PDA

View Full Version : GNS revisited: A Summary



Samurai Jill
2009-09-16, 02:21 AM
.
Alright- this will be my last essay on the subject for the forseeable future, intended to give a broad general overview of GNS theory and some general summaries of the subject. If I had realised at first how much confusion these would cause, I'd have done this one first... although, maybe that'd make no difference. There's a link to my older, embarressingly crude, essay on the subject here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5396899&postcount=1), and the paladin-specific thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123278). For the remainder of the essay, I'll try to be as down to earth and unpretentious as possible. Of course, to compensate... I will be quoting poems.



Some Introductions Are In Order

GNS theory is the idea that human beings- at least when it comes to their approach to role-playing-games, can be roughly broken down into three broad categories- Gamists, Narrativists, and Simulationists- and that RPGs are most enjoyable for their participants when they specifically cater to one of these three groups, or their associated creative agendas.

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9763/gnsgraph.gif

Think of this as a kind of psychological profiling of players, if you will. Of course, before we can discuss the subject further, some terms and definitions need to be laid out.


Gamism: Prove Yourself

One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
-Alfred Lord Tennyson

GNS revisited: Gamism (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6926696&postcount=1)
Gamism: Step On Up (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/)

The key human urge at work here is the drive to win! To prevail, to succeed, to compete, to rule, to dominate, to master yourself, to achieve.

Does this mean that Narrativist or Simulationist play can't have conflicts? No, but it will be the means to other ends- a side-effect, if you will, rather than the main creative focus of play. A Simulationist player gets into fights because it "makes sense at the time"- the IC data and formal motives pertaining to their character said so. A Narrativist player gets into conflicts because that showcases the character's development or capacity for sacrifice, and highlights an emerging theme.

Even within conflicts, Simulationist players will look for different qualities- genre accuracy or realism, rather than strict equality in terms of tactical tradeoffs, or even survivability. And Narrativist players care more about the stakes of conflict- the end result- than the details of resolution.


Narrativism: Say Something

I get down on my knees and do what must be done
And kiss Achilles' hand, the killer of my son.
-Michael Longley

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
-Robert Frost

GNS revisited: Narrativism (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6871809&postcount=1)
Narrativism: Story Now (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html)

The key human urge at work here is the desire for meaning. To send a message, to address premise, to prove a point, to convey a theme, to explore morality, to foster drama.

Does this mean that Gamist or Simulationist play can't have 'a story'? No. But it won't be the primary focus of the players' contributions. It'll either have been shaped by one player only- the GM- or players will be left free to go in any direction they please. In the former case, story is present, but players have no input, and in the latter, players have input, but no compelling story is likely to emerge.

It is perfectly possible to become swept up in story-as-artifact- as in films and books and TV shows- but as finished products, meaningful thematic interaction with them is impossible. And because theme is inherently a series of aesthetically pleasing yet statistically unlikely coincidences, unconstrained Sim or Game concerns will almost never yield it. Either approach can be perfectly functional, but it is not, and never can be, collaborative authorship of a compelling story.


Simulationism: Be There

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty, -—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'
-John Keats

GNS revisited: Simulationism (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6907402&postcount=1)
Simulationism: The Right To Dream (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/)

The key human urge at work here is the need to understand. To relate and unify, to be curious, to follow consistent cause and consequence, to immerse oneself in a self-contained cosmos.

Does this mean Gamist or Narrativist play can't have rich worlds, compelling role-play, and at least some degree of plausibility? Sure- but they won't be the primary focus of the players' contributions. In Narrativist play, the world and characters revolve around the players, rather then modelling each as independant entities. And Gamist play demands parity of resources, attributes and tactical options in a way that tends to misrepresent, e.g. a game-world's social fabric or kinetic physics.

Gamists role-play mainly for the sake of colour- a witty one-liner or cool outfit- and might suffer ethical restrictions in the same way they'll take -2 to Str for halfling characters. Narrativists role-play to 'send a message'- to make some judgemental point that is essentially higher (or lower!) than pure self-interest. These metagame concerns can mingle, but eventually separate, and neither accords well with exploring a character 'for itself', without extraneous agenda.


People aren't like that!
Each GNS mode generally refers to what is going on, on average, during entire sessions of play. Not within a single moment, or in a single player's head, but what can be seen as the clearest overall priority of play. The terms can also be used as shorthand for individuals inclined toward a given mode of play, but I'm not claiming that every individual human being is either 100% Gamist-inclined, 100% Simulationist-inclined, or 100% Narrativist-inclined. However, this doesn't invalidate the key predictions of the theory, for the following reasons:

1. The demands of one mode of play, in practice, still actively conflict with another, which means that each mode can demand very different techniques.
2. Most people do express a distinct effective preference for one mode or another. (Many can still adapt themselves to other modes, but only if given unambiguous signals to do so.)
3. Role-playing is not a solo activity. Even if you are flexible enough to enjoy any mode of play, consider how likely it is that you will casually bump into 4 or 5 other players that are equally accomodating?


Can't we all just get along?
In my experience, when players are talking about 'compromise', what they're actually talking about is one mode cleanly prevailing over the others. By way of example:

"Okay, we'll let people play elves and dwarves and hobbits, but they can't have attribute modifiers other than +/-2" is not a compromise between Gamism and Simulationism. That is Gamism winning, getting everything it wants, and leaving Simulationism with the leftovers.

"Okay, we'll make up bits of the setting as we go to fit the story, but they need to be more-or-less plausible" is not a compromise between Narrativism and Simulationism. That is Narrativism winning, getting everything it wants, and leaving Simulationism with the leftovers.

"Okay, yeah, combat can happen, but you have to remember that wizards are supposed to be more powerful than fighters" is not a compromise between Gamism and Simulationism. That is Simulationism winning, getting everything it wants, and leaving Gamism with the leftovers.

"Okay, the GM can put players in dramatic situations, but we can't break character and gotta use IC information" is not a compromise between Narrativism and Simulationism. That is Simulationism winning, getting everything it wants, and leaving Narrativism with the leftovers.

"Okay, I'll script in plenty of combat and puzzles, but you have to remember to stick to the campaign storyline" is not a compromise between Gamism and Narrativism. That is Gamism winning, getting everything it wants, and leaving Narrativism with the leftovers.

"Okay, I won't dictate the plot, but you'll mostly get into trouble over your character's dreams and beliefs" is not a compromise between Gamism and Narrativism. That is Narrativism winning, getting everything it wants, and leaving Gamism with the leftovers.

Is it possible for people with a relatively mild hunger for a given mode, or able to subsist in part on other modes, to be satisfied with 'leftovers'? Sure. All of the above can absolutely be perfectly functional approaches to play. But they do not represent compromises, and they certainly don't represent two or more modes simultaneously firing on all cylinders, (for reasons I've covered in detail under prior essays for each mode.)

Problems, in practice, mainly arise when parts of the rules-as-used-in-practice express one preference, and other portions express a contradictory preference, and different players latch onto different portions of the rules and cling to them for dear sanity- The result of such mismatching has a cumulative psychological effect which feels remarkably like this:

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/8669/relativityescher410px.jpg

When inconsistent priorities are expressed in play, the result is almost certain to leave all players equally dissatisfied. This is known as incoherence. Players might never realise the tacit misunderstanding underlying play here until tempers flare and fallings-out occur. Even in the best-case scenario, scenes, techniques, or gimmicks that particularly appeal to the Gamist, Narrativist or Simulationist player are likely to bore at least one of the others, leading to a listless and dissatisfied feeling in play.

It's not that simple!
People often criticise the tendency to lump RPGs with vastly different emphases in terms of genre inspiration and rules-complexity into a single GNS bracket, but the thing to bear in mind here is that player incompatibilities along those lines are easily discerned. They don't require much prior discussion, and are resolved through a clean parting of the ways. You like high fantasy, I like gritty cyberpunk, you like party games, I like hundreds of pages of setting description- nobody gets confused about those differences, and you can spot the differences a mile off. They're either not a problem, because you share tastes, or an obvious problem, in which case, have a nice game with your own group.

The problem is that everybody says they want a say in the story, and everybody claims to want visceral conflict, and everybody prefers things to "make sense". Yet very few understand the degree to which these things, in practice, will conflict- or are prepared to make active contributions along each front. GNS theory is expressly concerned with the underlying frictions of the hobby that are not easily spotted, that cannot be reliably resolved in a casual fashion. To an extent, it's true that RPGs are defined, in many ways, as being the intersection of cooperation/competition, storytelling, and mechanisation- but therein lies the danger. RPGs bring together disparate fields of human interest that for the overwhelming bulk of history have had very little to do with eachother. We're still learning how to minimise the disagreements.

Some players seem to object to GNS on the grounds that trying out a more coherent design might entail the loss of players within an individual's already limited social group. I'm afraid I can't offer any clean solution for this problem, except to suggest that remaining players might wind up having more fun for your efforts. Or... you could always go bowling?

Finally, intractable problems with real-world relationships and downright pathological behaviour are not something any amount of sound design can ultimately help to fix, and fall outside the scope of the discussion. The problem is when real-life problems or 'being a jerk' are blamed for what is actually perfectly normal behaviour within a given mode of play.

Drift- a halfway solution
If a game design is only mildly incoherent, players may well be able to patch over the rough spots using official or unofficial house rules, a process known as drift. Drift is also an excellent method for dealing with the relatively mild frictions between preferences within a given GNS mode- e.g, between focus on tactics and focus on strategy- provided everyone is willing to compromise slightly. The problem with this approach, however, is that when players with radically different agendas are present in the group, the overall focus of play can drift into the stormy waters of incoherence. Here again, being able to identify the underlying agendas of each player is a valuable tool for heading off these problems before they start.

But we don't use house rules!
Any consistent behavioural convention not expressed in the original game text is a house rule. Even if you never write them down. Even if you never formally articulate them. Even if you never consciously realise you're playing by them. "Don't use polymorph all the time" is a house rule. "If you're playing a wizard, please don't hit your win buttons too much" is a house rule. "Don't stick a monk in the same party with a druid" is a house rule. No group I have encountered has managed to thoroughly enjoy play of an incoherent system without, in effect, extending, rewriting or ignoring substantial portions of the game text to conform with the needs of their peculiar creative agenda.

Worse yet, players- particularly Simulationists stuck using RPGs that do cater reasonably well to a different GNS mode- can be mired for years in attempts to adapt the game to their own tastes, developing thick tomes of addenda and exceptions that do nothing but crack open further points of vulnerability within the design. What we need to avoid wastes of time like this for all concerned is greater familiarity with the real diversity of RPG design, and a better understanding of the diversity of motives within our hobby.

It's a cult of personality surrounding an abrasive jerk!
Untrue, and irrelevant either way. Yes, Edwards' early attitude to Simulationism in particular can only be described as a heady blend of incredulity, bile and contempt, but I can only conjecture his attitude must have softened considerably over time- to the best of my ability to judge, his major essays on each mode have been as even-handed and magnanimous as could reasonably be expected of a person who frankly prefers one mode of play. Clearly, the man is not impervious to argument. Nor would any indictment of personality constitute a substantive attack on the theory as presented. There is no substitute for actual experience of other RPGs.

Yes, GNS is mainly based on anecdotal evidence. I can only ask that you consider carefully how well these predictions correlate with your own observation of player preferences, and perhaps experiment tentatively with other styles of play, other rule-sets, and even other players. Make of it what you will.

But this survey from a decade ago says that...
I could say a good deal more on the subject, but I will simply point out that if Wizards of the Coast believed their own hype, subsequent editions of D&D would have moved in a more general, jack-of-all-trades direction, rather than a conclusively Gamist one. The latter is what actually happened.


A Personal Word

My goal in writing these essays has been to (A) help clarify and collect my own thoughts on the subject of RPG design, particularly through feedback from readers, which has been invaluable, (B) provide a more accessible and concise practical reference to the broad essentials of GNS theory than I feel is available on The Forge, (C) help highlight RPGs that cater well to a given mode of play, and (D) provide homebrewers or aspiring designers with some tips that could help avoid friction in their designs. We're all still learning here.

For my own part, I've found that the Threefold model, GNS theory, and the Big Model have been very useful in pinning down a certain sense of... vague unease toward many RPGs that I've crossed paths with down the years, but had never previously been able to precisely articulate, and the attempts to cope with which prompted a great deal of fruitless effort on my part. For that, I feel personally indebted to everyone who contributed to these theories' development over the years, and I hope I've passed on a small share of those insights to new readers.

Yes, there is a great deal of intimidating jargon and cluttered text to wade through, but if you have practical questions about how to improve on a nascent design prototype, the Forge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/) is a great place to go to for advice and discussion. They can give you down-to-earth suggestions and constructive criticism far more ably than I (they're also a far friendlier bunch.) And if you have experiences of play that you want to share- or that you think would shed new light on the debate over creative agendas- I'm sure they'd love to hear it.

.

Zincorium
2009-09-16, 03:57 AM
The things you are calling incoherent are people's thoughts and preferences.

How do you expect to make progress when you won't stop dismissing people's input?

Blacky the Blackball
2009-09-16, 05:17 AM
Some Introductions Are In Order

GNS theory is the idea that human beings- at least when it comes to their approach to role-playing-games, can be roughly broken down into three broad categories- Gamists, Narrativists, and Simulationists- and that RPGs are most enjoyable for their participants when they specifically cater to one of these three groups, or their associated creative agendas.

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/9763/gnsgraph.gif

You might claim that it's breaking things down into broad categories, but what it's actually doing is defining three extreme positions and insisting that reality needs to fit its definitions.

Then it labels everything else (you know, the actual games that people happily play and enjoy for a mixture of reasons) as incoherent because they don't fit into it's narrow definitions of what a game "should" be like.

It's like saying that some people have sex as an expression of their love for someone, some people have sex in order to procreate, and some people have sex to ease the physical urge - and any sex that happens for a mix of these reasons is "incoherent" and less enjoyable than it "should" be to the participants.

It's like saying that some people eat dinner together to fulfil a social role, some people eat dinner together in order to assuage their hunger, and some people eat dinner together because they enjoy the taste - and any dinners that happen for a mix of these reasons are "incoherent" and less enjoyable than they "should" be to the participants.

It's like saying that some people play soccer to have fun with their friends, some people play soccer to keep fit, and some people play soccer to win - and any soccer games that happen for a mix of these reasons are "incoherent" and less enjoyable than they "should" be to the participants.

Etc.

Basically, GNS theory is pseudo-intellectual pop-psychology twaddle of the highest order.

Rather than looking at the reasons people play role playing games - which in reality form a mixed continuum rather than well defined poles, with people's attitudes and reason for having fun varying from session to session and even from scene to scene within a game - and then trying to describe them, it defines its playing types first and then tries to insist that if people should Stop Having Fun Guys (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys) and play according to those types then the games would run more smoothly.

And it even has the cheek to point out its own gaping flaw - that it only describes a few extremes of playing style - and claim it as a virtue by telling people that the vast majority that don't fit into those extremes are doing it wrong.

PhoenixRivers
2009-09-16, 05:18 AM
I believe it is quite easy to have compromises. This isn't an all or nothing. It's about seeking solutions that fit multiple parts, and avoid conflict between them.

A gripping, compelling story of sacrifice and growth from a reasonably and sensibly portrayed outcast from society, who takes up the way of the blade to avenge his fallen master...

Gamist view: The most effective abilities will be on my sheet.

Simulationist interpretation: It makes sense for people, by and large, to stick with what works. Thus, you'll see more effective abilities than otherwise.

Narrativist take: The best way to be a part for a compelling story is to stay alive. Survivability will even serve deaths, by making them more dramatic. Further, working with the gm and players to draw the disparate elements of the character into a compelling part of the story is good. The above elements can be explained, and that can be the basis for where I start. From there, we'll see where it goes, but it's as good a place to start as any.


Does one take priority? At any one time, perhaps. But as the story progresses, the prevailing type can change.

Simulationism and Narrativistic play can work hand in hand, provided you avoid drama for drama's sake. Give meaning to the growth, and give it sense. Receiving your toast overcooked need not be a major character alignment shift.

People are what they do, not what class they are. A samurai can (and many have) turned their back on their master. That isn't "breaking character", provided the decision makes sense, and is believable.

A samurai can be driven to success. That's logical. Life is competitive, and this also is realistic and makes sense. There are limits, obviously, but it's not an all or nothing thing. Because you choose not to have your Samurai travel to the Western continent, a voyage of 9 years, to enroll in an order that gives you a +2 to your attack ability, that doesn't mean you're not a gamist. It doesn't mean you are a simulationist. If you approach each decision from the perspective of "what makes sense, given that this character is driven and motivated, and prefers survival to dying, and has access to this"... Then you can serve all three styles, over a campaign.

I love me some combat. I love crunching the numbers and winning.

But if that's all a game is, I don't like it.

I love staying in character, and using my wits to figure out how to use my character's resources to achieve my goals.

But if the whole game is that serious, I don't like it.

I love a gripping story. I love exploring who my character is, and who he becomes.

But if it's all story, I'll get bored.

A great game (to me) serves all three, sometimes at different times, sometimes in different measure. But all three have a place, and all three make a game good. Missing one? It's like a tripod without a leg.

Saph
2009-09-16, 06:19 AM
Well, I have to say, this whole thing has certainly been educational. I'd always been a bit dubious about GNS theory, but I'd never realised just how fundamentally dysfunctional it was until now.

I can see now why GNS theory has got such a bad reputation. All the jargon is there to disguise the fact that the whole theory is built upon one assumption - "games can only cater to one play style, and if they don't they're bad because they're 'incoherent' " - which is not only wrong, but which manages to be a backhanded insult to anyone whose games don't fit neatly into the GNS categories. No wonder it's so widely disliked.

However, there's one question that remains unanswered, Jill. Why are you doing this now? This pattern you're using of trying to spread GNS theory by posting discussions and long essays on the target forum was standard practise for Forgies . . . four years ago. You are very late to the party. So what's the deal? Are you a new convert, or an old one?

blackseven
2009-09-16, 06:23 AM
I really do appreciate your summaries, Samurai Jill. They are a lot more accessible than Edwards' essays.

My main problem with GNS (in particular) is that it attempts to be primarily normative, rather than descriptive like the older Threefold, and yet does not lay down a strong case for the normative portions of its theory. What I mean is, it does a good job laying down G, N, and S, and showing why there is tension, but it seems to have as a premise that *this tension is intractable.*

This is where GNS fails for me. I have not seen a good case to be made where a group of socially functional, relatively reasonable, moderately mature people would fall so squarely into one of those modes that a system/campaign can't bounce around between their primary preference and those of others.

