[NOTE: The Mad Cleric has written a revision and partial retraction of comments in this blog on 7/14/2025. While much of the content in this blog is still valid, read that other blog to see an updated version of this X/Y axis.]
Simulation vs. Player Agency/Expression
Many of the people who started reading my blog back in 2016 know me to be the Gary Gygax/AD&D guy. For about ten years, I tried to read and run as many Gygax AD&D modules as I could. I wanted to go back to the beginning of the TTRPG hobby and have the experience that the first players had. Over seven years, we had a LOT of fun with Mr. Gygax (a retrospective of the project is here).
Traveling that nostalgic path quickly leads to two other game worlds/genres: (1) proto-D&D games (like Blackmoor, Braunstein, and many other games run at GaryCon) and (2) the OSR/NSR world. I’ve found a lot to appreciate in both worlds. I developed a friendship with Bob Meyer, who took over Dave Arneson’s Blackmoor group when Dave passed away. Bob introduced me to a lot of games, ideas, and folks who were very inspiring. But over in the OSR world, I’ve spent a lot of time reading and running games like Cairn, Pirate Borg, Knave, and Shadowdark. I’ve become a weekly listener to the podcast, Between 2 Cairns, which is (arguably) the most influential voice in the OSR world.
So did I pick a lane? Have I cast in my lot with the Blackmoor/BX grognards? Or with the hip OSR kids? I’m not sure if it’s my age or my temperament, but I haven’t committed to either camp. Instead, I’m seeing that every segment of the TTRPG world has something going for it. The difficulty is learning to appreciate what each one brings to the table. And in truth, until we learn to appreciate what each group offers, we’ll tend to gatekeep the hobby unnecessarily.
As I’ve explored these two different worlds–and others that happen to be out there–I’ve found that a lot of the terms used are kind of unhelpful. Regularly, OSR folks will refer to three types of games: traditional, story games, and OSR/NSR. That distinction breaks down, as you start to explore it. So I want to propose a different way to look at RPGs. Fair warning: this blog is a lot more theoretical/philosophical than recent posts. But I want to argue for a conceptual model by which you can understand different game systems and approaches to roleplaying. So buckle up and get a cup of coffee. Here’s part one of my new model for classifying RPGs and play styles:
Four corners of the TTRPG world
There are two different spectra that, in my opinion, help categorize not only different game systems, but also different Game Mastering styles.
In this blog, I want to discuss the X axis, which spans from Simulation (GM Focus) to Agency/Expression (Player Focus). Next week, I’ll loop back to the Y-axis. In the following week, I’ll try my hand at showing you where different game systems land (in my opinion).
Simulationism (GM Focus)
Just last night, my family was playing Circus Maximus, a 1979 chariot-racing game. The first sentence in the rules literally says, “CIRCUS MAXIMUS is a tactical simulation of chariot racing in ancient Rome.” A trend toward simulationism should not be surprising, especially from a 1970s game by Avalon Hill. Gary Gygax and his ilk loved simulation games! So they played really crunchy, rules-heavy games that were trying to evoke an experience. As a result, you get lots of rules popping up in AD&D 1e that are trying to evoke the real odds/difficulty of, for instance, fishing in a temperate area when the sun is out (that rule and others like it can be found here in my favorite AD&D rulebook).
A modern example of simulationism would be Pendragon. Interestingly, it’s not simulating a world or setting (like AD&D). It’s simulating a narrative. It wants to plop you into the story of the Sword in the Stone or some other legend in the Arthurian mythos. Pendragon enthusiasts seem excited to experience the story first-hand–even though they already know how the story will end! It’s like Ready, Player One (the book, not the movie), where the main character would go inhabit his favorite John Hughes movie. This is the strength and draw of simulationism: immersion in a story or setting that interests you. You’re walking in someone else’s shoes, just to see what it’s like.
Simulationism can be really fun, if done right! But the effort really lies with the Game Master. S/he really has to be up to snuff, knowing the NPCs, the setting, the storyline, because the players come expecting an experience. There’s going to be a lot of preparation, especially if you’re running a prewritten adventure. But for GMs who prefer this style, this prep is part of the fun! They enjoy crafting a narrative or building out a world for players to experience. And the players who are committed to this kind of play enjoy showing up, playing their part, and enjoying the meal prepared by the GM.
Now what is the slippery slope to be avoided in simulationist gaming? If players feel like there’s no point in playing, because everything is predetermined or railroady, that’s not fun. Simulationism can be done in a way that gives players a sense of engagement, even if their agency is low. But again, that really puts the pressure on the GM to make that happen. It’s high pressure, high reward for the diligent Game Master. Frankly, I don’t have the time to commit to running a simulationist game. I don’t have the space for the prep time. But for people with more free time, I can see it being very rewarding work.
