[quote]What is ‘full Simulationism mode’?
What is ‘full Gamism mode’?[/quote]
I thought I just (sort of) explained that? 
I admit that the “full” is purely hypothetical in these sentences though, since no RPG (regardless of whether you’re talking about it in theory or about actual play) will ever be 100% either one of these Playstyles, to the full exclusion of the other two.
Instead (and I won’t say it’s a fact, but I still think it might be easy for all to agree upon this), all roleplay always contains elements of each of these GNS approaches. There is always a fictional world of some sort that gets simulated or evoked. There is always some sort of competition or challenge going on. And there are always elements of storytelling happening.
So yeah, the better way to put this might have been to say “Simulation-focussed” or “Gamist-heavy”, instead of “full [whatever]”.
But that wasn’t really your point, was it? 
That’s an overly narrow definition. Simulationism does not strictly have to be about reality (the actually real reality, the one we live in when we don’t RP).
Much rather, Simulationism is meant to be understood as that thing that happens as soon as you say “imagine there is a world where things are pretty similar to our medieval times - except there are monsters, and magic, and dragons, and elves… how would things be in that world…”
That’s why I like to use “verisimilitude” instead of “realism”. With a few syllables less, one could also say “believability”. Oh wait, no - that has exactly as many syllables… Well, nevermind 
Sim (to use the shortened version because I’m getting tired of typing the whole term) is first and foremmost about “how would that really be”, you know, with elves and magic and monsters.
In its hardcore form, Sim doesn’t care about story, except in as far that such “story” emerges (more or less coincidentally) from events that are happening in the fictional world. But it is far more important that these events are likely to happen, and don’t hurt the premisses of the fictional world. NO sudden appearances of battle mechs when we are playing a Harry Potter style campaign.
Dramatic quality of an emerging story is of no concern to the hardcore Simulationist - because whatever happens, happens. If it coincides to be dramatically valuable, good. If not, that’s how “it would be” in that fictional world, shrug.
Sim is why we have random tables in RPGs.
In its hardcore form, Sim also doesn’t care about the Gamist’s favourite pastimes, competition and challenge. If “it is reasonable or realistic” that a 3rd level party would encounter an elder black dragon if they decide to go to a certain area in the Cursed Swamps of Doom… then that would just be what happens, under a hardcore Sim standpoint.
Sim knows no “high level areas” or the like. It also isn’t interested in level-up, party-balance, or “fair” combat rules - except in as far as these convey the much sought after realism (or verisimiltude), and further the players’ “immersion” into the setting.
Yeah, setting is very important in Sim.
I must confess I have no idea what you mean by this.
My point was that “if it doesn’t constitute a worthwhile challenge, then it has no place in my game”, which would be the hardcore Gamist standpoint.
Gamists sometimes tend to hate “fighting trashmobs”, because they wanna get to the “real challenging stuff” asap. While Simulationists would insist however, that “it would only be reasonable / realistic that along the way you might encounter a few opponents who are really really weak, and/or a few that are coincidentally too hard to beat for your party. That’s just life (in this fictional world), suck it up”.
For them, the world (and its fictional integrity) comes first.
For the Gamist, his/her pleasure in confronting obstacles that are satisfying to solve, overcome, or defeat comes first. Setting is important, yes, but only in as far as it supports that urge.
Clearer now?
No, dice rolling (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with it. What you mean is “freefrom” roleplay, which may be Nar, but may just as well be Sim. (But it is almost never found in Gamist styles, though).
There are a few very good RPGs out there that are Narrativism-focussed by design, but still involve quite some dice rolling. (Life with Master, Primetime Adventures, InSpectres, Dogs in the Vineyard… to name only a few)
The core of Narrativism is in the players’ (including the GM, if there is one) goal to create a story together.
If that story requires a setting that is consistent and believable (and most do!), then Sim elements will be included to provide that. If the story profits from an element of challenge and competition, Gamist elements are always there for the taking.
But the overruling agenda of Nar is “would it make the story better?”
If, say, spending another 20 minutes having the party climb a particularly hard-to-climb rock wall would make the adventure more dramatic, memorable, epic… or just more enjoyable… then the hardcore Narrativist will always be all for it.
If, however, the question is about spending another 20 minutes killing 15 more goblin minions (after having slaughtered dozens of them before already) before finally confronting the Big Bad of the campaign… if that is is perceived as “a waste of time” or as “not improving the drama and action of the adventure”, the Nar player will always happily skip over it.
The way you described them, no of course you won’t
But as I said, even the way I describe them, you’ll likely not find any one system that supports one of those to the full exclusion of the other two.
That’s why it (the GNS theory) is also called “the Big Model” - because all roleplaying contains elements of each. The question is merely about where the focus is.
There’s really not a lot I can do about that, now is there?
But I’m sorry if I came across as preachy or condescending, if that helps!
Then again, you know these are the internets, right… where “It remains a fact” basically means “I think so” in all relevant cases
Just like in real life, actually 