FeAnPi
2009-09-16, 06:31 AM
No Saph, it was not common only four years ago: in Italy it is a common forgite practise even now.
Actually, it started roughly two years ago as a way to promote the forgite games that were translated in Italian. And so far has caused one of the greatest italian RPG's communities, where even D&D's Italian editors posted on regular basis, to became a "forgite's pulpit" with some noobs and a few other users.

If a group has a particular forma mentis, and uses particular practises, its member will always use them. In my country, to sell some products; here, for an unknown reason.

PS: in all the "GNS" threads I am just lurking and not posting because I was made too angry against forgites by their way of acting. I prefer to hold myself back.

Saph
2009-09-16, 06:40 AM
Ah, didn't know that. Well, that comes with not speaking Italian.

But on the English-speaking RP boards, as far as I know, there's been a lull in GNS advocates trying to make converts for a while now. Jill's an anomaly. That's why I'd like to hear from her why she's restarted it.

Megaduck
2009-09-16, 06:46 AM
Reading these threads I can't help but to think that GNS theory is exactly backwards.

A good game will include Gamest, Simulationist, and Narrative elements so that all three will be in roughly equal proportion.

So in other words the more incoherent a game is, the better it is.

I also notice that GNS theory does not include any of the Rule of ... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfIndex)

I'll bend plot, world building, and character sheets into a pretzel if it makes me laugh, for example.

PhoenixRivers
2009-09-16, 06:56 AM
Yeah, I'm of the camp that the problem is what you make of it.

I've played in groups where the GM was a hardcore narrativist. People were punished for character optimization, every skill and feat had to be justified via RP and story, or it was vetoed.

This is an example of a Narrativist with conflicting views on the others. I tend to see more narrativists do this than simulationists and gamists. I believe narrativism lends itself more to extreme followers, though Gamism and Simulationism certainly have devotees. What I've noticed, however, in all but the most extreme cases, Simulationists and Gamists can harbor dissenting views in their games.

For me? D&D isn't as serious as all that. It's an excuse to get around a table with friends, eat pizza, drink dew, and have fun. I cater to my players, I give them elements that they want. When I focus on a gamist-oriented player, I give them combat, puzzles, goals that are winnable. We got to that point by following the arc of the narrativist, developing their character, and we do so in a world that follows the rules, and is believable. If a simulationist joins, I do research, I make it not only believable, but thematically accurate as well.

But everyone gets their moment to shine, doing what they love most.

And that's why I have players who have been loyal to my game for over 15 years.

kjones
2009-09-16, 07:18 AM
Ah, didn't know that. Well, that comes with not speaking Italian.

But on the English-speaking RP boards, as far as I know, there's been a lull in GNS advocates trying to make converts for a while now. Jill's an anomaly. That's why I'd like to hear from her why she's restarted it.

It's also worth nothing that Edwards himself has abandoned the theory in favor of The Big Model, which is another kettle of fish altogether.

ScreamingDoom
2009-09-16, 07:23 AM
Well, I have to say, this whole thing has certainly been educational. I'd always been a bit dubious about GNS theory, but I'd never realised just how fundamentally dysfunctional it was until now.


Yeah, I have to give these threads credit for that. I had honestly never heard of GNS theory before these threads popped up here, but now I know that the whole thing is nonsensical trash.



However, there's one question that remains unanswered, Jill. Why are you doing this now? This pattern you're using of trying to spread GNS theory by posting discussions and long essays on the target forum was standard practise for Forgies . . . four years ago. You are very late to the party. So what's the deal? Are you a new convert, or an old one?

I admit being curious about this, too. It does seem... odd... given how very much aware many people are of the crippling problems GNS theory has as well as the tactics proponents have used in the past.

kamikasei
2009-09-16, 07:35 AM
I've played in groups where the GM was a hardcore narrativist. People were punished for character optimization, every skill and feat had to be justified via RP and story, or it was vetoed.

Actually, I get the impression a GNS advocate would call that Simulationism, not Narrativism.

Nerdanel
2009-09-16, 07:50 AM
I think GNS makes sense.

I myself am a gamist with slight simulationist tendencies and no taste at all for narrativism. Even before I had heard of the GNS system I had become aware of that sort of differences, having gamed in a group with a simulationist DM who put simulationist houserules on top of D&D. For example, I thought keeping track of which skills had been used and could be increased on the next levelup was too much work for questionable benefit and would have preferred the unrealistic situation where you can learn to cook by killing a bunch of orcs.

Then there was that one session where we did a trip around the wilderness and all we killed was some rabbits for our meal. We didn't meet any of the lizardmen we had came to find as we consistently rolled high on our random encounter rolls. A non-simulationist DM would have just used DM-fiat to put some lizardmen or something else in our way to make things interesting, but since the dice said "no lizardmen" and the map said "nothing much here", it was a rather pointless session.

SlyGuyMcFly
2009-09-16, 07:56 AM
It's like saying that some people have sex as an expression of their love for someone, some people have sex in order to procreate, and some people have sex to ease the physical urge - and any sex that happens for a mix of these reasons is "incoherent" and less enjoyable than it "should" be to the participants.

It's like saying that some people eat dinner together to fulfil a social role, some people eat dinner together in order to assuage their hunger, and some people eat dinner together because they enjoy the taste - and any dinners that happen for a mix of these reasons are "incoherent" and less enjoyable than they "should" be to the participants.

It's like saying that some people play soccer to have fun with their friends, some people play soccer to keep fit, and some people play soccer to win - and any soccer games that happen for a mix of these reasons are "incoherent" and less enjoyable than they "should" be to the participants.

Etc.


I was about to post an analogy when I saw this. I'll post it anyways:

It's like saying that there's three flavours of icecream (chocolate, strawberry and vanilla) and that anyone mixing them is having an incoherent bowl of icecream and will find it less tasty.

oxybe
2009-09-16, 07:57 AM
the GNS theory reminds me why i dislike alignment... you can't shove things in neat little boxes and say they're incompatible and should never touch. it's the stereotypical "YOUR PALLY MUST ACT LG 100% OF THE TIME OR FALL!" attitude except the LG you're supposed to act is a biased and very loaded LG where you are destined to fall.

things, and people, are usually much more complex and will often borrow heavily from the other boxes as the situation needs to offer a more rich experience. to back to alignment, IMO, it is best used as a very brief shorthand and part of the character's personality, not his be-all end-all descriptor. lord knows i've played sessions of D&D where description fueled what happend without touching a die and had a blast doing it.

same with GNS... i would wouldn't have so much an issue with it if it didn't say "if you're not playing by my rules, you're playing it WRONG" then proceed to plug it's ears, but use fancier language.

blackseven
2009-09-16, 07:59 AM
The things you are calling incoherent are people's thoughts and preferences.

How do you expect to make progress when you won't stop dismissing people's input?

I should have posted this earlier, but in Jill's defense, "incoherent" is not necessarily a slur. People by nature are incoherent, as are a lot of things we think, do, and like.

For instance, a good parent wants their kid to learn to eventually think and act for themselves. At the same time, a good parent sometimes needs their child to listen to them *right now* simply trusting in their greater experience and knowledge of the world (don't touch that hot stove, don't drink that bleach). Taken to extremes, these goals of good parenting are incoherent. (This is not the best example I can think of, but the best examples I can think of are all political.) The incoherence comes when one refuses to acknowledge trade offs (kind of like GNS' core assumption).

OTOH, I think GNS tends to use the term as a derogatory, so reacting to the term negatively might be appropriate here.

Diamondeye
2009-09-16, 09:01 AM
The bottom line is that this theory does not A) match up with the majority of the data we have, B) fails the test of parsimony and C) is a circular argument.

A) The vast majority of people here, AND the available survey data indicate that compromise does occur regularly, and that gamer concerns are not the 3 arms of the theory. Simply because 4E went a certain way within the theory's descriptive model means very little since that can be attributed to a very vocal portion of the player base on the internet.

Attempting to dismiss this compromise by claiming "its not really compromise" is simply denying the possibility of compromise in order to make the theory work, because it says that compromise is 'incoherent'.

Furthermore, the conflicts between styles rest on extreme examples of players from each arm. One example was a 'simulationist' player who supposedly 'wouldn't have fun' if he had to compromise on his vision of his character at all in order to promote harmony among the players and move the game forward. Even if he were asked to change ho he envisioned his character that would be 'not fun' because he was so dedicated to his original vision

The problem, of course, is that a person unwilling to compromise his own wants at all for the benefit of his peers (and for their compromise in return) is essentially a childish boor who we probably wouldn't want to play with at all. It speaks to a definite maturity problem. If the theory relies on the assumption of selfish, childish extremes, it fails to represent actuality in most circumstances.

B) It fails at any test of parsimony. The narritive arm of the theory requires not just narritive focus, but narritive focus with all the players contributing equally to the development of a plot that's unknown at the start. It further obfuscates this by misusing words such as "protagonist" and "interactive" and slinging words that have pejorative connotations such as "illusionism".

The problem, of course, is that these "wrong" ways of playing based on a narritive get shoved into the other 2 categories despite not really fitting in with anything else found there, and for no reason at all. There is consistently no explaination of WHY narritives primarily driven by the DM aren't 'narritivist' other than that 'set plots aren't interactive' and games are interactive. The problem, of course, is that this uses a false dilemma of 'if a plot isn't created by equal collaboration it's completely set and non-interactive'. The silliness of this should be evident; there's no reason all have to contribute equal effort. In fact, in games where it claims there's equal collaboration a close examination of any game would probably discover more effort by some people and less by others simply based on creatie ability and relative dominance of personalities.

C) The theory is a circular argument. Ultimately what it says is "The playstyles are fundamentally incompatible because they are defined this way by the theory, and they are defined this way because they are incompatible." This is why when it's pointed out that people compromise, its claimed that "no, the really aren't" and then it's pointed out that one side or the other 'wins' on minor details. This, of course, ignores the fact that compromise IS one side or the other winning each detail so that each side ultimately wins and equitable protion of ALL the details.

In short, the theory is basically Ron Edwards's way of pontificating at everyone else about how to play and essentially saying "make games that fixate on one thing or the other so I can play only the games I want with the people I want, excluding anything I don't like". It's nothing more than pretensions to intellectual sophistication, with a poor understanding of the scientific method, hypothesis formation, and human behavior. It should be noted that in thiswhole discussion, NO serious academic support from an accredited institution is to be found for this theory.

Typewriter
2009-09-16, 09:03 AM
I read up on the last thread, and this thread here, and I have a few thoughts I felt like writing down because, well, I'm not 100% certain, but I think these posts offend me.

It seems to me that these 'GNS' posts have not been made as an attempt at discussion, but instead attempts at 'teaching' people and 'correcting' people. There has been no conversational aspects of the posts I've looked through where people who disagree with the theory have their concerns/complaints adequately addressed. This isn't exactly a flaw of those arguing, but instead a flaw of the argument. The argument has the inherent design in it that anyone who disagrees with it is wrong and will either eventually come around, or continue to think they're wrong. Trying to bring something like this into a forum of open discussion is beyond rude in my opinion.

It would be like making a post that says 'The number 5 is a more precious number than the number 7. Any arguments that oppose it are nonsensical, and stem from peoples lack of understanding about the numbers 5 and 7.'

If your argument has a built in clause where you can never be wrong, then attempting to discuss it is kind of rude in my opinion.


As far as GNS itself though, I have to say that after reading this post and the last one, I don't really have any arguments worth making against it. I read it, and I laugh then think to myself, "....no...". There is no point in arguing it, because the theory itself attempts to trump any argument before they come up by dismissing them.

For those that agree with the theory good on you, and if that's how you want to think about people around you, then good for you, but I sincerely doubt that people who disagree with GNS will ever ever be swayed, and attempting to convince us is just going to cause disagreements without resolution.

Fax Celestis
2009-09-16, 09:07 AM
I honestly take offense to the concept that Narrativism and Gamism (as you insist on calling them) are entirely incompatible.

kamikasei
2009-09-16, 09:17 AM
I honestly take offense to the concept that Narrativism and Gamism (as you insist on calling them) are entirely incompatible.

I wouldn't bother; Narrativism isn't much like what you probably care about in your own games.

Fax Celestis
2009-09-16, 09:18 AM
I wouldn't bother; Narrativism isn't much like what you probably care about in your own games.

...and you know what I care about in my games?

kamikasei
2009-09-16, 09:22 AM
...and you know what I care about in my games?

I mean that Narrativism isn't something many people anywhere likely care about in their games. Saying that Narrativism and Gamism are incompatible isn't the same as saying that you can't care about game and story at the same time, because Narrativism and story have little if anything to do with one another.

I wouldn't presume to know what you care about in your games, but I can guess that on sheer numbers you're unlikely to care about Narrativism, because in all the descriptions of it I've read it comes off as a very niche concern.

PhoenixRivers
2009-09-16, 09:24 AM
I mean that Narrativism isn't something many people anywhere likely care about in their games. Saying that Narrativism and Gamism are incompatible isn't the same as saying that you can't care about game and story at the same time, because Narrativism and story have little if anything to do with one another.

I wouldn't presume to know what you care about in your games, but I can guess that on sheer numbers you're unlikely to care about Narrativism, because in all the descriptions of it I've read it comes off as a very niche concern.

+1.

Narrativism could be more appropriately described as "anti-everything else". If the only way to be a narrativist is to enjoy being put into situations where you must abandon all other things important to you, or suffer greatly for it?

Where I come from, that's called masochism.

Kylarra
2009-09-16, 09:32 AM
...and you know what I care about in my games?Well, do you like having only one Cause that is important to you and the rest of the game focused on trying to subvert your devotion to that Cause?

Fax Celestis
2009-09-16, 09:37 AM
Well, do you like having only one Cause that is important to you and the rest of the game focused on trying to subvert your devotion to that Cause?

My characters possess goals and motivations, and from that have their own causes to champion, yes. It is not the center of the game, but that's because everyone's characters also have similar motivations.

kamikasei
2009-09-16, 09:41 AM
My characters possess goals and motivations, and from that have their own causes to champion, yes. It is not the center of the game, but that's because everyone's characters also have similar motivations.

That's not Narrativism, though (unless Samurai Jill wants to correct me). Having goals and motivations is just part of Simulationism according to GNS. Narrativism would require the focus of the game to be on how your character chooses between his causes and ideals when they come in to conflict, and this would be the sole driver of all story in the game. Having your character simply react in accordance with his established personality to events in the world determined by the DM is, as I understand it, classed as "illusionism".

Fax Celestis
2009-09-16, 09:46 AM
That's not Narrativism, though (unless Samurai Jill wants to correct me). Having goals and motivations is just part of Simulationism according to GNS. Narrativism would require the focus of the game to be on how your character chooses between his causes and ideals when they come in to conflict, and this would be the sole driver of all story in the game. Having your character simply react in accordance with his established personality to events in the world determined by the DM is, as I understand it, classed as "illusionism".

Man, this whole GNS thing is a load of bollocksism, you ask me.

kamikasei
2009-09-16, 09:49 AM
Man, this whole GNS thing is a load of bollocksism, you ask me.

Hence my suspicion that you were being insulted less than you may have supposed (but having your time wasted more than you may have realized).

Meek
2009-09-16, 09:49 AM
But on the English-speaking RP boards, as far as I know, there's been a lull in GNS advocates trying to make converts for a while now. Jill's an anomaly. That's why I'd like to hear from her why she's restarted it.

Jill is unfortunately not an anomaly, at least not at the present time. There has been a recent surge in Forgey activity lately, including all the old tricks like butting into debates and turning everything into GNS, filling up forums with their talk in their secret moonman language, and telling people they are badwrong if they disagree.

I know I'm talking about it like it's a Sectoid invasion from X-Com, but seriously. It is baffling where these people are sprouting from, whether this new surge is another attempt at invasion, whether they're new or old, and why they're using the outmoded GNS instead of following Edwards' lead into the conclusion of crazy that is The Big Model. And in essence, even if it isn't a very competent sectoid invasion now, it was at one time.

Megaduck
2009-09-16, 10:01 AM
That's not Narrativism, though (unless Samurai Jill wants to correct me). Having goals and motivations is just part of Simulationism according to GNS. Narrativism would require the focus of the game to be on how your character chooses between his causes and ideals when they come in to conflict, and this would be the sole driver of all story in the game. Having your character simply react in accordance with his established personality to events in the world determined by the DM is, as I understand it, classed as "illusionism".

You now, interestingly, in plot theory 'Narrativism' would fall under Man Verse Self, or internal conflict.

Plot theory basically states that there are three main sources of conflict (And it is conflict that drives plots.) Man verse Man, Man Verse Environment, and Man Verse Self.

Kalirren
2009-09-16, 10:29 AM
Well, this just goes to show one thing - freedom of speech and a large marketplace of truth means that you need a bullhorn to be heard.

Since there's clearly a cadre of people who know enough and care enough about RP theory to debate GNS and largely kill it, I move that we run with this spontaneously-assembled community and come up with a good and workable RPG-theoretical framework that would supplant the niche that GNS currently occupies as the most visible example of RP theory.

And then we could go post on the Forge for the lulz. :smallamused: :smallcool:

Who's in it with me?

FeAnPi
2009-09-16, 10:35 AM
Jill is unfortunately not an anomaly, at least not at the present time. There has been a recent surge in Forgey activity lately, including all the old tricks like butting into debates and turning everything into GNS, filling up forums with their talk in their secret moonman language, and telling people they are badwrong if they disagree.

I know I'm talking about it like it's a Sectoid invasion from X-Com, but seriously. It is baffling where these people are sprouting from, whether this new surge is another attempt at invasion, whether they're new or old, and why they're using the outmoded GNS instead of following Edwards' lead into the conclusion of crazy that is The Big Model. And in essence, even if it isn't a very competent sectoid invasion now, it was at one time.
If what happened in Italy could constitute a precedent, I think that they speak more of GNS because it is more "agreeable" than big model (and I love to remove the voice from the "b" here... but, as I said, I have my reasons for this hate), and that it can be more "interesting". Only after their basis is solid they will post more "solid" (as much as this jam can be "solid") big model's dogmas.

