bring the present, but your buddy who bought the card (for xp) does and he chooses not to? Do you get an equal bonus because you brought a present even though you had to pay nothing for it? In this respect, the gamist takes over.

While I like the idea of social initiative and the "social combat" idea, the execution makes social interaction more gamist. Sure, it's a nifty notion as a way to make noble's and politicians more "viable" characters in terms of game balance, but that's a very gamist approach to why you'd play these types of character's in the first place. You play a Noble for the story, not for its social slaughter margin or it's battle slaughter margin (that slaughter margin being very important to the "win" factor which leans toward gamist thinking.).

So when the action cards become involved, it turns very gamist. The Stance meter, while giving you the illusion of story freedom actually sticks story into a very, very high risk proposition. First off you could never be a conservative Troll Slayer. If you want to be a reluctant bright wizard, again not possible in the way the dice express themselves. The system first off dictates heavily which way you can go. Secondly, when moving stance, the system limits this in the amount of fatigue accumulated. The interaction of Fatigue and Stress are two very good gamist mechanisms, but only at certain times will actually improve the experience. The Simulationist says you can't go from reckless to conservative. So there's a little not. But everything about how the stance meter moves is totally a gamist limitation of your win factor. You see, it prevents you from maximizing your DPS based on the action cards so you can't win more because of the sluggishness and fatigue penalty of moving a step or two, thereby slowing you from going three reckless down to 3 conservative for example. This again, is where the gamist takes over.

The entire Rally Step is gamist as well. The game stops so we can adjust game elements so we have a better chance of winning in the next scene. With this we also have an entire way of managing our ability to use specific action cards so we can win better. This is also followed up by how resource management is the focus of the combat, not so much the resolution or the actual conflict itself. It is all about the task, not about the story. Sure it adds detail to the story, but that's not its true intent, it's true intent is to run dice, cards, and chits like a computer would. These sorts of things lend themselves to gamist more, but aren't necessarily gamist...I will say though, it is definately not narrativist which would place the cards in the way of great storytelling.

There are many times the system prompts you to interpret things your own way, such as skill checks, etc which is where you and the gm have to interpret the dice and come up with your own stuff because there is no card to "define" what you do. In the history of roleplay, in the history of game writers, there have never been a greater narrativist tool (besides their own imagination) than the Warhammer 3e dice. They are simply stunning at facilitating storytelling in ways that were never possible before. I've read some people skip the boons and banes, but we don't. We only roll for critical rolls, but overall, they enhance our storytelling in broadly unpredictable, but always interesting and unique ways.

The scene trackers, the initiative system, all great narrativist tool systems.

In my opinion, Warhammer would have done better by choosing one and going for it. Gamists will easily ignore the more narrativist elements and let the cards do the talking. Narrativists will find the action card and recharge mechanics and stance meters and the like as being in their way. At times, I wish it would have chosen one or the other...there is a marriage there, but it's dysfunctional at times and should be filing for a divorce at others.

Personally, I'd rather have seen the action cards facilitate story more and system less. Then again, if I'm talking personally I'd rather seen the core mechanics pushed more than the cards and tracking resources, but what it does not do. Anyone could have made up a complex chit mechanic (heck, it's been done before, what was that super-hero RPG that was all chits, Mutants and Masterminds?). What everyone has failed to do, is create the core system that 3e uses. Fudge came close, but fudge didn't even realize what these writer's did.

So by that it's heavy gamist, moderate narrativist, light simulationist.

Honestly, it's all a matter of playstyle and how you use the system.

I think the really outdated GNS theory is very bad to classify any game, as most are at least a combination of those and more then those.

Every RPG wheras one roleplay are narrative, otherwise its a dice game. So long as it has mechanics there are gamist elements. And equipment and stats are a simplified simulation of real life.

The way I would classify WHFRP is thats a Classical game and not a progressive one, it uses mostly old ways to do the game, with a few progressive elements, in stance and tracking in a new way.

A game like 3:16 Carnage Amongst the Stars is mostly an progressive game, and Call of Cthulhu is true and true Classical

I would rank it heavy on the Narrativist, moderate on the Gamist, and light on the Simulationist.

