Ron Edwards is an indie game designer who made several essays theorizing on how role-playing games work.Basically, the GNS Theory tries to split RPGs into three broad categories.
"Gamist" RPGs place emphasis on tactics, combat, and "winning the game."
"Simulationist" RPGs place emphasis on emulating a certain genre and/or the simulation of a vibrant, living world.
"Narrativist" RPGs place emphasis on plot and character development, where the GM takes the role of a storyteller and the players take the role of protagonists.
My personal thoughts are that these terms are too broad. Almost all gaming sessions have a goal of sorts for the players to accomplish, be it getting some grand treasure in an underground crypt in D&D or becoming Prince of the City in a Vampire game. Almost all PCs have some kind of motivation, and conflict arises out of the actions which drive these motivations. And almost all RPG games try to emulate a genre or series of genres.
What do you think?