And yes, it is very sect-like, like a gradual initiation.

kamikasei
2009-09-16, 10:35 AM
Since there's clearly a cadre of people who know enough and care enough about RP theory to debate GNS and largely kill it

I'm not sure you can conclude that from these discussions. Maybe people just found the arguments to be bad and enjoyed tearing them apart. You can dispute a conspiracy theorist's claims when they start ranting in your preferred forum without wanting to mount a full-scale investigation into whatever issue they're obsessed with and then go try to promote your findings in their native haunt. (Not that I wish to imply GNS advocates are on the level of crazy of conspiracy theorists, it's just an illustration of the difference between critiquing another's claims and advancing your own.)


If you have any meaningfull hypothesis you would like to discuss, sure.

Ah, indeed, if you want to propose something yourself I imagine you'll find plenty of people to act as a crucible for the idea.

Yora
2009-09-16, 10:36 AM
If you have any meaningfull hypothesis you would like to discuss, sure.

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-16, 11:09 AM
Well, I have to say, this whole thing has certainly been educational. I'd always been a bit dubious about GNS theory, but I'd never realised just how fundamentally dysfunctional it was until now.


You mean Incoherant, surely? ;)

Jill; Well written, especially the early parts. It was actually remotely penatrable this time, and didn't feel quite so much like elaborate doublespeak. From what I've seen, that makes it one of the better attempts to explain GNS, including Edwards own. :)

I still fail to see any use for the theory, even ignoring the matter of whether or not a single word contained within has any merit. So it goes.

Zincorium
2009-09-16, 11:36 AM
Howsabout this one (cooked up in five minutes) that has no extremes, only compromises. All examples are merely my opinion, and I welcome disagreement/recategorization. The competing concerns are:

Clarity: How easy the system is to both learn and implement, in terms of time and effort. The Fudge system definitely takes this as a serious concern, while in BESM it takes a backseat.

Theme: How far the setting and premise affect the way the game is run. The various World of Darkness games are specifically optimized for a certain mood, whereas universal systems, such as GURPS, it's sacrificed.

Malleability: How much the game encourages variation whithin existing rules. 2nd edition D&D without the various add-ons resulted in a limited number of possible mechanical characters, while BESM has a rediculous number of possible builds right out of the starting box.


A game which blends a strong degree of Malleability and Theme, like Exalted, suffers from clarity issues. The number of rules and ways to use them become obscured, but if you're willing to take the time and get to know it, it strongly supports ongoing play.

Theme and Clarity combinations, a la Dragonlance 5th age (was I the only one to play this?), appeal strongly to fans of the setting in other medium, because they can immediately jump into the flavor of the game. The problem usually results when the players attempt to go beyond the basic outline, and new rules have to be created to increase malleability.

Clarity and Malleability systems, like D20 Modern, have a lot of options mechanically that are quick to pick up on. Generally, both starting play and ongoing gaming can be easy, but only if the players and DM can harness their creativity properly. C&M games are the most sensitive to the amount of work put into them by the group.

Edit:
Should I just start a new thread for this?

Yukitsu
2009-09-16, 12:01 PM
Edit:
Should I just start a new thread for this?

Probably.

As an aside, same ol' arguments apply to this one. Incompatability is praised as gospel without even anecdotal evidence (which is odd, because the author can simply reference games in the pbp on these very forums.) the definitions of terms are left deliberately ambiguous, and there is very little reason to assume anything works in the manner brought up by the theory.

kamikasei
2009-09-16, 12:06 PM
I'm not sure how useful a triangular model is, anyway. It strikes me as an inherently questionable way to represent anything. Maybe it's just the mathematically-minded side of me, but wouldn't it make more sense to identify single axes of genuinely opposed priorities, and construct a phase space out of them? That way you only have to show that for each axis the two extremes are indeed mutually exclusive, though miscible, and then you can describe any combination of them quite readily.

(Identifying suitable axes is left as an exercise for the fall guy reader.)

Yukitsu
2009-09-16, 12:09 PM
I'm not sure how useful a triangular model is, anyway. It strikes me as an inherently questionable way to represent anything. Maybe it's just the mathematically-minded side of me, but wouldn't it make more sense to identify single axes of genuinely opposed priorities, and construct a phase space out of them? That way you only have to show that for each axis the two extremes are indeed mutually exclusive, though miscible, and then you can describe any combination of them quite readily.

(Identifying suitable axes is left as an exercise for the fall guy reader.)

That's how real psychological measures work, actually. Even the 60s pop pseudo babble measures of personality inspired by Jung worked that way.

I have enough ranks in pop pseudo babble that I can help make a test for this if you want, though I haven't done a spearman's equation in about 5 years. :smalltongue: May take me a while to remember how to properly do a statistical analysis of variance.

Meek
2009-09-16, 12:29 PM
For other theories of RPGs there is the Layers Model (http://whitehall-paraindustries.blogspot.com/2009/01/elements-layers-of-design.html). Or my preferred theory, the Jeff Rients Threefold Model (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-got-your-threefold-model-right-here.html) of Retro, Pretentious and Stupid. Both manage to be more useful and coherent than GNS.

Any game I would design would almost certainly look to those two.


If what happened in Italy could constitute a precedent, I think that they speak more of GNS because it is more "agreeable" than big model (and I love to remove the voice from the "b" here... but, as I said, I have my reasons for this hate), and that it can be more "interesting". Only after their basis is solid they will post more "solid" (as much as this jam can be "solid") big model's dogmas.

And yes, it is very sect-like, like a gradual initiation.

Interesting observation. I do agree that the GNS is more "marketable" than the Big Model. And if you snare them with that doggerel, they're crazy enough you can then begin pouring them the rest of the Kool Aid I suppose.

And yes, their ability to utterly ruin forums seems downright scary, though it is thankfully an ability they've come to lose now that so many people have poked holes in the skin of their balloon. At least in America, anyway. I don't know the situation anywhere else.

Fhaolan
2009-09-16, 04:04 PM
I'm not sure how useful a triangular model is, anyway. It strikes me as an inherently questionable way to represent anything. Maybe it's just the mathematically-minded side of me, but wouldn't it make more sense to identify single axes of genuinely opposed priorities, and construct a phase space out of them? That way you only have to show that for each axis the two extremes are indeed mutually exclusive, though miscible, and then you can describe any combination of them quite readily.

(Identifying suitable axes is left as an exercise for the fall guy reader.)

There are cultural biases that send people to three-node or two-node models, some of which are so well hidden that it's difficult to pull them out and point at them. Celtic and Greek mythologies like three-aspect gods and goddesses, for example, such as the Mother/Maiden/Crone and others.

Other tri-node systems that get a lot of play in these theories are: Id, Ego, and SuperEgo; Creation, Destruction, Stability; Man verses Man, Man verses Environment, and Man verses Self; Kirk, Spock, McCoy... :smalltongue:

ScreamingDoom
2009-09-16, 04:08 PM
There are cultural biases that send people to three-node or two-node models, some of which are so well hidden that it's difficult to pull them out and point at them.

This makes me wonder... is it a cultural bias or a biological one? Most humans can only encapsulate three to seven aspects of a given subject at once in their heads, so having a bias towards two or three (the lowest level of memory) would simply be practical as it would reach the largest audience possible.

Yukitsu
2009-09-16, 04:12 PM
There are cultural biases that send people to three-node or two-node models, some of which are so well hidden that it's difficult to pull them out and point at them. Celtic and Greek mythologies like three-aspect gods and goddesses, for example, such as the Mother/Maiden/Crone and others.

Other tri-node systems that get a lot of play in these theories are: Id, Ego, and SuperEgo; Creation, Destruction, Stability; Man verses Man, Man verses Environment, and Man verses Self; Kirk, Spock, McCoy... :smalltongue:

Technically, the dual node theories are because there are few categories involving three seperate factors that are mutually exclusive at their extreme. For instance, depression and mania are two ends of a spectrum of which there isn't any rational third extreme.

Typically, a three part model is actually a two part model that includes the happy middle as a seperate part, but rarely if ever as a seperate node.

Id, ego superego is the exception there, but that's because they aren't mutually exclusive.

Diamondeye
2009-09-16, 04:30 PM
I don't really understand why we need a theory at all. All this sounds to me like a lot of pseudoacademic hogwash. If you enjoy the intellectual game of catch, cool, but it seems to me to be a waste of time better spent.. well, actually playing!

Yora
2009-09-16, 04:54 PM
I'm in cultural studies, and RPGs are clearly a subject, that can be included in that field of science. And I think there's probably a huge lot of interesting things to research and discover.

But a problem with discussing GNS (which I think is bogus, by the way), is that people think of it as being or trying to be "hard science" like physics, geology, or economics, where you have physical evidence and recorded numbers, that you can analyze. But in social sciences, and especially cultural studies, we're really mostly looking at stuff and have people explain us what they think they are doing.

But as GNS is discussed, it's often "people are this ot that", but that's not what is done in cultural studies. To make it "scientific" it would be more like "people do this or that, and say they do it for these reasons". You can't hardly explain such things or "solve" them.
"Real" studies, at least according to the curent paradigms, would be based on watching groups of players or talking to players to let them explain from their own view what they are doing and why. And maybe I just have insufficient reports here, but GNS seems to be based only on the personal experiences and views of the creators. So they might have made a great theory to describe and classify the dynamics of their own group, who knows. :smallbiggrin:

Chrono22
2009-09-16, 05:12 PM
I believe in GNS, but not in the manner that you or Edwards present it. The aspects of GNS are not mutually exclusive, and compromise is not incoherence. The claim that compromise leaves all parties dissatisfied presupposes two things:
1. That any given player/GM prefers one aspect to the exclusion of all others.
2. That any given circumstance must force players/GMs to prioritize one over another.

Those two ideas are clearly not grounded in reality- the vast majority of players and GMs prefer a healthy mix of GNS. And while a person may prioritize one or another on principle, the reality is that situations where GNS are in conflict are corner cases.
Point in fact: The most successful RPGs have aspects of all three. Furthermore, internet polls about specific games (pick any) always show that the most played/popular RPGs have aspects of all three.

Friv
2009-09-16, 05:36 PM
I'm not sure how useful a triangular model is, anyway. It strikes me as an inherently questionable way to represent anything. Maybe it's just the mathematically-minded side of me, but wouldn't it make more sense to identify single axes of genuinely opposed priorities, and construct a phase space out of them? That way you only have to show that for each axis the two extremes are indeed mutually exclusive, though miscible, and then you can describe any combination of them quite readily.

(Identifying suitable axes is left as an exercise for the fall guy reader.)

Sure, why not. Here's my ten-second theory.

All games fall into two axises. How far along those two you are puts you on the RPG Grid.

THE FIRST AXIS: CRUNCH VS FLUFF

Every game has varying amounts of "Crunch" (herein described as a system built around game rules) and "Fluff" (described as a system based around setting and story).

A game which is entirely fluff has no rules, except those of the setting itself (so "There are no robots" might be a rule, but "I can hit you 72% of the time" would not be.) Such a game would be run entirely narratively, with only the agreement of the people involved. In essence, it would be a work of cooperative fiction.

A game which is entirely crunch has no setting or reason for the game to be existing. An example of this is chess.

Obviously, RPGs tend towards the middle of this divide. Games such as Dungeons & Dragons tend towards the "Crunch" side of the border, with the setting being primarily designed as a place in which the game's defined rules make sense. In a conflict between setting and rules, the setting should be adapted to function. Games such as the World of Darkness tend towards the "Fluff" side of the rules, with the game's rules structure defined to support the narrative and setting of the game. In situations where the rules fail to support the game's concepts, they should be modified.

THE SECOND AXIS: RAILROAD VS SANDBOX

This axis determines how much free agency the players (and GM) have. In a pure Railroad game, there is none. The game will unfold exactly how it is written to, and no one makes judgment calls. An example of this is Hero Quest. The GM has the board written down, and doesn't get to alter it, and the players don't get to decide to negotiate with the gargoyle.

In a pure Sandbox game, there is no pre-defined story or long-term events planned. The players and Storyteller decide what happens event by event, and go wherever they want.

Obviously, once again, very few RPGs hit the extreme of either scale. However, some games tend towards certain approaches. Dungeons & Dragons falls towards the Railroad end of the spectrum, as does any game system that makes extensive use of pre-written adventures that include suggestions on how to keep the PCs "on track". The GM is not meant to massively alter the plot on the fly, as that would be unfair to the players, and the players are not meant to seriously bypass the plot, as that would leave the GM without material. On the flip side, games such as Amber Diceless lean strongly towards the Sandbox extreme, where the players are meant to do what they want, and the GM is encouraged to modify encounters and events to support the story as it unfolds.

BROKEN GAMES

(Because every RPG theory needs a "How You Went Wrong" section.)

Games break when one person is playing along a significantly different axis from the others. One of the most common examples of this is when the GM is playing Sandbox, and the players are playing Railroad. In such a situation, the GM feels free to alter the game as needed in order to keep the players from escaping the pre-arranged situations he has designed. Players, obviously, tend not to like this. Alternately, if one player is playing primarily Crunch, and the others are tending high-Fluff, he will quickly become frustrated by their taking poor tactical or rules-based options in favor of cohesion of character. They, at the same time, will be annoyed by rules exploits that leave the one Crunchist character outperforming them and damaging the story.

When one person in a group is significantly farther along an axis than the others, discussion is needed to find an appropriate compromise - otherwise, that player may have to find a group that suits his playstyle better. When a game is farther along an axis than the players, it will usually result in poor enjoyment as they try to make it do something it wasn't designed for.


There. Anyone wants to expand on this, they totally can. Anyone wants to tear it to shreds, go for it. It was basically off-the-cuff, but I like it.

Kallisti
2009-09-16, 06:00 PM
Sure, why not. Here's my ten-second theory.

All games fall into two axises. How far along those two you are puts you on the RPG Grid.

THE FIRST AXIS: CRUNCH VS FLUFF

Every game has varying amounts of "Crunch" (herein described as a system built around game rules) and "Fluff" (described as a system based around setting and story).

A game which is entirely fluff has no rules, except those of the setting itself (so "There are no robots" might be a rule, but "I can hit you 72% of the time" would not be.) Such a game would be run entirely narratively, with only the agreement of the people involved. In essence, it would be a work of cooperative fiction.

A game which is entirely crunch has no setting or reason for the game to be existing. An example of this is chess.

Obviously, RPGs tend towards the middle of this divide. Games such as Dungeons & Dragons tend towards the "Crunch" side of the border, with the setting being primarily designed as a place in which the game's defined rules make sense. In a conflict between setting and rules, the setting should be adapted to function. Games such as the World of Darkness tend towards the "Fluff" side of the rules, with the game's rules structure defined to support the narrative and setting of the game. In situations where the rules fail to support the game's concepts, they should be modified.

THE SECOND AXIS: RAILROAD VS SANDBOX

This axis determines how much free agency the players (and GM) have. In a pure Railroad game, there is none. The game will unfold exactly how it is written to, and no one makes judgment calls. An example of this is Hero Quest. The GM has the board written down, and doesn't get to alter it, and the players don't get to decide to negotiate with the gargoyle.

In a pure Sandbox game, there is no pre-defined story or long-term events planned. The players and Storyteller decide what happens event by event, and go wherever they want.

Obviously, once again, very few RPGs hit the extreme of either scale. However, some games tend towards certain approaches. Dungeons & Dragons falls towards the Railroad end of the spectrum, as does any game system that makes extensive use of pre-written adventures that include suggestions on how to keep the PCs "on track". The GM is not meant to massively alter the plot on the fly, as that would be unfair to the players, and the players are not meant to seriously bypass the plot, as that would leave the GM without material. On the flip side, games such as Amber Diceless lean strongly towards the Sandbox extreme, where the players are meant to do what they want, and the GM is encouraged to modify encounters and events to support the story as it unfolds.

BROKEN GAMES

(Because every RPG theory needs a "How You Went Wrong" section.)

Games break when one person is playing along a significantly different axis from the others. One of the most common examples of this is when the GM is playing Sandbox, and the players are playing Railroad. In such a situation, the GM feels free to alter the game as needed in order to keep the players from escaping the pre-arranged situations he has designed. Players, obviously, tend not to like this. Alternately, if one player is playing primarily Crunch, and the others are tending high-Fluff, he will quickly become frustrated by their taking poor tactical or rules-based options in favor of cohesion of character. They, at the same time, will be annoyed by rules exploits that leave the one Crunchist character outperforming them and damaging the story.

When one person in a group is significantly farther along an axis than the others, discussion is needed to find an appropriate compromise - otherwise, that player may have to find a group that suits his playstyle better. When a game is farther along an axis than the players, it will usually result in poor enjoyment as they try to make it do something it wasn't designed for.


There. Anyone wants to expand on this, they totally can. Anyone wants to tear it to shreds, go for it. It was basically off-the-cuff, but I like it.

This is actually a pretty good way of thinking about it, especially compared to GNS. What it lacks in pseudo-intellectual psychobabble it makes up for by ACTUALLY MAKING SOME FREAKIN' SENSE!

Although, it does seem to me as though Samurai Jill just posted her essay --which was, actually, pretty well-done. It was the only pro-GNS essay explaining the theory I've ever come across that wasn't completely...well...incoherent--and then fled the inevitable storm of people telling her that RPGS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!! So it occurs to me to wonder why I or anyone is carrying on arguing with her. Apparently, we've taken collective leave of our senses...

Fhaolan
2009-09-16, 06:17 PM
Technically, the dual node theories are because there are few categories involving three seperate factors that are mutually exclusive at their extreme. For instance, depression and mania are two ends of a spectrum of which there isn't any rational third extreme.

Typically, a three part model is actually a two part model that includes the happy middle as a seperate part, but rarely if ever as a seperate node.

Id, ego superego is the exception there, but that's because they aren't mutually exclusive.

Or, in many case, a three-part model could be viewed as a two-part model where one end is subdivided. For example, take two opposing forces: Chaos and Order. In perfect Order, nothing ever changes. In perfect Chaos, everthing's constantly changing. You could, and many people do, split Chaos into two opposing forces: Creation and Destruction. The balance point between Creation and Destruction would be stable by definition as things would be destroyed just fast enough to make room for new creations, but because it's not static, it isn't Order.

In this way, you end up with a three-node model. Creation, Destruction, and Order.

