Images of the Three-Way Tension (Part 1)

The last bit of this descriptive stage for the three-way tension theory pulls the concept into a more graphical format so that readers can observe the concept from a visual perspective. I'm doing this because I'm more of a graphical/visual thinker, and because sometime text can be a bit dry. 

Let's look at what we've discussed so far...

The whole things fits onto a triangular grid. 

We can probably break down the types of games into that grid. Of course there's going to be debates over the labelling of the types of games, because if there's one thing we always debate about in game design circles, it's terminology, but bear with me for the moment... 

GM/Narrators (I really should find a better single-word descriptor here) may aim to facilitate a game, tell a story with their players, provide an immersive setting experience, or some combination of the three.

Players may be looking to complete the session by winning it (or at least ending up with characters in a better state than when they started), by telling a story that is worth retelling at a later time, or by escaping into a fantasy that lets them experience a world different from their everyday world.

Rule systems may provide a foundation for any one of these (ludonarrative synergy)... or may claim to support a style of play while actively hindering it (ludonarrative dissonance). 

I haven't really explored it much in this series of posts, but let's look at the rules 

I did a post years ago, I can't remember the specific date, and as I'm writing this I can't even remember the year but it has to be 15 or more years ago. The general gist of the post said that you can tell what a game is aiming toward based on the number of pages it dedicates to certain elements of play. If the majority of the pages are dedicated to a combat resolution system, then it's probably safe to say that it's a combat game and therefore sits pretty firmly in what I've described as the "gamist" camp. Such a game would be all about the competition between players, and between the group versus the monsters they might encounter. It doesn't deviate much from that if the page-count of the game is focused on conflict resolution, task resolution, a magic system, or minutiae of how the systems work. The more non-diegetic rules there are, the more regulated the gameplay becomes (especially if played "rules-as-written"). However, if the game has a lot more setting description, and rich lore that governs the way interaction might happen within the unfolding story, things like factions and they way they feel about each other, descriptions of places and people, then it leans more into the "simulationist" camp. Sets of rules that lean into the idea of forcing interesting and dramatic character choices push further toward the "narrativist". More complex character generation systems can go any way, depending on what they reveal about the characters being built...better and more complex ways to manipulate the session around them might be "gamist", more integration with the setting through a life-path system might be more "simulationist", and more goals or decisions to  make might  be more "narrativist". Minimalist game systems rely on the GM/Narrator and the players bringing more to the table, they aren't inherently one style or another, they just tend to exert less tension on the session. Conversely, heavy rule systems exert more tension on the session, and can tend toward more "gamist" styles of play because of the more extensive coverage of situations in the rules.

Some groups may take a set of rules and twist it's agenda by adding secondary source material as inspiration. They may say "this will be played in the Sengoku era of Japan", "this is set in a world that looks just like our own", or may even get more specific with "We will be playing Robin Hood and his merry men". Each of these adds new restrictions to what can or can't be encountered in the session. Pulling toward a more "simulationist" agenda, because the specified setting gains importance through stronger diegetic rules. This also factors in the idea that the more structured the rules and setting are, the more restrictions are imposed on the possible storytelling. That all works with the idea of the tension, so no prob;ems with the theory from that perspective. 

(Remember that this whole thing is just my theory of how TTRPG sessions work, based on the ideas of many folks who've come before and have proposed their own theories, along with my own studies into linguistics and sociology.)