Previous editions of the game tended to have features of all three classifications but no real heavy lean in any direction. For me it was great to have an un-assuming system and I think that was the selling point accross the WFRP culture. You could really make it any kind of game you wanted with some house ruling (by some I mean most of us probably have loose leaf notebooks of v1 and v2 modifications larger than the core rule books). This also made the game more about the interesting Cthulhu-Sword-n-Sorcery setting than about a game mechanic system.

The new edition holds on to the setting quite well but Jay and his posse have really taken a step in the narrative game direction. While that may seem heavy handed and something worthy of donning blue face paint and mooning the King of England...I'd have to say that it is nice to see some new and interesting vigor thrust behind WFRP.

I will continue to run v2 for my regular monthly stint as GM because I prefer it. But I still own v3 and will play it and run it on occaision just because it is intriguing and offers a progressive narrative game experience that is as good as you could ask for on a cold day in December. I get to have my cake and eat it too.

First off you could never be a conservative Troll Slayer. If you want to be a reluctant bright wizard, again not possible

It's all relative. A "conservative" Trollslayer or Bright Wizard sits in neutral, 1 reckless, or 1 conservative. Even 1 reckless is pretty conservative for a Trollslayer or Bright Wizard. Don't forget that you can also buy additional stance pieces with Advancements, if you want to be exceptionally different. So, you can be "conservative" if you want, and easily within not just narrative but game mechanics. Just thought I would point this out.

To the original topic, I agree that's how I see it. It focuses on aiding the narrative, with elements of gamist as it gets into Encounters.

It definitely is not a tabletop mini's game, which is a kind of simulation, it's more abstract than say a Dark Heresy firefight using minis and terrain.

It's funny though, as you set up for a game, you notice all the cards, stance tracks, and funny dice. Very "gamey."

But once play starts and you use the tools, they fade into the background as the narrative takes over. That's the way I experience it, anyway. And when it's the GM describing and you acting and reacting, it's role playing.

I have to admit I was sceptical at first, as I ran two V2 campaigns and really enjoyed them. But now that's I've tried V3, I like it.

Thanks for the replies

And by way commoner, was that a fine piece of analytic work you wrote there. I read whole thing twice and nodded a couple of times.

the use of cards and abilites does seems very gamist too me. And I am looking into ways of changing that, maybe a up-charge thing instead. I don`t know, and beside it is for another thread.. So I think 1) gamist, 2) narrative and 3) simulationist. Is a better rating. But also the dice seems to weight in a lot, and are by fare the most "narrative" mechanics in wfrp.

one of my regular wfrp players got totally freaked out about learning that mmo mechanics had found its way into his beloved setting. In fact of all my 6 regular wfrp players, only 1 is positive about the game and another player is neutral to it (he is an absent-minded radiologist, so he probably wont be able to tell the two different systems from each other). But the fact the others players are so adamant negative about it, makes my heart sink abit. At least they have all agreed to try the demo, and I am going to give them a blast. truly I am preparing to take them by storm.

concerned GM

Wow, I am new to this way of evaluating my hobby, I truly have never come across these types of evaluations. All in all a great thread, most edifying piece from commoner, aswell. If only you could see me tapping away on my laptop sipping tea on a building site, I assure you the next intellectual conversation I have will be slightly less interesting than this one.

KjetilKverndokken said:

Yes, GNS is really more confusing than useful as no-one can agree what it means.

If i were to dscribe the game, I think the key ideas would be that it is a game that is more 'Abstract' rather than 'Realistic', a game that heavily 'Rewards System Mastery' and a game that focuses on delivering a 'Story'.

I really don't like GNS, I see it more like a kind of "rpg-racism", then a well thought theory. Most of the games includes all three of these terms in some degree. Why not grade a game with a number from 1-5 in each class? For example, at first glance I would say WFRP3 is:

Narrative: 4
Simulationist: 2
Gamist: 4

But honestly, there are three kind of games for me: games I like, games I love and games I don't care about.

Ravenheart87 said:

Great idea by grading it. I mostly agree with your grading. I see that some forumites don`t like the GNS theory. I wonder what GNS means? As fare as I thought it was a fairly standard way of analysing a RPG game, and that it was RPG.net that first applied it in a series of articles. I might be wrong since my knowledge about the history arround is rather vague.