Winterwind
2009-09-16, 06:33 PM
I don't really understand why we need a theory at all. All this sounds to me like a lot of pseudoacademic hogwash. If you enjoy the intellectual game of catch, cool, but it seems to me to be a waste of time better spent.. well, actually playing!Roleplaying theories should serve improving the mutual understanding between the participants, to enable them to understand each others motives better, and thus be able to tailor the game more to suit each others' interests. They are quite useful for that, actually.

As for spending that time playing instead... huh? How? It's not like my friends are here right now, during the time it took me to write this up, so how should I do that? That point would make sense only if one spent all one's time playing and doing nothing else...


Sure, why not. Here's my ten-second theory.

All games fall into two axises. How far along those two you are puts you on the RPG Grid.

[...]

There. Anyone wants to expand on this, they totally can. Anyone wants to tear it to shreds, go for it. It was basically off-the-cuff, but I like it.Yes, that seems about accurate.

Though I happen to think that, if one wants to be entirely precise, the Fluff<->Crunch axis should, in spite of what people said about triangles before, be indeed a triangle instead. Because there are two quite distinct ways of playing that would both fall under Fluff in your theory.

Namely, I think you should differentiate between Crunch, Story and Character focus.

Crunch, as you described.

Story, where the players and GM tell a story together. They are in for experiencing an effective story, full of drama, suspense and unexpected twists, has a climax, and would make for a good read if written down and published as a novel.

Character, where the primary focus of the game lies with the exploration of the Player Characters and their motives. The focus lies on introspection - how do the characters react in specific situations, how will what they experience change them, and who are they anyway?

The difference between Story and Character focus is thus: In a Story-focused game, the players derive their fun from experiencing weird situations, in a Character-focused game from how weird experiences influence their character. In a Story-focused game, the details of a player's character will be mostly known before the story, in a Character-focused game, it may be entirely in flux, with players spontaneously deciding to add facets to their character as the game progresses (example: characters come into a town. Story-focused players look forward to seeing what awaits their characters in this town, a Character-focused player spontaneously declares his character comes from this town and is now going to look for some old friend of his). In a Story-focused game, the gamemaster has some plans for how the story is supposed to unfold, has his antagonists, his ultimate showdown, scenes meant to build suspense for later, etc. In a Character-focused game, the gamemaster may not have any plans at all, and there may not even be a real continuous plot, it's all about putting the characters into situations where they can grow, change or reveal things about themselves, and scenes serve this purpose. Essentially, the Story-focused game is all about outward experience, the Character-focused game about introspection.

Obviously, most roleplaying games fall somewhere in the middle between these two as well. So, I would actually put it as a triangle, with Crunch, Story and Character as its extremes.

Diamondeye
2009-09-16, 07:49 PM
Roleplaying theories should serve improving the mutual understanding between the participants, to enable them to understand each others motives better, and thus be able to tailor the game more to suit each others' interests. They are quite useful for that, actually.

I don't see how a theory assists me in any way with this. I can hash things out with my group just as easily without all this nonsense.


As for spending that time playing instead... huh? How? It's not like my friends are here right now, during the time it took me to write this up, so how should I do that? That point would make sense only if one spent all one's time playing and doing nothing else...

I was being silly with that part.

Winterwind
2009-09-16, 08:59 PM
I don't see how a theory assists me in any way with this. I can hash things out with my group just as easily without all this nonsense.That's like asking how studying psychology can help one with understanding people. What's so unclear about the concept of trying to learn what the various motivations of people playing roleplaying games might be?

There are so many people who claim other people are playing roleplaying games wrong, simply because they do not understand these people have different, but equally valid preferences. Or who just play/gamemaster in some specific way, without ever questioning whether there would be other ways of doing that, that might potentially be more fun, for either themselves or the people they are playing with/gamemastering for. All such people would benefit greatly from learning about the various approaches people have to roleplaying.

Kalirren
2009-09-16, 09:54 PM
Friv, thank you so much for stepping up to the plate, and for showcasing exactly why GNS is silly by inventing something better off the top of your head. It doesn't cover the same territory as GNS does, but at least it corresponds to the aggregate reality of your audience. Together, I think Crunch vs. Fluff and Railroad vs. Sandbox describe most of the D&D games I've seen very well. I applaud you, sir.

What about systems and games other than D&D? (Have you played many?) The reason why I bring this up is that I feel there is great diversity in systemless RP games, which Crunch vs. Fluff by definition is useless to explore because they're all just Fluff, and in my experience that diversity doesn't reduce to Railroad vs. Sandbox either. I could think of plenty of ways to extend this - just for starters, both Railroad and Sandbox presume the existence of a DM who runs the game, and Crunch and Fluff obviously presume the existence of a ruleset.

Perhaps it's because my initial background in RP was in an explicitly systemless and freeform setting, but my first instinct when looking at a game is to look at the appropriation of descriptive and narrative power. From this angle, both the existence of a DM and a ruleset are possible patterns, not givens, and I think it would make sense first to identify these patterns we take for granted, then to consider alternatives to these patterns.

So I guess I have two questions then.

1) Are there D&D players here who have anything to add to the Crunch/Fluff and Railroad/Sandbox metric of D&D games in particular?

2) Are there players of other games and systems that can suggest alternatives/descriptive refinements to the implicit elements of DM-ship and rulesets that are present in D&D?

Winterwind gave one response to 1) , and I'm not sure what I think of it yet. I have one answer to 2) and I'll try to post that at a later time. It's late here.

Incidentally, does anyone here has experience with programming web surveys? Because that would be lovely. I'm sure someone else here can do statistics on the data that a web survey would generate.

Raum
2009-09-16, 11:20 PM
I like the idea of working on an actual theory. If we're going to, we need to set some parameters. What's our scope? Purpose?

Here's a stab as what I'll term "Weave Hypothesis of Role Playing Games". Scope is to cover games as designed and played. Purpose is to make describing games and game play easier.

I detest tables (probably because I suck at building them in bbcode) so here's a pseudo-table:

| |Action / Events |Social / Reputational| Narrative |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Tactical |combat / environment|social interaction |Success / failure |
| Strategic |plot |character development|path choice |
| Metagame |event control |relationships | story |

Essentially, it's an expansion of WotC's Breakdown of RPG Players (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html). It paints with a very fine brush in the upper left (combat or environment) to very wide brush in the lower right (story). The concept is simple: every RPG will include all of these to one degree or another. It's also a continuum - different games will emphasize different areas to varying degrees. Unlike GNS, it is not exclusive. Each axis blends seamlessly into the next: Tactical --> Strategic --> Metagame. And Events --> Reputation --> Narrative. (Do note, I'm using the standard English definitions and not Forge definitions.)

Games will weave threads from both axis together. Tie reputation with strategic and you have character development, tie tactics with action and you have 'vs' events whether combat or environmental, tie strategy with narrative and you cover fairly broad path choices, etc. Moving from combat to social is as simple as taunting instead of hacking - both are tactical but the first is a physical event and the second is a social event.

Crap. I'm not describing this well and it's getting rather late...so I'll toss it out for thought and criticism. Yes, criticism - tear it apart and make it better! Or show how it's completely off base. Either way we learn something. :smallsmile:

Fhaolan
2009-09-17, 01:20 AM
Hrmmmm. Okay, here's my comments:

Raum's matrix is fairly complete for the... I'm not sure how to word this.. events that occur during the game? Combat, story, etc. is all the end result. The matrix doesn't cover the mechanics of the game. The Tactical/Strategic/Metagame feels like an axis to me, while the Event/Social/Narrative section feels more like three functionally independant columns. You can combine the three in various blendings, but they are not on an axis.

Where Friv's Crunch - Fluff/Railroad - Sandbox bi-axle model seems to describe the mechanics of the game better, but doesn't cover the goals and styles of the game itself. I'd personally like different names for the categories, as those feel pejorative for some reason. I can't come up with better off the top of my head though.

Combining the two, having one being the mechanical application of the ruleset while the other being the desired end result, makes a very complex model but it might in fact be more accurate, and more inclusive.

For example, a Tactical/Event game could be supported by a Crunch/Railroad ruleset; Chess. The game is for a battle (Event), with no continuation between scenarios (Tactical), using a highly fixed ruleset (Crunch) and a highly fixed scenario (Railroad).

However, you could also have a Tactical/Event game supported by a Fluff/Sandbox ruleset: Boffer LARP. The game simulates a single battle (Event), and every scenario is reset from the begining, just like Chess (Tactical), but the rules are simple (Fluff), and the scenario could be whatever the players decide it is right at that moment in time (Sandbox).

A Narrative/Metagame game could be supported by a Crunch/Sandbox ruleset: Aria. You're developing a story (Narrative), and you don't have a single character, you're playing an entire mythos that will define the game world (Metagame), the rules are detailed and complex (Crunch), but the scenario is whatever the players want (Sandbox).

On the other hand, a Narrative/Metagame game could also be supported by a Fluff/Railroad ruleset: Primetime Adventures. The gaming group is attempting to 'play' a TV show (Metagame) with the intent of storytelling (Narrative), the rules are.. strange.. but not particularly detailed or complex (Fluff), but the scenarios are episodes that are timeboxed (TV episodes are a fixed length, afterall), and the episode must hit milestones defined at the beginning of the game session to be considered successful (Railroad).

'course, I'm dead tired too, so I'm babbling. :smalltongue:

Friv
2009-09-17, 01:53 AM
Lots of responses to my musings... :smalleek:


This is actually a pretty good way of thinking about it, especially compared to GNS. What it lacks in pseudo-intellectual psychobabble it makes up for by ACTUALLY MAKING SOME FREAKIN' SENSE!

Thank you! Given more time, I could probably put a lot more psychobabble in there, but I'm an English major rather than a Psych major. Any specialized terms I used would be totally made up. :smallwink:


Though I happen to think that, if one wants to be entirely precise, the Fluff<->Crunch axis should, in spite of what people said about triangles before, be indeed a triangle instead. Because there are two quite distinct ways of playing that would both fall under Fluff in your theory.

Namely, I think you should differentiate between Crunch, Story and Character focus.

Crunch, as you described.

Story, where the players and GM tell a story together. They are in for experiencing an effective story, full of drama, suspense and unexpected twists, has a climax, and would make for a good read if written down and published as a novel.

Character, where the primary focus of the game lies with the exploration of the Player Characters and their motives. The focus lies on introspection - how do the characters react in specific situations, how will what they experience change them, and who are they anyway?

The difference between Story and Character focus is thus: In a Story-focused game, the players derive their fun from experiencing weird situations, in a Character-focused game from how weird experiences influence their character. In a Story-focused game, the details of a player's character will be mostly known before the story, in a Character-focused game, it may be entirely in flux, with players spontaneously deciding to add facets to their character as the game progresses (example: characters come into a town. Story-focused players look forward to seeing what awaits their characters in this town, a Character-focused player spontaneously declares his character comes from this town and is now going to look for some old friend of his). In a Story-focused game, the gamemaster has some plans for how the story is supposed to unfold, has his antagonists, his ultimate showdown, scenes meant to build suspense for later, etc. In a Character-focused game, the gamemaster may not have any plans at all, and there may not even be a real continuous plot, it's all about putting the characters into situations where they can grow, change or reveal things about themselves, and scenes serve this purpose. Essentially, the Story-focused game is all about outward experience, the Character-focused game about introspection.

Obviously, most roleplaying games fall somewhere in the middle between these two as well. So, I would actually put it as a triangle, with Crunch, Story and Character as its extremes.

Interesting. I can see that being a good divide, yes. It creates a very strange 3-D grid if you visualize it - a triangle with a point coming out of each centre, I expect. As I approve of strange grids, I like this approach.


Friv, thank you so much for stepping up to the plate, and for showcasing exactly why GNS is silly by inventing something better off the top of your head. It doesn't cover the same territory as GNS does, but at least it corresponds to the aggregate reality of your audience. Together, I think Crunch vs. Fluff and Railroad vs. Sandbox describe most of the D&D games I've seen very well. I applaud you, sir.

*bows* Thank you! I'm blushing.


What about systems and games other than D&D? (Have you played many?) The reason why I bring this up is that I feel there is great diversity in systemless RP games, which Crunch vs. Fluff by definition is useless to explore because they're all just Fluff, and in my experience that diversity doesn't reduce to Railroad vs. Sandbox either. I could think of plenty of ways to extend this - just for starters, both Railroad and Sandbox presume the existence of a DM who runs the game, and Crunch and Fluff obviously presume the existence of a ruleset.

I'm actually mainly a White Wolf player, which is what got me thinking about the crunch/fluff divide to begin with - it's a larger and recurring question in most White Wolf games, which as I mentioned tend to say "It's totally fine to have events that don't make sense under the rules", and different groups hew to it to different degrees.

I admit to having much less experience with totally freeform games, so insight there would help. I would argue, however, that they are at the far end of the Fluff scale without quite reaching the edge, with the only rules in play being the ones for how you are and are not allowed to interact with other players (No Godmoding, say, or no player death without the permission of the player). There are generally rules even in a freeform game, just very, very few of them.

As far as the GM, one isn't actually needed for a Railroad versus a Sandbox. (And actually, as has been mentioned, something better than railroad should probably be used due to the negative connotations thereof. Possibly call the two extremes Sandbox and Structure?) In the "railroad", freedom is deliberately limited on everyone's part. If there is no GM, and you have a fully cooperative player group, they have all agreed not to try and step outside the ruleset or plotline. The ultimate Fluff-Railroad game would thus probably be a war reenactment. On the flip side, sandbox definitely doesn't need a GM inherently, since everyone can be equally GM and player.


Where Friv's Crunch - Fluff/Railroad - Sandbox bi-axle model seems to describe the mechanics of the game better, but doesn't cover the goals and styles of the game itself. I'd personally like different names for the categories, as those feel pejorative for some reason. I can't come up with better off the top of my head though.

Yeah, the ideas here support the idea that the game's style is a natural outgrowth of its mechanics, or vice versa. Since they're designed for broad categories, they don't cover specific instances quite as well, and adding a second matrix to the first would certainly make things more specific, if more complex.

kamikasei
2009-09-17, 04:31 AM
Though I happen to think that, if one wants to be entirely precise, the Fluff<->Crunch axis should, in spite of what people said about triangles before, be indeed a triangle instead. Because there are two quite distinct ways of playing that would both fall under Fluff in your theory.

Namely, I think you should differentiate between Crunch, Story and Character focus.

Nah, I don't see why those things should be tracked on one continuum. It makes more sense to me to say there's one axis ranging from Crunch to Fluff, and another ranging from Story to Character focus. If Story/Character focus is completely irrelevant in high-Crunch games, then that axis is just set to the midpoint at that end.

Raum
2009-09-17, 07:54 AM
Hrmmmm. Okay, here's my comments:

Raum's matrix is fairly complete for the... I'm not sure how to word this.. events that occur during the game? Combat, story, etc. is all the end result. The matrix doesn't cover the mechanics of the game. The Tactical/Strategic/Metagame feels like an axis to me, while the Event/Social/Narrative section feels more like three functionally independant columns. You can combine the three in various blendings, but they are not on an axis.It definitely needs to be worded better! In my defense, it was late, I was tired, and I pretty much threw it up 'as is' once I gave up on creating a table. :smallredface: Perhaps you and others can help correct my terminology if I describe my intent / approach better.

The intent is to create a common framework which allows us to describe game mechanics and game play. Take two very different games as examples: D&D 3.x and Wushu. Wushu is almost purely in the Narrative column. The mechanic is creating details (Tactical * Narrative = Action Success / Failure) to give yourself dice for rolling to decide who describes scene resolution and when (Strategic * Narrative = Path / Plot Development) which lead to building a story (Narrative * Metagame). On the other hand, D&D is less concentrated. It does start with Tactical and Strategic Events and Social interaction but has at least a few rules for most, perhaps all, areas. Character building and optimization fit in the Strategic row and may include both Action and Social elements. Most D&D games (in my experience) concentrate on the Tactical row and move back and forth between Action, Social, and Narrative. Start adding some of the 'Metagame' mechanics (Players and GM control Actions / Events, GM has primary control of Plot Development and Story.) and you have a more complete description of the D&D game.

I wasn't attempting to describe the mechanics themselves so much as where the mechanics fit in an overall picture. It does need better terminology though.


Where Friv's Crunch - Fluff/Railroad - Sandbox bi-axle model seems to describe the mechanics of the game better, but doesn't cover the goals and styles of the game itself. I'd personally like different names for the categories, as those feel pejorative for some reason. I can't come up with better off the top of my head though. I avoided commenting on Friv's hypothesis because I'm uncertain of its intended scope. Is it intended to cover Wushu and similar games? If so, where do they fit?

Wushu may fit in as Fluff / Sandbox but that may also describe a more traditional 'light' game such as Over the Edge. Yet Wushu's mechanics are built around narrative details and Over the Edge's mechanics are built around a more traditional character description and action resolution model.

Hmm, more to say but it's past time to head for work!

Samurai Jill
2009-09-17, 09:36 AM
I believe it is quite easy to have compromises. This isn't an all or nothing. It's about seeking solutions that fit multiple parts, and avoid conflict between them...
I never said it's all or nothing. It's about establishing clear priorities during design (or house-ruling, informal or otherwise.)

Simulationism and Narrativistic play can work hand in hand, provided you avoid drama for drama's sake...
Narrativism IS drama for drama's sake!

Simulationist interpretation: It makes sense for people, by and large, to stick with what works. Thus, you'll see more effective abilities than otherwise.
Yes, but making all options available (e.g, magic vs. combat, melee vs. ranged, agility vs. strength) equally viable is probably going to distort their portrayal in the genre in question. What if wizards really are depicted as more powerful than fighters? What if ranged weapons (e.g. guns,) really are more powerful than swords? What if strength, while mildly useful, really isn't as critical in combat as reflexes? In many cases- probably the great majority- satisfying the Simulationist means eliminating meaningful choice for the Gamist. Life is Unfair.

A great game (to me) serves all three, sometimes at different times, sometimes in different measure. But all three have a place, and all three make a game good. Missing one? It's like a tripod without a leg.
I'm sure you like to have these things present as an accessory to play, but are you really prepared to make active contributions toward each? If you're playing a paladin, and you're given a chance by the GM to slip arsenic into the villain's cup, which are you going to choose, honour or advantage? ...Would you even view it as a choice?

I mean, throughout your post, there's this constant emphasis on the idea that every player should reconcile their motives with the idea of winning efficiently- This is Gamism, pure and simple. Yes, some Narrativist and Simulationist players are content with that, provided the rules make it clear that Gamist play is what's really going on- That can be perfectly functional and fun. But others won't, and that's not their fault! What you're describing is no compromise at all- It is one mode winning, getting everything it needs or wants, and other modes making do with the scraps.