Agency/Expression (Player Focus)
If simulationism is about players experiencing a narrative or setting, the opposite side of the spectrum is about players exercising agency or expressing themselves. Sometimes this looks like players creating a character with strong motivations and desires, leading players to say, “Well, my character would or would not do X.” But it doesn’t have to be character-centric. These kinds of games may involve grubby, non-heroic characters with no backstory…and yet the players ultimately are calling the shots on what happens, rather than the Game Master. The players are moving the action forward, rather than a predetermined plot or setting.
While I realize that “player agency” is an OSR mantra, I’m intentionally pairing it with “player expression” which conjures up Critical Role devotees who write novella backstories for their characters. Despite being very different in aesthetics and rules, both groups emphasize the player’s ability to choose or express themselves in the game. Both emphasize player expression over GM expression. There’s a shared focus on the freedom of the player.
While simulation requires a lot of prep work on the part of the GM, these kinds of games demand GMs be able to engage in dialogue or improvisation. And while for many people, that’s the feature of this type of gaming, it can also lead to a slippery slope: the game could become a disjointed, meaningless series of scenes, wherein players are making decisions that amount to nothing cohesive. For players, it can be easy to get confused or lost in these kinds of games. If they don’t see the breadcrumbs leading them along, they may end up navel-gazing or just making arbitrary choices. That can only last for so long before characters (or players) end up at loggerheads with one another. So the Game Master has to be pretty decent at encouraging players (and characters!) to work together–and at creating incentives that will inspire and move players. This kind of game is great for Game Masters who are short on prep time, but good with managing people. As a result, with my current personal/work life, I lean more into this realm.
A comparison of the different poles
In a simulationist game, to quote my first Dungeon Master, “The DM is god.” In a game that emphasizes player agency/expression, the GM is there to challenge and then empower the player. In truth, the difference between simulation and player agency/expression is one between determinism and free will. One requires a sovereign, in-control DM–the other, a reactive and responsive one. And in-between the two extremes, you find many different types of DMs. And that’s made all the more complex by our Y-Axis of Narrative to Environment (more on that next week).
The TTRPG world began with simulationism, but it evolved toward player agency/expression. Why, you may ask? From my perspective, it’s a normal sociological progression in response to postmodernism. Agency/freedom of the individual is a common virtue in the postmodern West and that simply extends to our gaming. As a result, when a GM says, “Sorry, you can’t attack King Arthur–knights just wouldn’t do that!” our instinctive response is, “Oh yeah? Hold my beer.” It’s no surprise, sociologically, that the simulationist grognards are often Boomers, while Gen Z is head-over-heels for Daggerheart. You can see the philosophical/sociological shift over generations reflected in that generation’s games.
Each type of game creates a different dynamic between GM and player. In a simulationist game, the GM comes to the table with predetermined or “closed” expectations. In a game that emphasizes player agency/expression, the GM comes to the table with “open” expectations to see what emerges. As players poke and prod at the environment, a story emerges. Or as players engage with the narrative, freely shaping it by their choices in a way that fulfills their character’s desires, the GM finds themselves surprised by how the story plays out. Two very different ways of engaging roleplaying! But also, both can be very fun.
A note against gatekeeping
The gaming world (and nerd culture generally) has a bad reputation for gatekeeping. Again, I don’t think that’s special to us. Us vs. them thinking is baked into our brains. But what that does mean is that we should guard against it. We should all want the RPG hobby to be inviting to others, regardless of what games they like or want to play. Because here’s reality: you can like simulationist games and others that emphasize agency/expression. You don’t have to, but there’s nothing saying you can’t.
I find difference to be a nice palate cleanser. I’ve never played a game that emphasized player expression/agency as much as FIASCO. It’s a GM-less game with almost no dice-rolling. It’s all about players choosing and building a narrative. Additionally, I have really gotten a kick out of Beyond the Wall, in which players work with the GM to create the world in which they play. But I want to play them the most when I’ve been playing something a little more simulationy. I just need some randomness and surprise in my life! And trust me, FIASCO is full of surprises, mostly in the form of explosions.
If you’ve never tried a simulationist game–or you’ve never tried one that emphasized player agency/expression–maybe you should! Even if you don’t enjoy it, I would like to think that you could see its positives by walking in someone else’s shoes. So which side of this X-axis do you tend toward? And what are some games on the opposite side that you find interesting? Sound off in the comments below!
Disclosure: Some of the links in this post are affiliate links. That means if you click and make a purchase, I may receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. Thanks for supporting the blog!
Leave a Reply