Do you have a better way of analysing it? like other terms that are regulary used, or theories, please add a link, and will have a looksey.

Thanks for the compliments from some of you. I really do appreciate them. Sometimes I wonder if my threads go on too long, but I like to fully explain where I'm coming as I feel it's necessary for good dialogue, especially in forum formats.

I totally agree that GNS can be horribly abused and taken way too seriously by some, especially when it is used to actually say one play style is worse than another. With that being said, GNS is actually a great way to analyze a system and play-style. I more or less look at it as a tool to express how not only a system acts, but how a group perceives and interacts with that system, especially in this regard:

1) How does the game work.

2) Predominantly, what do each of my players enjoy.

3) What type of game do we want it to be: Do we want it to simulate something, to be a strong story, or to have play around with a game.

4) In what ways do we need to make the system adjust (in terms of modifications to match the particular play-style of the players and to get out what we want from the game or story).

The three categories can help facilitate these four major choices down to how characters are generated. If you are simply doing a dungeon crawl scenario, where the point is to raid dungeons and get loot then generation doesn't need a whole lot of back story. Who cares if you're a noble who fell from grace who wants to revenge his father if all you're doing is going dungeon crawling? Sure, you can say that it's simple intuition to say that wouldn't be necessary, but those familiar with GNS would simply say: My dungeon crawl game is very gamist, it's about victory over the monsters and victory with fat loots, therefore, if you're sitting down to play and say we want a gamist dungeon crawl, then you know that's what the parameters of the game.

Just as in a heavy handed narrativist game, if a player botches a roll or the barmaid attacking him rolls suprisingly well, the GM knows (and can be straight forward) that dying here is crazy as this character's death to a snottling is bad for the story.

Sure, any system can be played anyway, but the system itself does predominantly support one play method over another. DND with its strict level, tier system where leveling is the focus and powers are limited to those levels is very gamist. The objective in DND as written is to level by killing monsters (each monsters give you very specific amounts of XP), which allows you to gain magic items (which predominantly help you level by killing more monsters). Sure DND can be made to be a very story game, I'm not saying that it's not possible, but it takes time and effort on the DM'S part to adjust the rule-set to make it possible or to change the very nature of play.

As a counter balance, to original World of Darkness is a much different picture. From the get go, it is not a roleplaying game, they call it storytelling, there is no GM or DM, there is a storyteller. Upfront, you know this game is about the story. The notion is also reinforced by the fact that the predominant source books for world of darkness offer no new rules, it simply offers more detail and background where as DND gives you a billion pages of rules.

Why GNS is a good tool is it allows you to quickly gauge these facets and decide if this type of playstyle is what you're looking for and gives you guidelines to adjust them to fit group needs.

So, back to how that relates to the Warhammer system. Warhammer is a great system as in it's own right. It is a great concept, great idea, and plays just fine. I'm not trying to knock that at all. Where I disagree with Dvang is that the encounter gamist elements bog down the narrative with its extreme focus on resource management. The game makes such a drastic shift at these moments that the narrative becomes distracted by all that attention to card recharge, stance meter management, stress/fatigue management, strain management and how that relates to strain and fatigue management, etc. The game plays like you're reading a great story then you take a break to play a quick round of a video game RPG, then go back to reading a great book. This is where the system conflicts with itself as I stated above. Since this encounter mode permeates through both social and physical actions it becomes the game in a way, hence why I say it is a narrativist game trapped in a gamist system. At times the narrativist game comes out of the closet, but then goes right back in as soon as the gamist mechanics come back into focus.

Here is my best example to this point. There is a sidebar that suggests when you go into a place of calm or relaxation (like a beautiful, tranquil garden) give your players back stress or if they go into a chaos pit, give them a stress. That is absolutely fantastic, the story is having a direct effect on the game and the system is being used to represent feelings, emotions, player states of being. It's a fantastic idea and I absolutely love it. The thing is stress is horrible in terms of the gamist aspect and wise players will know they have to get rid of all their fatigue and stress to maximize combat moments. Therefore any wise players would immediately use Assess the situation to shrug it off and the effect is lost. Same goes with fatigue. Let's say the GM says: It's been a long journey and you arrive at the destination tired. Gain 1 Fatigue. Well, why not immediately assess the situation just to get rid of it. This can come up again and again to the point that, why bother giving stress and fatigue in the first place because all the GM did, besides setting up a neat concept and story point, is he has indirectly forced the player to simply roll some dice to fix problems in resource management so it won't override the character's ability to perform in encounters. Of course the GM could rule that the stress they can't regain in this way as the player asks to make the check, but that again has stopped the scene to deal with resource management.