Megaduck
2009-09-17, 10:07 AM
Narrativism IS drama for drama's sake!

No, Narrativism is conflict for conflicts sake, for this is what creates plot.


Yes, but making all options available (e.g, magic vs. combat, melee vs. ranged, agility vs. strength) equally viable is probably going to distort their portrayal in the genre in question. What if wizards really are depicted as more powerful than fighters? What if ranged weapons (e.g. guns,) really are more powerful than swords? What if strength, while mildly useful, really isn't as critical in combat as reflexes? In many cases- probably the great majority- satisfying the Simulationist means eliminating meaningful choice for the Gamist. Life is Unfair.

The problem with that approach is that by making all options available you destroy Gamism.

Gamism is all about ‘Winning’ or overcoming challenges. In order to have challenges there need to be restrictions. It’s no fun in chess if all the pieces can move any distance they want in any direction. Similarly if you can melt down a blacksmiths puzzle there is no point in trying to solve it.

This is why all Gamists are also Simulationists. Without the Simulationist providing the outer framework there is no way to create the obstacle for the Gamist to overcome and ‘Win’.


I'm sure you like to have these things present as an accessory to play, but which are you really prepared to make active contributions toward each?

Of course, as your next example shows.


If you're playing a paladin, and you're given a chance by the GM to slip arsenic into the villain's cup, which are you going to choose? Would you even view it as a choice?

Of course it’s a choice, the gamist would never choose the poison because that would be a defeat. Breaking the restriction you placed on yourself is cheating and means you failed to overcome the obstacle, this is the same way a gamest wouldn’t have their pawns attack backwards in chess. At the same time the narrativist appreciates the chance to ‘Play the character correctly’ and doesn’t place the poison in.

This is how Narrativism and Gamism work well together, both agreeing with each other and actively contributing to the game.


I mean, throughout your post, there's this constant emphasis on the idea that every player should reconcile their motives with the idea of winning efficiently- This is Gamism, pure and simple. Yes, some Narrativist and Simulationist players are content with that, provided the rules make it clear that Gamist play is what's really going on- That can be perfectly functional and fun. But others won't, and that's not their fault. What you're describing isn't not a compromise at all- It is one mode winning, getting everything it needs or wants, and other modes making do with the scraps.

The problem with this argument is that if the RPG has an interesting and engaging plot then Narrativism is winning and Gamism is making due with the scraps, even if the focus is on winning efficiently.

As long as everyone is getting what they want, the Narrativists getting interesting plots, Simulationists, getting interesting worlds, and gamists, getting interesting obstacles to solve then everyone is happy. One might win and the other two get the scraps but if those scraps were what they wanted in the first place then they won and the others got the scraps.

Simulationists, create the obstacles, gamists try to overcome them, and narrativists string all the obstacles together. So to have a good group, you need a mix of Simulationists, Gamists, and Narrativists all together.

Arakune
2009-09-17, 10:54 AM
Anyone want to make a graph with the 3D axis both Winterwind and Friv created together? What kind of image could be made if all the famous games where poins in this axis and made them continuous?

I never knew RPG where a vetorial entity.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-17, 11:10 AM
No, Narrativism is conflict for conflicts sake, for this is what creates plot.
I fear you are simply mistaken about this definition. Drama is the lack of a clear right and wrong in situations where it's important. An epic battle or social confrontation has no dramatic value if it's 'obviously the right thing to do', or doesn't entail a tradeoff between values. (Play is also not Narrativist if those choices don't directly impact plot.)

Gamism is all about ‘Winning’ or overcoming challenges. In order to have challenges there need to be restrictions. It’s no fun in chess if all the pieces can move any distance they want in any direction.
Similarly, it's no fun in Chess if you play where every piece is a pawn, or a bishop, or a rook.

This is why all Gamists are also Simulationists.
This is flatly untrue. The amount of Simulationism present in Chess or Magic: The Gathering is very close to nil.

Of course it’s a choice, the gamist would never choose the poison because that would be a defeat. Breaking the restriction you placed on yourself is cheating and means you failed to overcome the obstacle...
Ah... but the Paladin is also obliged to save the lives innocents and fight Evil wherever it rears it's ugly head: The whole point to this scenario is to make clear that there is no way, in this case, to simultaneously satisfy all the restrictions placed on your character. You're obliged to 'cheat'.

At the same time the narrativist appreciates the chance to ‘Play the character correctly’ and doesn’t place the poison in...
This is not Narrativism. Narrativism doesn't have a single way to 'play the character correctly'. On the contrary. The whole point is to take the character's current beliefs and convictions and subject them to increasing stress, until they either change, or entail major sacrifice. Both options must be present. For Narrativist play to occur, the poison must be a viable option.

The problem with this argument is that if the RPG has an interesting and engaging plot then Narrativism is winning and Gamism is making due with the scraps, even if the focus is on winning efficiently.
It is nothing of the sort. Fixed plot means that player's contributions to story are definitionally nonexistant. That is not Narrativism. You just said it yourself- "the focus is on winning efficiently". That is definitionally Gamism!

Serenity
2009-09-17, 11:42 AM
Ah... but the Paladin is also obliged to save the lives innocents and fight Evil wherever it rears it's ugly head: The whole point to this scenario is to make clear that there is no way, in this case, to simultaneously satisfy all the restrictions placed on your character. You're obliged to 'cheat'.

No. No, you're not. "Slip poison in the duke's cup" or "fall" is not a choice, it is perhaps the most clear-cut case of a false dilemma in existence. The paladin is just as capable of combating the duke's evil by, say, challenging the man to a duel, or working tirelessly to aid the poor and opressed of the city, or rallying resistance and reform movements.

GoufCustom
2009-09-17, 11:47 AM
Serenity, is... is your avatar Nishka's (sp?) head man from Train Job? Kick-engine guy? Because if so, that's totally and completely awesome.

Kalirren
2009-09-17, 12:00 PM
I like the idea of working on an actual theory. If we're going to, we need to set some parameters. What's our scope? Purpose?

I think the purpose of all RP theory is to improve the quality and variety of RP that we do. But we don't have to do all that. I think we should try to come up with a model that explains everything that GNS and the Big Model try to explain, then move from there into system design patterns.

Well, we could start big and work small. Starting big, there's the big question that essentially underlies all of RP system design (like the Hard Problem of Consciousness! :smalltongue: ):

Given a group of people, with their various preferences and expectations for fun, as well as constraints for the amount of time and manner of contact that they have at their disposal,
what sort of systems can be designed to facilitate their play? What common features and patterns do they share, and what such features/patterns are well- or ill-suited to particular patterns of use?

And we could concurrently start small and work big, starting from individual systems as case studies:

Taking D&D and running with it, for instance, we have the questions,
What makes D&D (as a system) a success? What is the diversity of D&D games? What makes individual games succeed or fail? How do D&D games end up being played the way they are played, and what are the social and systemic preconditions that make different games to fall into different play patterns?

Depending on how far we want to take this project, it might warrant its own subforum. It certainly warrants its own thread already.

Kylarra
2009-09-17, 12:14 PM
I fear you are simply mistaken about this definition. Drama is the lack of a clear right and wrong in situations where it's important. An epic battle or social confrontation has no dramatic value if it's 'obviously the right thing to do', or doesn't entail a tradeoff between values. (Play is also not Narrativist if those choices don't directly impact plot.)I can only assume you mean "no dramatic value as defined by Edwards", because otherwise there's a whole host of dramatic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dramatic) epic confrontations that do involve clearcut (as far as the story is concerned) right and wrong.

Doc Roc
2009-09-17, 12:26 PM
I fear you are simply mistaken about this definition. Drama is the lack of a clear right and wrong in situations where it's important. An epic battle or social confrontation has no dramatic value if it's 'obviously the right thing to do', or doesn't entail a tradeoff between values. (Play is also not Narrativist if those choices don't directly impact plot.)

This is the old lack-of-gnostic will argument. It still doesn't hold water.

Clear choice does not devalue choice. I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but GNS theory is basically just straight, unfiltered madness from everything I can tell and everything you are saying. I have a bit of formal education in this area, just enough to know that you've basically made this up out of whole clothe by angry geeks not terribly different from myself. I am rarely roused to ire, but I have to ask you...

Why?
Why do I have to fit in your crazy cubbyholes?

Megaduck
2009-09-17, 01:19 PM
I fear you are simply mistaken about this definition. Drama is the lack of a clear right and wrong in situations where it's important.

Um, no. From dictionary.com Drama is “any situation or series of events having vivid, emotional, conflicting, or striking interest or results” Right and wrong don’t really come into it.

Drama is basically whenever the audience has an emotional investment in the scene.


An epic battle or social confrontation has no dramatic value if it's 'obviously the right thing to do', or doesn't entail a tradeoff between values. (Play is also not Narrativist if those choices don't directly impact plot.)

As long as the audience has a emotional stake a work has drama. Heck, an epic battle or social confrontation can still have dramatic value even if the audience already knows the outcome. Most stories and movies work this way, we know the good guy wins ‘The Matrix’ but that doesn’t reduce from the fact that we find Neo defeating Agent Smith any less captivating.


Similarly, it's no fun in Chess if you play where every piece is a pawn, or a bishop, or a rook.

True, which is the point of restrictions on play.


This is flatly untrue. The amount of Simulationism present in Chess or Magic: The Gathering is very close to nil.

True, but neither Chess or Magic are Role Playing Games. Without Characters, Plot, or World Building you don’t have an RPG.


Ah... but the Paladin is also obliged to save the lives innocents and fight Evil wherever it rears it's ugly head: The whole point to this scenario is to make clear that there is no way, in this case, to simultaneously satisfy all the restrictions placed on your character. You're obliged to 'cheat'.

True, they do need to save innocents. However, that merely means they need to save innocents without using poison. That merely means your Gamism will require some creativity to win with the restrictions you’ve placed upon yourself.


This is not Narrativism. Narrativism doesn't have a single way to 'play the character correctly'. On the contrary. The whole point is to take the character's current beliefs and convictions and subject them to increasing stress, until they either change, or entail major sacrifice. Both options must be present. For Narrativist play to occur, the poison must be a viable option.

Narrativism is simply to create a narrative or plot. Internal Character Drama is one way to deal to do this, but so is saving the kingdom and killing the dragon.


It is nothing of the sort. Fixed plot means that player's contributions to story are definitionally nonexistant. That is not Narrativism. You just said it yourself- "the focus is on winning efficiently". That is definitionally Gamism!

The problem with this definition is that a book, which defiantly has a fixed plot, is the ultimate in Narrativism. So the idea that a Fixed plot is Gamism just doesn’t hold water.

ScreamingDoom
2009-09-17, 01:55 PM
I think the purpose of all RP theory is to improve the quality and variety of RP that we do.


I disagree. Since the entire point of an RPG is to have fun, the purpose of RPG theory should be to find ways to maximize fun for the largest amount of people for the longest amount of time. This, incidentally, is a major reason why, even if it wasn't a hodgepodge of intellectually confused swill, the GNS theory would still fail spectacularly because it explicitly tries to limit fun to a tiny, tiny subset of gamers.



But we don't have to do all that. I think we should try to come up with a model that explains everything that GNS and the Big Model try to explain, then move from there into system design patterns.


This is reasonable. I'd add the following:
1) It must explain all current phenomenon (GNS and Big Model completely fail at this as these only explain the phenomenon known as Edwards)
2) It must be as simple as possible (unlike GNS and Big Model)
3) It must be clear and concise, using commonly accepted definitions for words (completely and utterly unlike GNS and Big Model)

Y'know... kinda actually be a real theory as opposed to nonsensical ego-driven supposition.



Given a group of people, with their various preferences and expectations for fun, as well as constraints for the amount of time and manner of contact that they have at their disposal,
what sort of systems can be designed to facilitate their play? What common features and patterns do they share, and what such features/patterns are well- or ill-suited to particular patterns of use?


This is putting the cart before the horse, I think. The model should answer these questions. If you go the opposite way around, you'll try to get your data to support your hypothesis. Like GNS.



And we could concurrently start small and work big, starting from individual systems as case studies:


This is a more appropriate way to start: observation about the world and then a hypothesis to try to explain it.



Taking D&D and running with it, for instance, we have the questions,
What makes D&D (as a system) a success?


Part of this is undoubtedly because it was the first mechanically-derived RPGs (as opposed to things like Cops and Robbers which are RPGs of a sort but without any mechanics or rules for conflict resolution); first mover advantage and all.

But I think to answer this in its entirety would need an examination of 1st edition. I don't actually have access to that, though... does anyone else?

A corollary question would be: why does D&D continue to be popular even in the face of diverse and numerous competition?



What is the diversity of D&D games?


We could probably come up with a spectrum just by looking at settings and splatbooks, but to avoid GNS-like muddying of terms, we should explicitly define what is meant by "diversity" and if it actually reflects what that word means in common usage. Do you mean in terms of setting, mechanics, types of stories told, or some combination?



What makes individual games succeed or fail?


Good question. This would be an opportunity for people to list failed games and try to come up with common threads. It would probably read like one of the Bad Player/Bad DM threads, but those are always amusing anyway.



How do D&D games end up being played the way they are played, and what are the social and systemic preconditions that make different games to fall into different play patterns?


This would seem to be a subsection of the previous question, but instead of looking at failures to look at successes.



Depending on how far we want to take this project, it might warrant its own subforum. It certainly warrants its own thread already.

Agreed. And if there is a subforum for RPG theory, it should have a sticky at the top with a list of all the numerous problems with GNS/Big Model and anyone who starts a thread on either of these must either address all of those problems or have their message edited to point to said sticky. If they're not going to answer the problems, then the only thing such a poster is doing is spamming.

Kylarra
2009-09-17, 01:58 PM
To be fair to Jill, you should probably split the creation of a new theory into a new thread.

Diamondeye
2009-09-17, 03:05 PM
That's like asking how studying psychology can help one with understanding people. What's so unclear about the concept of trying to learn what the various motivations of people playing roleplaying games might be?

It's really not at all alike. You can play roleplaying games just fine without the theory. It's fine if you want to use it, but its not necessary. Psychology, on the other hand, is messing around with real people's mental processes and health. If you don't understand what you're doing you can do serious damage when dealing with a mentally ill, or even just an upset person. Unlike with RPGs, there are wrong ways to do psychology.


There are so many people who claim other people are playing roleplaying games wrong, simply because they do not understand these people have different, but equally valid preferences. Or who just play/gamemaster in some specific way, without ever questioning whether there would be other ways of doing that, that might potentially be more fun, for either themselves or the people they are playing with/gamemastering for. All such people would benefit greatly from learning about the various approaches people have to roleplaying.

Not really. They'd still think their approach was the best. That's a problem in a lot of areas of life. Some people think that those of us who would rather play RPGs and post on message boards as opposed to hanging out at bars watching NASCAR and footbal "have no life". You could come up with a real psychological theory regarding those differences too, but it isn't going to change the minds of people who like to "otherize" people.

PhoenixRivers
2009-09-17, 03:34 PM
I fear you are simply mistaken about this definition. Drama is the lack of a clear right and wrong in situations where it's important. An epic battle or social confrontation has no dramatic value if it's 'obviously the right thing to do', or doesn't entail a tradeoff between values. (Play is also not Narrativist if those choices don't directly impact plot.)
Drama can exist within the context of a clear right and wrong. For example, a love interest is discovered to have poisoned the town well nightly, for weeks. There's a clear right and wrong. There's also much potential for a dramatic confrontation.


Similarly, it's no fun in Chess if you play where every piece is a pawn, or a bishop, or a rook.Actually "every piece is a pawn" isn't too far off from checkers. I believe there is entertainment value in that.


This is flatly untrue. The amount of Simulationism present in Chess or Magic: The Gathering is very close to nil.You assume a exclusivity where none exists. Most Magic: The Gathering players that I know also play Warhammer... Which is quite simulationist. Just because one likes a game that is purely Gamist doesn't mean one cannot also enjoy simulationism. You're confusing the game with the gamer.


Ah... but the Paladin is also obliged to save the lives innocents and fight Evil wherever it rears it's ugly head: The whole point to this scenario is to make clear that there is no way, in this case, to simultaneously satisfy all the restrictions placed on your character. You're obliged to 'cheat'.It takes a mighty lot of contriving to create a situation such as that. It's also generally considered a jerk move to do, when dealing with paladins.


This is not Narrativism. Narrativism doesn't have a single way to 'play the character correctly'. On the contrary. The whole point is to take the character's current beliefs and convictions and subject them to increasing stress, until they either change, or entail major sacrifice. Both options must be present. For Narrativist play to occur, the poison must be a viable option.Narrativism is deceptively named in this theory. All a narrative is, is "a story or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious."

One need not have every choice be valid to tell a story, any more than one needs to be able to travel anywhere on earth in order to take a walk.


It is nothing of the sort. Fixed plot means that player's contributions to story are definitionally nonexistant. That is not Narrativism. You just said it yourself- "the focus is on winning efficiently". That is definitionally Gamism!
Players can define their interpretation of "winning". I personally use a reactive plot. I create a world. I create persons of interest, with agendas and timelines. If players interact with these agendas when they come across them, then those agendas modify to account for whatever change is reasonable based on the plan alterations. Players foil an assasination attempt? Another is set up, and the players are studied by the bbeg or some underling. If feasible to send a red herring to distract? Great. Players have accomplishments, setbacks, and choice. Players have the ability to win, even if it's, at times, in an alternate way to just "kill the bad guy".

This, to me, is good storytelling. Players have a sense of ownership over the game. It's their game too. Players aren't proactive, or reactive... They're interactive.

But saying that to be Narrative, it has to entail great suffering or sacrifice? It has to forsake any attempt at balance or realism? That's stuff that the theory just plain makes up.

Fhaolan
2009-09-17, 03:41 PM
You could come up with a real psychological theory regarding those differences too, but it isn't going to change the minds of people who like to "otherize" people.

I like that word:

"I'm going to otherize you!"
"There's a madman out there otherizing people!"

Yeah, I'm going to have to remember that one. :smallbiggrin:

Winterwind
2009-09-17, 03:44 PM
Winterwind gave one response to 1) ,What makes you think I'm a D&D player? Granted, I've started playing it now... about two or three months ago. But the decade before that, I've been playing only different games, so I still don't think I aught to be classified as one. :smallbiggrin:


and I'm not sure what I think of it yet.I'd be interested in hearing it, when you do. :smallsmile:


Here's a stab as what I'll term "Weave Hypothesis of Role Playing Games". Scope is to cover games as designed and played. Purpose is to make describing games and game play easier.
[...]Umm... I have to admit, I do not quite understand what you are expressing here. Mind explaining it for dumb Winters? :smallredface:


Nah, I don't see why those things should be tracked on one continuum. It makes more sense to me to say there's one axis ranging from Crunch to Fluff, and another ranging from Story to Character focus. If Story/Character focus is completely irrelevant in high-Crunch games, then that axis is just set to the midpoint at that end.Eh, that works too. Seems functionally identical to me, actually.


To be fair to Jill, you should probably split the creation of a new theory into a new thread.I concur. And we really should do this, this is promising to be highly interesting. :smallsmile:

Who's going to create that thread?


It's really not at all alike. You can play roleplaying games just fine without the theory. It's fine if you want to use it, but its not necessary. Psychology, on the other hand, is messing around with real people's mental processes and health. If you don't understand what you're doing you can do serious damage when dealing with a mentally ill, or even just an upset person. Unlike with RPGs, there are wrong ways to do psychology.Fair enough. All I'm saying is, the purpose of such theories is to help with mutual understanding. I don't know about you, but personally, I'm interested in understanding other people better just for the sake of understanding other people better. If in the process I learn how to be a better gamemaster and/or player, all the better...


Not really. They'd still think their approach was the best. That's a problem in a lot of areas of life. Some people think that those of us who would rather play RPGs and post on message boards as opposed to hanging out at bars watching NASCAR and footbal "have no life". You could come up with a real psychological theory regarding those differences too, but it isn't going to change the minds of people who like to "otherize" people.What do you base this on? Because you are sort of assuming there that people are generally egoist immature brats. Which, even if you think that's a valid description of an average human being (which I don't), makes it completely irrelevant (at least as far as I am concerned) because such people are precisely the ones with whom I would not be playing in the first place.
People who are not egoist immature brats, on the other hand (i.e., the type I would consider worth of playing with), are more likely to embrace the multitude of gaming preferences, and keep it in mind in the future when playing, leading to an overall better experience for everyone involved.

PhoenixRivers
2009-09-17, 03:52 PM
I never said it's all or nothing. It's about establishing clear priorities during design (or house-ruling, informal or otherwise.)Exactly. And it's quite viable to have a game which has priorities to work on pleasing all non-extremists. (Extremist will be used as a term to describe a player who is actively annoyed by another style, other than their preferred.

Narrativism IS drama for drama's sake!Drama for Drama's sake = Jerry Springer. There is no point, no meaning, no reason behind it. The drama is, because the drama sells. Drama without meaning is like... Eating without sustenance. It may taste good for a while... But there's nothing lending it weight.

Drama for STORY's sake... Now that, I like.


Yes, but making all options available (e.g, magic vs. combat, melee vs. ranged, agility vs. strength) equally viable is probably going to distort their portrayal in the genre in question.Gamism doesn't need perfect balance. Look at Magic: The Gathering. There are "power colors", colors that are more difficult to play. You said yourself, that it's almost entirely gamist. Your example portrays an extremist. One who MUST have every single need satisfied, or it sucks. Also known as intolerant. Such players are generally not welcome at my table.


What if wizards really are depicted as more powerful than fighters? What if ranged weapons (e.g. guns,) really are more powerful than swords? What if strength, while mildly useful, really isn't as critical in combat as reflexes? In many cases- probably the great majority- satisfying the Simulationist means eliminating meaningful choice for the Gamist. Life is Unfair.The last point is true, and yet... You don't need to have every choice. Needing it all is the mark of the selfish. In most fantasy where wizards are more powerful, so is melee. Beowulf wasn't an epic archer. Neither was Achilles, Conan, Hercules. To simulate fantasy, melee needs to have an edge. Does that mean that if Gamists don't have every choice, that they don't have any choice? Absolutely not. You don't need to have the entire pie to enjoy warm apples with ice cream on top.


I'm sure you like to have these things present as an accessory to play, but are you really prepared to make active contributions toward each? If you're playing a paladin, and you're given a chance by the GM to slip arsenic into the villain's cup, which are you going to choose, honour or advantage? ...Would you even view it as a choice?Do you need to actively contribute to everything, at all times? No, just as your character isn't part of every action, neither is every style. It's not always "Jaya Ballard, Task Mage's" turn. It's not always Dramativist's (my term for what you title "Narrativist") turn.


I mean, throughout your post, there's this constant emphasis on the idea that every player should reconcile their motives with the idea of winning efficiently- This is Gamism, pure and simple. Yes, some Narrativist and Simulationist players are content with that, provided the rules make it clear that Gamist play is what's really going on- That can be perfectly functional and fun. But others won't, and that's not their fault! What you're describing is no compromise at all- It is one mode winning, getting everything it needs or wants, and other modes making do with the scraps.
No. It's not. Because it's not always reconciled with the idea of winning. Sometimes the "gamist" makes do with the second choice, because he's not willing to poison the duke. A single action may be gamist, or simulationist, or dramativist... But the game can cater to all, at different times, in different measure. And without being incoherent, thank you.

Bagelz
2009-09-17, 03:57 PM
I must have missed something in rpg history, because I don't understand what all the hostility toward samurai jill is about.

I agree GNS is flawed because of its mutual exclusions. But the article was well written and gave me a clearer picture of motivations. Most of us can say "I don't like playing with so and so" but often its hard to say why.

I play in an epic level dnd3.0 arena every year at EPiC in PA every year, and for that game, I am 99% gamist, the object of that game is to see who can make the most broken character and win.

I ran a vampire the masquerade (3rd edition? i think) in college one year, and if I had a clearer picture of what and why we were doing what we did, it might have been more of the sandbox i had imagined and less of a hack n slash. You have to know what you're doing wrong to fix it.

So I agree with some of the other posts, that it is backwards, and you want a mix/balance of the 3 extremes (or as much of any of them your group collectively wants) and not focus on one to the detriment of another.

So I appreciate the read (even if mutual exclusion is wrong).

Yukitsu
2009-09-17, 04:27 PM
I must have missed something in rpg history, because I don't understand what all the hostility toward samurai jill is about.


A lot of it comes from outright telling people they are playing the game wrong, that people who are telling her anecdotal evidence of having fun with a more inclusive games are actually telling her about games that fall into one of three categories, even though they don't and she simply doesn't incorporate more than a single simple concept into any given passage which is more accurately analyzed as comples, and because she has the audacity to tell people that they aren't really having fun when they play incoherent games.

Doc Roc
2009-09-17, 04:30 PM
Basically, the issue with GNS is that it tries to paint a huge problem where there is only an itty-bitty problem, and then runs around screaming at people when you try to suggest that the problem can be resolved with a little bit of conversation, a ten question player survey, and a well-designed game system.

It's a structuralist attempt to impose a prescriptive grammar of thought on a wildly variant and deeply individualistic past time.

TL;DR: I think that they try to paint a picture of huge differences and big fat conflict where there's none.

Diamondeye
2009-09-17, 05:00 PM
Fair enough. All I'm saying is, the purpose of such theories is to help with mutual understanding. I don't know about you, but personally, I'm interested in understanding other people better just for the sake of understanding other people better. If in the process I learn how to be a better gamemaster and/or player, all the better...

Like I said, if you enjoy it, fine. All I'm saying is that it's not necessary. That doesn't mean its useless or a waste of time for those who like it, just that we don't absolutely have to have it.


What do you base this on? Because you are sort of assuming there that people are generally egoist immature brats. Which, even if you think that's a valid description of an average human being (which I don't), makes it completely irrelevant (at least as far as I am concerned) because such people are precisely the ones with whom I would not be playing in the first place.

I said it was some people; I said nothing about it being the average person. In a similar way, some people like to tell others they are having badwrongfun. I don't associate with bar types who want to tell me I should sit there with them and watch NASCAR or I have no life, and like you, I don't want to play with people who want to cricticize others' playstyles. I certainly don't want to use a theory to try to change their minds; it isn't worth the effort.


People who are not egoist immature brats, on the other hand (i.e., the type I would consider worth of playing with), are more likely to embrace the multitude of gaming preferences, and keep it in mind in the future when playing, leading to an overall better experience for everyone involved.

That's true. However, those people aren't likely to need it explained to them with a theory why its ok if other people like things differently; they have enough empathy to do that on their own.


Basically, the issue with GNS is that it tries to paint a huge problem where there is only an itty-bitty problem, and then runs around screaming at people when you try to suggest that the problem can be resolved with a little bit of conversation, a ten question player survey, and a well-designed game system.

It's a structuralist attempt to impose a prescriptive grammar of thought on a wildly variant and deeply individualistic past time.

TL;DR: I think that they try to paint a picture of huge differences and big fat conflict where there's none.

To be perfectly honest, I think the ten-minute converstion should be sufficient most of the time without the survey or system.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-17, 05:01 PM
I must have missed something in rpg history, because I don't understand what all the hostility toward samurai jill is about.

I agree GNS is flawed because of its mutual exclusions. But the article was well written and gave me a clearer picture of motivations. Most of us can say "I don't like playing with so and so" but often its hard to say why.

I play in an epic level dnd3.0 arena every year at EPiC in PA every year, and for that game, I am 99% gamist, the object of that game is to see who can make the most broken character and win.

I ran a vampire the masquerade (3rd edition? i think) in college one year, and if I had a clearer picture of what and why we were doing what we did, it might have been more of the sandbox i had imagined and less of a hack n slash. You have to know what you're doing wrong to fix it.

So I agree with some of the other posts, that it is backwards, and you want a mix/balance of the 3 extremes (or as much of any of them your group collectively wants) and not focus on one to the detriment of another.

So I appreciate the read (even if mutual exclusion is wrong).
I'm glad you found it useful.

And I do want to stress that coherent design does still leave you a good deal of room to maneuver. An RPG design which caters first-and-foremost to a given mode can still contain elements that (at least superficially) make concessions to another. e.g, even if you're not playing Narrativist, you can still write up a campaign plotline beforehand and impose that using Illusionist techniques, and- hey- you have a story that most players will be happy to sit back and enjoy while they go about beating up monsters or filling a character's shoes. Or, if you're playing Gamist, it's still possible to make some limited concessions to Sim concerns without sacrificing tactical/strategic balance. It's just not a 'compromise' (one side getting everything it wants, and letting the other play around with the seconds, isn't a 'compromise.' That's one side winning.)

Diamondeye
2009-09-17, 05:05 PM
I'm glad you found it useful, but I did try to stress that an RPG design which caters to a given mode can still contain elements that (at least superficially) resemble concessions to another. e.g, even if you're not playing Narrativist, you can still write up a campaign plotline beforehand and impose that using Illusionist techniques, and- hey- you have a story that most players will be happy to sit back and enjoy while they go about beating up monsters or filling a character's shoes. Just... don't give them the false impression that they're 'making the big choices' when they basically aren't. That's false advertising. Or, if you're playing Gamist, it's still possible to make some limited concessions to Sim concerns without sacrificing tactical/strategic balance. It's just not a 'compromise'- one side getting everything it wants and letting the other play around with the seconds isn't a 'compromise.'

Yes it is. A compromise does not have to be exactly 50/50.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compromise


com⋅pro⋅mise  /ˈkɒmprəˌmaɪz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kom-pruh-mahyz] Show IPA noun, verb, -mised, -mis⋅ing.
Use compromise in a Sentence
See web results for compromise
See images of compromise
–noun 1. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
2. the result of such a settlement.
3. something intermediate between different things: The split-level is a compromise between a ranch house and a multistoried house.
4. an endangering, esp. of reputation; exposure to danger, suspicion, etc.: a compromise of one's integrity.

–verb (used with object) 5. to settle by a compromise.
6. to expose or make vulnerable to danger, suspicion, scandal, etc.; jeopardize: a military oversight that compromised the nation's defenses.
7. Obsolete. a. to bind by bargain or agreement.
b. to bring to terms.


–verb (used without object) 8. to make a compromise or compromises: The conflicting parties agreed to compromise.
9. to make a dishonorable or shameful concession: He is too honorable to compromise with his principles.

Note definition 1. No mention of an equal balance is made.

In any case, you're assuming that "one side gets everything it wants".

Samurai Jill
2009-09-17, 05:07 PM
Yes it is. A compromise does not have to be exactly 50/50.
If we both need 60 dollars out of 100 to hand to buy lunch, and you walk away with 60, that is not a compromise. That is you winning, and me being left with seconds. The exact ratio is beside the point- you got everything you wanted, and I didn't.

Diamondeye
2009-09-17, 05:09 PM
If we both need 60 dollars out of 100 to hand to buy lunch, and you walk away with 60, that is not a compromise. That is you winning, and me being left with seconds.

No, that's a compromise. Now you only need to find another 20 instead of 60. Your position is only 1/3 as bad as it was. Me getting everything I want and you getting left with seconds IS a compromise - I could have gotten everything, period and left you with nothing.

In any case, that example doesn't in any way relate to compromise in games. You're jsut constructing an example where one side gets everything it wants and another only gets part, and assuming that must be what happens in games.

It isn't.

What kind of lunch costs $60, anyhow?

Guancyto
2009-09-17, 05:10 PM
Yes it is. A compromise does not have to be exactly 50/50.

Not to mention that "fun" and "style" are not a zero-sum games where if I am having 80 dollars of fun, my friend must be having 20 dollars of fun because our overall preferences are different.

That particular analogy doesn't say anything interesting about RPGs or RPG theory, but it is extremely telling of the paradigm from which an adherence to GNS can originate.

I wonder, is this common? Do most GNS advocates feel they have been "shafted," as it were, by other sides of the triangle?

ScreamingDoom
2009-09-17, 05:11 PM
I propose, when discussing GNS, we use proper terms and not terms as they are defined by GNS.

For instance, instead of "Narrativist", it should instead be referred to as "Drama Queen." Instead of "incoherent" and "coherent", they should be referred to as "good" and "bad", respectively.

Let's take the purposefully confusing terminology away from the GNS proponents so they have one less cup in their intellectual shell game.

Diamondeye
2009-09-17, 05:12 PM
Not to mention that "fun" and "style" are not a zero-sum games where if I am having 80 dollars of fun, my friend must be having 20 dollars of fun because our overall preferences are different.

That particular analogy doesn't say anything interesting about RPGs or RPG theory, but it is extremely telling of the paradigm from which an adherence to GNS can originate.

I wonder, is this common? Do most GNS advocates feel they have been "shafted," as it were, by other sides of the triangle?

It's more a matter of people not realizing that making an analogy where their point is valid means nothing if there's no reason to think the analogy corresponds to what they want to show.

Samurai Jill
2009-09-17, 05:16 PM
No, that's a compromise. Now you only need to find another 20 instead of 60. Your position is only 1/3 as bad as it was. Me getting everything I want and you getting left with seconds IS a compromise - I could have gotten everything, period and left you with nothing.
So, the definition of 'compromise' here is, 'being slightly less of an ass than I was strictly capable of being'?
And I'm the one being accused of warped terminology...

Not to mention that "fun" and "style" are not a zero-sum games where if I am having 80 dollars of fun, my friend must be having 20 dollars of fun because our overall preferences are different.
I'm not claiming it is. But it means that play is not, e.g, Simulationist and Gamist in equal measure. It is primarily Gamist, with Simulationism present in a purely secondary and subordinate role. It is not a compromise, and it certainly isn't 2 or more modes firing on all cylinders.

oxybe
2009-09-17, 05:19 PM
No, that's a compromise. Now you only need to find another 20 instead of 60. Your position is only 1/3 as bad as it was. Me getting everything I want and you getting left with seconds IS a compromise - I could have gotten everything, period and left you with nothing.

In any case, that example doesn't in any way relate to compromise in games. You're jsut constructing an example where one side gets everything it wants and another only gets part, and assuming that must be what happens in games.

It isn't.

What kind of lunch costs $60, anyhow?

fresh lobster, perfectly boiled in fresh salt water and served on a gold platter. there are 2 young maids, aged 10 & 11 who have a cow just outside ready to churn fresh butter for you. there is a small burner to melt it at perfect dipping heat. it also comes with a french waiter, imported from france.

all while 2 mexican midgets dance for your entertainment.

Thrice Dead Cat
2009-09-17, 05:26 PM
If we both need 60 dollars out of 100 to hand to buy lunch, and you walk away with 60, that is not a compromise. That is you winning, and me being left with seconds. The exact ratio is beside the point- you got everything you wanted, and I didn't.

Alternatively, we split the lunch, or find somewhere else to eat that's cheaper. I feel that good gamemaster will do something similar, no matter what the game.

Heck, someone could get the entire $100 for the day, and every one else with the "scraps" could still be enjoying themselves. Sure, I imagine most sessions where one person is getting what he wants would annoy the other players at the table, even if there were multiples for each of the three corners, but it does not exclude the remaining people enjoying the game.

Megaduck
2009-09-17, 05:26 PM
If we both need 60 dollars out of 100 to hand to buy lunch, and you walk away with 60, that is not a compromise. That is you winning, and me being left with seconds. The exact ratio is beside the point- you got everything you wanted, and I didn't.

Yes but if we both need 60 dollars out of 100 to get a full lunch and you get 50 and I get 50 then we both get most of a lunch.

That's compromise.

If you want a lunch that's 51 dollars and I want one that's 49 dollars then we both get our lunches and it's still compromise, even if we didn't split 50 50.

So if we play a game were you get to win the most efficient way possible and I get my convictions challenged, then we're playing a RPG that's both gamist and narrativist (By your definions).

That's also compromise.

Yukitsu
2009-09-17, 05:33 PM
Buying a 100$ bat, beating a clerk to death, and stealing enough cash to buy 2 200$ lunches is also a compromise.

Guancyto
2009-09-17, 05:36 PM
So, the definition of 'compromise' here is, 'being slightly less of an ass than I was strictly capable of being'?
And I'm the one being accused of warped terminology...

You are. If I have $40 to spare and you need $80, giving you $40 leaves me with exactly what I want and some of what you want.

And yet it is a completely functional compromise.

Even if we assume that an RPG or game session has a certain amount of "currency," (which is bollocks) not everyone's lunch has to cost the same amount. If I have $100, and Bert likes the $20 lunch, Ernie wants the $10 lunch, I'm a fan of the $40 lunch and Big Bird takes the $30 lunch, everyone can walk away happy despite the fact that not everybody got the same amount of money.