There are tons of little ins and outs with the system performing in such a way and I won't waste word count to explain them all. I plan on, after play-testing the game for a while to post up a set of house rules in the House Rules section, but I'm still working out some of the kinks.

Anyone interested can have a go with them and I'd always will love to discuss it. Just remember, I definitely feel anyone who loves the game as is, enjoy it. It's a wonderful game and I hope we all enjoy it in whatever way we choose.

Mal Reynolds said:

GNS is actually the basis of RPG theory (at least on the net). It is an attempt to catagorize playstyle and games themselves into what the system does and what players want from a game (their playstyle). It has it's wholes and yes, GNS does state all games and gamers have x amount of elements, there is simply predominant traits that come out during play and in game writing. Some like to use the system to create a form of "racism" and there can be a tone with it that one is better than the other, but with every theory or religion, those who favor one style will look down on others. I take it very objectively and look at it at what games do, not that the styles have some end all be all best way to do something. Thing is, most casual gamers don't know about it. I got into it while writing my own game I intended to get published until I learned how much work for little gain there is in writing rpgs. So I kind of gave up on the notion.

So far, GNS is the best way to do it that I know of, though I disagree with some of their lump catagories and view players and games (and gamers) can wear many hats. GNS can improve your abilities as a gamer and many, many theories concerning Narrative style can seriously improve GM'S and players gaming and can really expand how you play games, from how the story is developed to what aspects of gaming can be improved. One thing you have to remember is, most games tell you how to run the system, but most games never mention really how to GM. The new Warhammer actually has a great GM section and some of it, I feel, is based on GNS narrative theory.

If you want to know more about GNS, The Forge carried GNS to the farthest extreme, and while they may be extremely overly convoluted at times, there are some writers there who really know their stuff and spell it out in plain English. Just be careful of a guy named Ron Edwards, who is extremely biased toward Narrative gaming and though he says he doesn't believe in "wrong" play, the way he writes says otherwise. If I get time this week, I'll find some good threads and post them here, since GNS is the basis of this thread. If anyone else knows some good links, I suggest they post them here as well.

Again, GNSis game theory and if taken too literally, it could mess up how you play and your play-style. Take it with a handful of salt, but don't think for one second there is a) a wrong way to play, b) your style is bad, or c) it is law by any means. If you're going to look into GNS, look at how you can use its definitions and exploration into playstyle as ways to improve your group's game-style, not how to graft a whole new style over it. Again, most of the work is on narrative play because, in the history of RPG'S, most of the early written games focus on gamist or simulationist play-style.

My definitions of Narrativist, gamist and simulationist.
readers, please keep in mind that I am relative new to this theory myself. So I offer only what I think is the definitions of the concepts.

By breaking the rules and mechanics into pieces you can try to analyze it`s contains. As well trying to figure out the intention of mechanics.

Narrativist mechanics.
are rules that emphasis the storytelling aspect of a rpg. They don`t appear realistic or tries to simulate real situations, but rather stimulate storytelling by mechanics that influence the narrative flow of the story, instead of serving a specific situation or action. Narrative rules often appear open to interpretation, and less specific to better serve a larger area within the game. A good example of narrative rules and mechanics are: warhammer dice system and the Environmental damage rules.

Gamist mechanics
Like narrative rules, gamist rules seldom portray a realistic view, but their main purpose is to create a balance of the system, and often bring limitations to the storytelling aspect of a rpg. Gamist rules often influence heavily on the character creation process, as power balance is greatly demanded by most players. Gamist rules sometimes get in conflict with the more narrative elements of the game as they can be seen as breaking or interfere with the narrative role to create a believable storytelling flow. Examples of gamist mechanics are: re-charge rules of wfrp abilities, and character creation system.