Let's not even get into that Bert and Ernie share lunches, and if Big Bird doesn't feel like eating the entire $30 lunch he can trade some of mine, or that the $10 lunch may come with this awesome sauce that makes the $40 lunch taste better.

It's only when you get prima donnas who demand the $80 family-size lunch and nobody else wants it that you run into problems. GNS posits that everybody wants all your money, that wanting all your money is a desireable trait and that the only sort of lunch a person should buy costs $80 and excludes everyone who doesn't like, oh I don't know, Thai.

Serenity
2009-09-17, 05:54 PM
To the poster who asked: Yes, my avatar is indeed the ill-fated Crow from the Train Job.

Back to the topic at hand: in my view, the core problem with GNS theory is a narrow and obtuse definition of what the proponents misleadingly title Narrativism.

To someone uninitiated to GNS theory, 'Narrativism' suggests concern for story and roleplay over mechanics and combat. This is a common sense assumption from the dictionary definition and common connotations of 'narrative', and also contrasts nicely with Gamism, to create the two commonly recognized extremes of play--Deep Immersion vs. Kick-in-the-Door. However, this definition has nothing to do with GNS Narrativism. In GNS theory, in fact, Narrativism is a much narrower, niche category than Gamism or Simulationism. Gamism is the competitive, mechanical, optimizing part of the game; Simulationism is internal consistency and the ability to accurately represent concepts; Narrativism, on the other hand, apparently requires the abrogation of the DM's role in the game, and telling only particular stories in which a character's morality is tested to destruction. One of these things is not like the other.

The narrow definition of 'Narrativism' also muddies the definition of Simulationism. The 'Narrativist' demand that the plot be entirely player-driven requires a sandbox-style game that most would assume to be a function of Simulationism. Meanwhile, to maintain the narrow definition of 'Narrativism', and prove that the three categories are irreconcilable, stories and character exploration that is not purely player driven is lumped under Simulationism with the pejorative term 'Illusionism.'

I'm also left wondering at the logic of how 'Narrativism' is supposed tot est the characters to destruction, given its hostility towards DM involvement in the plot. If a DM presents negative consequences to a player's choices, is he railroading the character, or forcing them to question their convictions? If the corrupt Duke the player's declined to attack ambushes them on the road, has the DM negated their choice, or forced them to reexamine the convictions that led to that choice under fire? If the thug character's intimidation tactics make things worse instead of better, is the DM forcing him to examine his conviction that intimidation is the best way of getting what he wants? Or is the DM negating the players choice to be an intimidating thug by forcing him into situations where his skill set is counterproductive?

Typewriter
2009-09-17, 06:07 PM
I think I've figured it out. Every time I come back to read some of this thread all of the GNS stuff has been evoking something within me, some thought, some voice singing to me - begging to be heard. I finally figured out what it was within me that ached to be said in response to GNS theory.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

Guancyto
2009-09-17, 06:26 PM
I think I've figured it out. Every time I come back to read some of this thread all of the GNS stuff has been evoking something within me, some thought, some voice singing to me - begging to be heard. I finally figured out what it was within me that ached to be said in response to GNS theory.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

Typewriter, the words you are about to see have never been typed by me before to anyone on any subject ever. You are the first:

/thread

Winterwind
2009-09-17, 06:38 PM
Let's try this in a different way...

We have this example with the G, N and S aspects being different people who all want lunch, and there's just a limited amount of money available.

I don't think this is an accurate analogy. Let me draw up one that, I feel, describes the situation better.

Let's say G is Mexican food, N is Chinese food, and S is Italian food, and the players are arguing which one to order. And the session is long, really long, long enough for them to order food more than just once during its run.
The thing is? I, for instance, like all three of those types of food, and even if I had a temporary preference for one of them, I'd be perfectly fine with any of them. Moreover, my preference is not static - I might prefer Chinese food first, but after we'd ordered that and eaten it, I might vote for Mexican food next, just for variety's sake.

The major flaw of this analogy? I think there are far more people who dislike at least one of these food types than people who are not fine with one of the G, N and S aspects.

Fiery Diamond
2009-09-17, 06:55 PM
Let's try this in a different way...

We have this example with the G, N and S aspects being different people who all want lunch, and there's just a limited amount of money available.

I don't think this is an accurate analogy. Let me draw up one that, I feel, describes the situation better.

Let's say G is Mexican food, N is Chinese food, and S is Italian food, and the players are arguing which one to order. And the session is long, really long, long enough for them to order food more than just once during its run.
The thing is? I, for instance, like all three of those types of food, and even if I had a temporary preference for one of them, I'd be perfectly fine with any of them. Moreover, my preference is not static - I might prefer Chinese food first, but after we'd ordered that and eaten it, I might vote for Mexican food next, just for variety's sake.

The major flaw of this analogy? I think there are far more people who dislike at least one of these food types than people who are not fine with one of the G, N and S aspects.

You, sir, are made of win.

kjones
2009-09-17, 07:21 PM
Let's try this in a different way...

We have this example with the G, N and S aspects being different people who all want lunch, and there's just a limited amount of money available.

I don't think this is an accurate analogy. Let me draw up one that, I feel, describes the situation better.

Let's say G is Mexican food, N is Chinese food, and S is Italian food, and the players are arguing which one to order. And the session is long, really long, long enough for them to order food more than just once during its run.
The thing is? I, for instance, like all three of those types of food, and even if I had a temporary preference for one of them, I'd be perfectly fine with any of them. Moreover, my preference is not static - I might prefer Chinese food first, but after we'd ordered that and eaten it, I might vote for Mexican food next, just for variety's sake.

The major flaw of this analogy? I think there are far more people who dislike at least one of these food types than people who are not fine with one of the G, N and S aspects.

Yes, but if you try to order Mexican food from the Chinese restaurant, your lunch will be, to say the least, incoherent. :smalltongue:

Tyndmyr
2009-09-17, 08:25 PM
I must be nuts. I keep careful track of where all the good resteraunts are, and thanks to call-ahead ordering, it's trivial to order from a few places and scoop them all up in a coupla minutes. If you want chinese and I want taco bell, and we both prefer DQ for dessert, why not?

I suspect at this point we're mostly highlighting the fact that you can't eat GNS, making the analogy a wee bit strained.

Diamondeye
2009-09-17, 08:51 PM
So, the definition of 'compromise' here is, 'being slightly less of an ass than I was strictly capable of being'?
And I'm the one being accused of warped terminology...

This is a strawman argument. I posted a dictionary definition of 'compromise'. Not only that, but someone giving another person $40 for lunch is not 'them winning and the other person losing', it's both of them winning since they can both have an unbelievable lunch for that amount of money. Even if the second person insists on the $60 lunch, they still now only have to come up with $20. It's a very good compromise, especially since the first person had all the money in the first place. All the sacrifice was on the part of the person ending up with 60, none on the part of the person with $40, and yet somehow they 'lost ' because they didn't get half the money.

All you're really doing is producing an analogy whose relationship to the topic at hand is exceedingly weak, and claiming since you created that analogy, that it must be similar in the game world, when in fact the amount of 'gamism' narritivism', and 'simulationism' in a game not only can't be quantified mathematically but wouldn't necessarily be zero-sum if it did.


I'm not claiming it is. But it means that play is not, e.g, Simulationist and Gamist in equal measure. It is primarily Gamist, with Simulationism present in a purely secondary and subordinate role. It is not a compromise, and it certainly isn't 2 or more modes firing on all cylinders.

Yes, it is a compromise. Even if something is primarily one thing and secondarily another, that fits the definition of 'compromise'. Since you don't have the power to redefine customarily accepted English words, that's pretty much the end of the argument.


Buying a 100$ bat, beating a clerk to death, and stealing enough cash to buy 2 200$ lunches is also a compromise.

Afterwards, you can also compromise by taking turns getting the bottom bunk in the cell!

Xenogears
2009-09-18, 01:18 AM
This is a strawman argument. I posted a dictionary definition of 'compromise'. Not only that, but someone giving another person $40 for lunch is not 'them winning and the other person losing', it's both of them winning since they can both have an unbelievable lunch for that amount of money. Even if the second person insists on the $60 lunch, they still now only have to come up with $20. It's a very good compromise, especially since the first person had all the money in the first place. All the sacrifice was on the part of the person ending up with 60, none on the part of the person with $40, and yet somehow they 'lost ' because they didn't get half the money.

I think, but am not sure, that she is assuming that the 100$ belongs to neither to begin with. To clarify let's assume that two brothers go out to eat and their mother gives them 100$ to eat. So assuming that then the person getting 60$ does get everything they want and the person getting only 40$ gets nothing [B]if[B] you assume the two following things: A) There is no 40$ meal and B) there is no other way to get money.

[I]'m not sure how A and B can be retranslated back into the RPG compromise debate though so although the example works as showing a failed compromise under a certain set of conditions it still seems to fail as an analogy to RPGing.

Diamondeye
2009-09-18, 06:40 AM
I think, but am not sure, that she is assuming that the 100$ belongs to neither to begin with. To clarify let's assume that two brothers go out to eat and their mother gives them 100$ to eat. So assuming that then the person getting 60$ does get everything they want and the person getting only 40$ gets nothing [B]if[B] you assume the two following things: A) There is no 40$ meal and B) there is no other way to get money.

Even in that case, the analogy still fails, because A) the person with $40 still only has to find some way to come up with $20 now, and B) if each absolutely must have $60 for lunch, then splitting it evenly just results in both people 'loosing. It's clearly an inferior solution from any standpoint except equality; it might be easier for each person to come up with an additional $10 than for one to get $20, but it might not, and even if it is, one or both could still fail. If one person gets $60, at least one person is guaranteed to eat. That is not the case with an even split, and even though it imposes more burdern on the person needing to get $20 more, they still have gotten 2/3 of their lunch paid for.

It's still a compromise; it's just one that conducts an analysis of likely outcomes and concludes that a 50/50 split is not likely to produce the best overall outcome. I would certainly conclude that the 60/40 split is superior in terms of utilitarian ethics, for example. It's clearly not a matter of one person 'winning' and the other 'loosing'; in fact there's no reason to think there's n adversarial contest for th money going on at all.


I'm not sure how A and B can be retranslated back into the RPG compromise debate though so although the example works as showing a failed compromise under a certain set of conditions it still seems to fail as an analogy to RPGing.

The example really doesn't show a failed compromise; what it shows is a situation where a compromise with an ideal outcome for everyone is impossible due to limited resources. You're right, however, there's no connection back to the world of RPGs, mainly because there is no defined "pool" of resources that must somehow be split in a wuantifiable way among G, N, and S.

Bagelz
2009-09-18, 10:47 AM
A lot of it comes from outright telling people they are playing the game wrong, that people who are telling her anecdotal evidence of having fun with a more inclusive games are actually telling her about games that fall into one of three categories, even though they don't and she simply doesn't incorporate more than a single simple concept into any given passage which is more accurately analyzed as comples, and because she has the audacity to tell people that they aren't really having fun when they play incoherent games.

ok i get it, so apparently since i almost always have fun, I must enjoy all three types of games, since incoherent ones don't exist?
thank you for the clairification.

I actually do think any singular action can be defined to be part of certain group (whether these 3 or just roll vs role, or whether there are more and this incomplete), but a set of actions can come from any or all groups, and therefore the game at that time, if not the individual action, is "incoherent" and therefore in my opinion better.
The biggest problem I see is that mixed or incoherent games, are more fun than strictly "narrative" or "simulationist" (i put those words in quotes because I am using the edwards definitions as opposed to the general english definitions).

mcv
2009-09-18, 11:24 AM
I really do appreciate your summaries, Samurai Jill. They are a lot more accessible than Edwards' essays.
It's hard not to be. I've read them (a gaming buddy was particularly enamored with GNS theory), and it's a lot of words to fail to explain what he's really talking about. There's definitely something of interest in GNS theory, but because Ron Edwards is so hard at explaining what he's actually talking about (unless you've been reading his stuff for ages, I expect), it's really hard for outsiders to reach that gem.

The fact that he uses words in a meaning that's completely different from what 99% of the people understand it to mean, doesn't help.


My main problem with GNS (in particular) is that it attempts to be primarily normative, rather than descriptive like the older Threefold, and yet does not lay down a strong case for the normative portions of its theory. What I mean is, it does a good job laying down G, N, and S, and showing why there is tension, but it seems to have as a premise that *this tension is intractable.*
This is the single most insignful thing I've ever read about GNS theory. I feel exactly the same way, but so far I've been unable to put it in words. The "gem" I'm talking about above is in the descriptive parts. In between all the mubo jumbo of GNS theory are some really interesting bits about how to put more focus on story, about what gamism is really about, and how to make the simulationist part of your game more complete.

But then it suddenly turns around and claims that it's wrong to try to combine this into a fully fleshed out RPG experience, but instead you should try to focus on only one aspect of it and stay away from the others.


Actually, I get the impression a GNS advocate would call that Simulationism, not Narrativism.
Very likely. My impression after reading about gamism, simulationism and narrativism was that Narrativism is an extremely specific, narrow niche, whereas Simulationism is a really big bag of lots of different play styles that together form over 50% of all approaches to roleplaying. There's no reason whatsoever to assume that two Simulationists will be able to agree on how to play.


It's also worth nothing that Edwards himself has abandoned the theory in favor of The Big Model, which is another kettle of fish altogether.
Is it? I thought it was practically the same thing, maybe with some extra terms added.


Plot theory basically states that there are three main sources of conflict (And it is conflict that drives plots.) Man verse Man, Man Verse Environment, and Man Verse Self.
I wouldn't be surprised that's where he got the idea for his theory.


Jill; Well written, especially the early parts. It was actually remotely penatrable this time, and didn't feel quite so much like elaborate doublespeak. From what I've seen, that makes it one of the better attempts to explain GNS, including Edwards own. :)
I agree, but being better at it than Edwards isn't terribly hard. He's not the most gifted writer (although I'm sure he believes otherwise).


I still fail to see any use for the theory, even ignoring the matter of whether or not a single word contained within has any merit.
That's where I disagree. I do intend to address Narrativism a lot more in my games. I first heard about GNS theory about half a year ago and read a lot about it (it was awful). But it did get me to analyse a couple of my own mistakes when gaming.

My big problem: I don't like gamism, but I do have a tendency to dift towards it. I do like simulationism (I got that impression when I encountered the words gamism and simulationism on rec.games.frp.advocacy ages ago), and I'd love a bit more focus on story-as-created-through-play (which is what Narrativism is about). To me, the ideal world would be strong simulationism with a focus on deep character roleplay, and have strong, engaging stories emerge from that naturally. That is amazingly hard to accomplish, but it's totally awesome when it does happen.

But as a player I get distracted by the stats, by the encounters and the feeling I need to perform as well as the others in combat, and drift to gamism. As a GM, I get distracted by the detail, fleshing out a detailed world, or in the case of an established one (Traveller, I'm looking at you), exploring all the existing detail and figuring out what to do with it.

Instead, I should be focusing more on the characters, on their drives, beliefs, passions, destinies, etc. I need to engage those directly in play, have the players choose between them, and have that drive the story and drama in play. And that's narrativism.

But the Narrativist games developed by The Forge are completely not my thing. Pure Narrativism feels empty, hollow and meaningless to me, and the mechanics in those systems (at least in Dogs In The Vineyard) tempt me to game the system, and it leads to a kind of gamism that makes me feel dirty.

The most promising system I've encountered in my search (though I haven't played it yet) is The Riddle Of Steel. Its basis is highly Simulationist (it's apparently got the most realistic combat system ever, without getting bogged down; and it also allows you to build any character you like, without being stricted to classes), but it has a bit of Narrativism on top: each character has a couple of Spiritual Attributes (conscience, drive, passion, destiny, etc) that specify something that drives him, together with a number. In any situation where you confront a Spiritual Attribute, you get that number as a bonus on your roll, and if you act in accordance with a Spirtual Attribute, you can increase it. But the SAs are also a kind of XP pool. You can pay your SA points to increase a skill, stat or proficiency. So players are driven to, and rewarded for, dealing with the situations specified by their spiritual attributes. And they're automatically better at it too, which is a reward in itself.

I haven't tried it yet, but it sounds to me like the best of both worlds. A thorough and credible simulation, with story driven directly by the characters in that simulation.

Kalirren
2009-09-18, 12:00 PM
To be fair to Jill, you should probably split the creation of a new theory into a new thread.

I agree. It's getting a bit big and is fundamentally OT for the thread. I created a new thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125443) for the people who are fed up with arguing about GNS and want to hammer out an alternative, more useful framework.

Yukitsu
2009-09-18, 12:14 PM
ok i get it, so apparently since i almost always have fun, I must enjoy all three types of games, since incoherent ones don't exist?
thank you for the clairification.


Not exactly. According to posts further back, you'd be considered delusional, because people can only fit cleanly into a single category at the expense of all others. Incoherent games exist, but they are bad.

When I pointed out that people have fun playing centrist games (like 3.X) she basically countered by stating that people are somehow being tricked into thinking they are having fun.

PhoenixRivers
2009-09-18, 12:20 PM
If we both need 60 dollars out of 100 to hand to buy lunch, and you walk away with 60, that is not a compromise. That is you winning, and me being left with seconds. The exact ratio is beside the point- you got everything you wanted, and I didn't.

How about a realistic compromise situation?

Let's say we pool and win a lottery ticket for $20. Now, we decide to go to lunch on that money.

The Menu has the following (assume we're in one of the few states without sales tax, as I don't want to get that detailed):

Steak and potato: $20
Philly Melt and Onion Rings: $15
Burger and Fries: $7
Loaded Tater Tots: $5

Now, if one of us gets the steak and potato while the other's in the bathroom, that's not a compromise. That's a win.

If I get the Philly melt, and you get tots, that's a compromise. You might not have everything you want, neither do I. But we each have something, and we've each made concessions. True, you've made more, but hey, I might argue for such a thing if I paid for the ticket, and you just picked it up on the way home from work.

If we each get a burger and fries, and one of us gets tater tots, that's a compromise too.

If we each get a burger and fries, and $3, that, also, is a compromise.

See, you create overly simplistic "all or nothing" scenarios, without realizing that there is middle ground. Your view seems to be that whoever doesn't get more loses. That's... how do you put it? Gamist.

mcv
2009-09-18, 12:27 PM
When I pointed out that people have fun playing centrist games (like 3.X)
What is a centrist game? And how is 3.X one?