Simulationist mechanics
are specific rules that try to strive to mirror reality to some extent. But simulationsist rules tend to be very rigid, and not as flexible as narrative rules. They serve a limited use, and a large amount of such rules is necessary to cover all of the game`s aspects. Simulationist rules tend to emphasise on a general set of rules or basics and little restriction on freedom of choice. While gamist elements depend on specializations and limits in the name of game balance. Simulationist rules also tries to find game balance but instead of using direct limitations, they often generate a large amount of fixed or circumstantial modifiers. Heavy use of simulationist rules, can be experienced as lagging in the storytelling flow. Examples of simulationist mechanics are: hmm not sure here but weapon and armour stats in wfrp?

Mal Reynolds said:

GNS = Gamist, Narrative, Simualist

As You are Norwegian, you should coma along onte the forums in www.n4f.no - theres a few guys there that can teach you rpg theory a good deal better and less agressive then for example The Forge and rpg.net guys and gals. And We have given new analysiz methods thats a hell of a lot more modern on how to define rpg's, that I doubt have moved to far from the Norwegian border.

But as I mentioned, WHFRP is still what we would consider a Classical role playing game - as it does not have enough things that makes it do new stuff, only do the same things another way.

commoner said:

Good ol Ron started the Brain Damage debate, that playing World of Darkness was psychologycal damaging, as it made you play rpgs the wrong way, and you really did not enjoy it, as the game made you believe you did = its a real short version of it.

I'm not really over there so most of this is discusson of it on other forum I do frequent- only place I would bother with rpg theory is at the big Norwegian one as there is a civil mood over there, or at Storytelling games forums.

KjetilKverndokken said:

GNS stands for Gamist, Narrative, Simualist? geeh now I feel a bit embarrased not for figuring that out

the GNS method may be flawed or even outdated, and I will have a look at Hyperion`s site to see what they have come up with. I think you came on a little too elitist when mentioning the new analyzis methods. I`m sure it was not intentionally. A civil tone is always better, but if the methods do not find support outside the borders of said country, I Think there is little reason beyond personal interest to digest the theory. I am more for a broad and widely accepted analyze methods, instead of a confined local rarity. But hey, if the norwegian analyze method is as good as it seems, we can always campaign for it to influence other, and i will certainly use it if it`s any good.

I am still sceptical to the whole hyperion thing. And I am sadly, hard to persuade or convince in that matter. But I will give the analyze method an honest review.

Mal Reynolds said:

Elitist? Well I wanted to mention as a FYI, as for my sake, I do not use most rpg theory speech like: Flags - Bangs - etc etc etc. I do keep some track of it so I can have a knowledge of it for my own rpg creation process and join in on interesting discussion. My only ptoblem with GNS is that it divides something that every roleplaying game contains however one may try to do one thing - there are more models out there that gives more bang for the bucks - but its only interesting if one is interested in how a rpg is built up, and escpecially if you want to design one yourself.

For the support part, I dont think anyone have bothered preeching, what would be the point? It have been english terminologies and stuff, so it have been translated and rewritten and rethinked.

Byt Hyperion is full of rpg creators, very serious ones like Tomas Mørkerid who is now creating Fabula 2/EGO that loos to be one of the best designed rpg Fantasy's on the market. Matthijs Holter the creator of Draug and Lærelyst among others, and we have many others who are hard on theories, so if you want to learn abouth GNS - or new methods with GNS and whatever in rpg theory, good place to go as much of the post is about creating new roleplaying games - and there are quite many being created

But being sceptic about using your own countries biggest RPG site, come on man - there are not to much prattle about SELL me on (game here) and such as on say rpg.net, but it is full of good context.

Mal Reynolds said:

KjetilKverndokken said:

Oh I think I did a mistake here. my "...A civil tone is better" statement was meant to read that, Hyperion have a better civilised tone, than the agressive Forge or RPG.net discussions. Instead I wrongly implied that you where not being civil. Bad phrasing. I am sorry.

I do find n4f.no interesting enough to visit from time to time. Especially your news section, was illumunating and fun to read. And the reviews themselves was very informative, and well researched. Cudos!

Mal Reynolds said:

No prob

Though I'm not affiliated with Hyperion, just use their forums and write reviews and news-storys.