Yukitsu
2009-09-18, 12:29 PM
What is a centrist game? And how is 3.X one?

Centrist is one that GNS defines as "incoherent" where the players have a good story, the world is consistent, and play follows certain rules. A good D&D 3.X one should have all of those elements.

Of course, I generally take the liberty of ignoring the GNS defintions of the terms narrativist, gamist or simulationist, because frankly they don't apply to anyone as written.

Leewei
2009-09-18, 02:55 PM
The "Incoherent" claim doesn't seem right to me. To illustrate:

My PCs ended up getting tricked by a sly guard captain into leading a force to capture some renegade friends of theirs. The PCs either betrayed their friends, or betrayed the authority they followed. Based on what I've read of Narrative style, this seems to fit the bill.

The game we were playing was 3.5 edition D&D. While leading the posse out, they had several tactical encounters. I'd guess this would be Simulationist.

PCs creatively found ways to buy their friends time, managed to find solid evidence that cleared them of wrongdoing and furthermore got a bit or two of blackmail evidence to use against the captain. PCs returned home with their 'prisoners' and proceded to make the captain wished he'd never been born. XP was handed out and players enjoyed a well-earned victory. In other words, Gamism.

The idea of Narrativism being ultimately limited to "The only way to win is to lose something else" seems diametrically opposed to the notion of gamism. Furthermore, it seems ultimately unfun. Sometimes, you may feel the need to screw over players using one of these dichotomies to make the idea of "no possible victory save through loss" seem like a real possibility. But guess what? This sort of thing gets old for everyone very quickly.

Drama as experienced through books and movies can (and should) induce sympathy. Oh, the poor character and the trials they must endure!

In a roleplaying game where you're actively participating in their suffering, it's an act of pretend sadism.

mcv
2009-09-19, 02:05 AM
Centrist is one that GNS defines as "incoherent" where the players have a good story, the world is consistent, and play follows certain rules.
Good story does not mean narrativism, and following rules does not mean gamism, and a consistent world does not mean simulationism.

Narrativist and simulationist systems have rules too. In one case rules for the creation of story through play, and in the other to simulate how the world really works.

Simulationist and gamist games often have quite a bit of story too, but quite often, it's story prepared in advance by the GM and/or the players. Narrativist play is about figuring out what the story is going to be, just like gamist play is about figuring out if you're going to win, and simulationist play is about figuring out what the world and the characters are really like.

At least, that's how GNS theory defines them. I disagree with GNS theory's claim that it's impossible to have all of these and still have a good game, though. I think the best games have a bit of all of these, but it's often hard to balance them.


A good D&D 3.X one should have all of those elements.
D&D 3.X as a system is very gamist. Not quite as gamist as D&D 4 (which goes so far over the gamist edge that it fails to trigger my "RPG" button), but the system is all about challenges, overcoming them, building a powerful character and having it grow more powerful. All editions of D&D are highly gamist, and while D&D 3.X strays a bit more from the path than other versions, it has no Narrativist mechanisms, and for proper Simulationism it falls way short too. Players have to fight the system to achieve a proper balance, and they're always likely to drift towards gamism (get XP! grow more powerful!).


Of course, I generally take the liberty of ignoring the GNS defintions of the terms narrativist, gamist or simulationist, because frankly they don't apply to anyone as written.
I think they're useful definitions. The theory is wrong, but their definitions can help you figure out what's missing from your game, and how to add it.

mcv
2009-09-19, 03:53 AM
Um, no. From dictionary.com Drama is “any situation or series of events having vivid, emotional, conflicting, or striking interest or results” Right and wrong don’t really come into it.
That's the big problem with the Forgites: they redefine common words to mean what they need it to mean, which makes their entire body of work very hard to understand for outsiders.


Narrativism is simply to create a narrative or plot. Internal Character Drama is one way to deal to do this, but so is saving the kingdom and killing the dragon.
No. Narrativism (as defined by GNS at least), is about creating the plot through play. Having a plot isn't narrativism if it's just the GM saying there's a dragon harassing the kingdom and somebody needs to kill it. If through play, the players decide there has to be a dragon threatening the kingdom in order to get a great story out of this, then you've might have narrativism.


The problem with this definition is that a book, which defiantly has a fixed plot, is the ultimate in Narrativism.
No. Writing the book might be narrativism. Reading it definitely isn't.

Asheram
2009-09-19, 04:58 AM
No. Narrativism (as defined by GNS at least), is about creating the plot through play. Having a plot isn't narrativism if it's just the GM saying there's a dragon harassing the kingdom and somebody needs to kill it. If through play, the players decide there has to be a dragon threatening the kingdom in order to get a great story out of this, then you've might have narrativism.


But I thought that a character changing the GMs plot was a taboo according to GNS

mcv
2009-09-19, 09:22 AM
But I thought that a character changing the GMs plot was a taboo according to GNS

What? No, practically the opposite, as far as I understand. At least the articles about Narrativism/Story Now are all big rants against the GM deciding the plot in advance. The Forgites seem to be generally in favour of giving players more power over plot and even the game world, as far as I understand.

Or maybe it's the player rather than the character, who changes the plot. That might be an important difference. I'm not entirely sure.

Yukitsu
2009-09-19, 11:48 AM
Good story does not mean narrativism, and following rules does not mean gamism, and a consistent world does not mean simulationism.

Yes, I've mentioned that this is a problem with the theory.


Narrativist and simulationist systems have rules too. In one case rules for the creation of story through play, and in the other to simulate how the world really works.

Technically, in a pure form as defined, neither can actually have written rules other than the arbitrary restrictions formulated by GNS to pigeon hole that style of play into one of the categories.


Simulationist and gamist games often have quite a bit of story too, but quite often, it's story prepared in advance by the GM and/or the players. Narrativist play is about figuring out what the story is going to be, just like gamist play is about figuring out if you're going to win, and simulationist play is about figuring out what the world and the characters are really like.

At least, that's how GNS theory defines them. I disagree with GNS theory's claim that it's impossible to have all of these and still have a good game, though. I think the best games have a bit of all of these, but it's often hard to balance them.


When advocates of the theory use those terms, that's not what they mean. Simulationists cannot have a story, but can have an "illusion" of a story, and a gamist will actively oppose a story according to the theory. Narrativism isn't about figuring out a story, it's about writing a story. Gamist play is about winning, not finding out who wins. Sim play is sort of all over the place as "defined" because there isn't any consistency to this theory. This is why the GNS definitions of everything are essentially worthless.


D&D 3.X as a system is very gamist. Not quite as gamist as D&D 4 (which goes so far over the gamist edge that it fails to trigger my "RPG" button), but the system is all about challenges, overcoming them, building a powerful character and having it grow more powerful. All editions of D&D are highly gamist, and while D&D 3.X strays a bit more from the path than other versions, it has no Narrativist mechanisms, and for proper Simulationism it falls way short too. Players have to fight the system to achieve a proper balance, and they're always likely to drift towards gamism (get XP! grow more powerful!).

This is rectified if the DM and players go with a lot of the variants, which include mechanics for honour, for reputation, etc. DMG II has good rules for gaining NPC helpers that make for a better story, as well as for organizations and such. D&D is a pretty vast system, and does include many mechanisms for narrativism and simulationism. They simply are harder to find in core.

Sadly, my DM axed XP, so we don't seem to grow in relation to doing "gamist" things, so that may be my bias as well.


I think they're useful definitions. The theory is wrong, but their definitions can help you figure out what's missing from your game, and how to add it.

Let's see. Narrativism requires I dictate the plot, with no real input from the DM, and frankly, I like some suspense. Gamism is about winning, and as they commonly say, you don't win D&D. Simulationism is accountants and clerks the game.

No, I'd much rather use real life definitions of the terms, and frankly not worry about where they come from. All one really needs are the dictionary definitions of a story, rules and versimiliatude.

Edit: To elaborate, the terms used were intentionally redefined to exclude other categories from coexisting harmoniously with it. This is because they are all definitions at a radical extreme based on the assumption that individuals will move to the 100% fanaticism of a singular style, something more explicit in Jill's first article.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-09-19, 01:29 PM
Would someone take a moment to take me by the hand and explain to me what's so controversial about GNS theory? From what I know, it's basically the Myers-Briggs (http://www.myersbriggs.org/my%2Dmbti%2Dpersonality%2Dtype/mbti%2Dbasics/) typology for gamers. And while I can see why this theoretical stuff is interesting to some people, but not others, I don't see how it gets anyone's panties in a twist: it's just theory without much practical application. I mean, I like thinking of myself as an INTJ personality, but nobody has ever told me that Myers-Briggs stuff is BS.

Thank you.

Meek
2009-09-19, 02:09 PM
Read the links in my signature and if you don't understand after that, well, you're a Forgey sympathizer :smalltongue:

The short of it is that it's not only a crackpot theory with no practical application, it is a systematic attempt to entirely control the debate surrounding RPGs by inventing terminology and foisting it upon any discussion available to be stolen. All of this is done in promotion of games developed by those who are doing the foisting and demagoguery, and the personalities behind the development of those games (such as Mr. Edwards). But really, do read the articles so you can understand their modus operandi and why people don't like them.

Their eventual goal on the internet is to control the moderation (and administration, such as at the Forge which used to be quite different than it is now) of popular forums and web sites so they can turn them into bases for the GNS/Storygames Hivemind, serving to heavily promote their own games over anyone else's. Don't agree with them? Well that means you're flaming/trolling, there goes your posting privileges, yoink.

Diamondeye
2009-09-19, 02:51 PM
Would someone take a moment to take me by the hand and explain to me what's so controversial about GNS theory? From what I know, it's basically the Myers-Briggs (http://www.myersbriggs.org/my%2Dmbti%2Dpersonality%2Dtype/mbti%2Dbasics/) typology for gamers. And while I can see why this theoretical stuff is interesting to some people, but not others, I don't see how it gets anyone's panties in a twist: it's just theory without much practical application. I mean, I like thinking of myself as an INTJ personality, but nobody has ever told me that Myers-Briggs stuff is BS.

Thank you.

Probably because MB is developed by legitimate scientists in accreddited academic institutions, and is supported by scientific research and study, while GNS is some guy on the internet pontificating.

mcv
2009-09-19, 03:53 PM
Good story does not mean narrativism, and following rules does not mean gamism, and a consistent world does not mean simulationism.
Yes, I've mentioned that this is a problem with the theory.

This is not much of a problem with the theory. Other than the somewhat misleading name "narrativism". "Narrativism" suggests it's about the telling of a story. Instead, that style of play is mostly about creating a story through play. And in a rather particular way (by addressing "premise", but let's leave that awful bit of jargon out of this).




Narrativist and simulationist systems have rules too. In one case rules for the creation of story through play, and in the other to simulate how the world really works.Technically, in a pure form as defined, neither can actually have written rules other than the arbitrary restrictions formulated by GNS to pigeon hole that style of play into one of the categories.
Fortunately GNS isn't quite that restrictive. You can have elements of the other two (in fact, the elements that Simulationism focuses on (setting, system, character, color and situation) are vital to any kind of RPG), but the theory says one style needs to take precedence, and the other two need to take a backseat.



Simulationist and gamist games often have quite a bit of story too, but quite often, it's story prepared in advance by the GM and/or the players. Narrativist play is about figuring out what the story is going to be, just like gamist play is about figuring out if you're going to win, and simulationist play is about figuring out what the world and the characters are really like.

At least, that's how GNS theory defines them. I disagree with GNS theory's claim that it's impossible to have all of these and still have a good game, though. I think the best games have a bit of all of these, but it's often hard to balance them.When advocates of the theory use those terms, that's not what they mean. Simulationists cannot have a story, but can have an "illusion" of a story, and a gamist will actively oppose a story according to the theory.
What advocates of the theory have you talked to? My guess is that either you didn't understand them, or they didn't understand the theory. Read Ron Edwards' article on Narrativism/Story Now. He says simulationism and gamism usually do have a story, but the story is more like a backdrop in which the challenges or the simulationism take place, whereas in narrativism, it's all about creating the story through play. In a specific way about which they have some pretty good ideas, actually (once you learn to understand what they mean by what they say, which isn't easy), and if you get story in a different way, it's not Narrativism. At least that's what Ron Edwards (almost literally) says.


Narrativism isn't about figuring out a story, it's about writing a story.
Through play. I think the line between writing and figuring out may be a bit fuzzy there.


Gamist play is about winning, not finding out who wins.
Is that so different? The game is about overcoming challenges, and that's how you find out who wins.


Sim play is sort of all over the place as "defined" because there isn't any consistency to this theory. This is why the GNS definitions of everything are essentially worthless.
Sim is a really big bucket with lots of stuff in it, yes. And two simulationists could enjoy completely different styles of game. It's a category that could do with some extra divisions. But in a sense those divisions are already in the theory: Exploration (of setting, situation, system, character and color) is essential for any kind of roleplaying, but Simulationism puts Exploration on a pedestal, instead of using it as a foundation for either creating story or overcoming challenges. Simulationism wallows in Exploration. It's about immersion, rather than reaching any sort of goals or creating some sort of story.

Anyway, I think these definitions, badly formulated though they may be, are actually useful. GNS does a pretty good job of identifying some really completely different aspects of the game. Where it goes wrong in my opinion is in claiming that you can't have all of those aspects and still have a functional (enjoyable?) game. I think you can have it all. I certainly hope you can have it all, but I also think it's a difficult balancing act, but knowing what you're trying to balance can help a lot.


This is rectified if the DM and players go with a lot of the variants, which include mechanics for honour, for reputation, etc.
But then you're tweaking the system. It's not part of the core mechanics that D&D is about: overcoming obstacles, gaining XP for them, and going up in levels.


DMG II has good rules for gaining NPC helpers that make for a better story, as well as for organizations and such. D&D is a pretty vast system, and does include many mechanisms for narrativism and simulationism. They simply are harder to find in core.
Having NPCs develop the story isn't narrativism. Narrativism is about making it the PCs' (and players') story, rather than making them the protagonists in someone else's story.


Sadly, my DM axed XP, so we don't seem to grow in relation to doing "gamist" things, so that may be my bias as well.
Sounds like my kind of GM. I don't like gamism very much, and axing XPs could be an effective way to get rid of it. Is does hurt the soul of the D&D system though, and makes me wonder why your GM doesn't use a less XP/level-dependent system instead.


Let's see. Narrativism requires I dictate the plot, with no real input from the DM, and frankly, I like some suspense.
Is this your definition or your interpretation of the GNS definition? (In the latter case, you're wrong.)


Gamism is about winning, and as they commonly say, you don't win D&D.
You've never won a fight? Defeated the BBEG? Gone up a level? Had your moment of glory where you outshone the rest of the party?


Simulationism is accountants and clerks the game.
If that's what you like to simulate, then sure, go ahead.


No, I'd much rather use real life definitions of the terms, and frankly not worry about where they come from. All one really needs are the dictionary definitions of a story, rules and versimiliatude.
The dictionary doesn't help you in applying those to roleplaying. There are many, many different roles that story and rules can have in an RPG, and it can only help you if you're able to distinguish between those roles.

mcv
2009-09-19, 04:03 PM
Would someone take a moment to take me by the hand and explain to me what's so controversial about GNS theory? (...) And while I can see why this theoretical stuff is interesting to some people, but not others, I don't see how it gets anyone's panties in a twist: it's just theory without much practical application.
A couple of factors that contribute to so many parties being in a twist:


GNS theory is pompous, ill-defined and badly written
Because of that, it's often misrepresented
The only way to understand it is to turn off your brain and do some long, hard studying before you turn it on again
The proponents present it as the holy, undisputed truth,
New converts can be very proselitic about it
Forgites claim their theory has influenced most modern RPGs.
Against all odds, a lot of people do seem to be getting something out of it (or at least think they are)
It just rubs a lot of roleplayers the wrong way that this piece of offal is supposed to be the leading theory on roleplaying.

Harr
2009-09-19, 05:10 PM
And while I can see why this theoretical stuff is interesting to some people, but not others, I don't see how it gets anyone's panties in a twist: it's just theory without much practical application. I mean, I like thinking of myself as an INTJ personality, but nobody has ever told me that Myers-Briggs stuff is BS.

Thank you.

Read this (http://whitehall-paraindustries.blogspot.com/2009/09/flaws-of-gns-part-i-appeal.html)(all three parts) and then read this (http://whitehall-paraindustries.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-rpg-theory-has-bad-rep-part-i.html)(all five parts). They are not long and explain everything well.

Short version is, GNS is nowhere NEAR being that nice lighthearted "just the theory of RPGs which is interesting to some people and not to others" type of thing you're talking about. You're thinking about something ENTIRELY removed from it... something like Robin Laws's Gamer Personality Types like Warrior, Method Actor, Powergamer, Casual Player, etc, right? This is not that.

Let's see, how can I make a comparison... Imagine if you took the Myers-Briggs personality test... and the result was something like: "Your personality is BAD and WRONG. It's not a REAL personality, you just THINK IT IS BUT ARE WRONG. Further, the way you have lived your life has DAMAGED YOUR PERSONALITY beyond repair and you will never be able to have a happy life like people with coherent personalities can. Your personality type is BWIBD: Bad, Wrong, Incoherent and Brain-Damaged. SORRY."

Then you could say that Myers-Briggs is kinda like GNS :)

Samurai Jill
2009-09-19, 05:15 PM
I'll try to give this thread some more attention tomorrow, but it may take me a while to catch up.

Yukitsu
2009-09-19, 07:05 PM
This is not much of a problem with the theory. Other than the somewhat misleading name "narrativism". "Narrativism" suggests it's about the telling of a story. Instead, that style of play is mostly about creating a story through play. And in a rather particular way (by addressing "premise", but let's leave that awful bit of jargon out of this).

I'm including the sub definitions of the terms within the term when adressing the theory's incoherent use of language as problematic.


Fortunately GNS isn't quite that restrictive. You can have elements of the other two (in fact, the elements that Simulationism focuses on (setting, system, character, color and situation) are vital to any kind of RPG), but the theory says one style needs to take precedence, and the other two need to take a backseat.

The extent to which it states this is actually fairly absurd though, as a minor concession to either of the two has been unilaterally defined by Jill as the minor concession "winning" over the other aspects. I took more classes in categorical logic, so my recollection of fuzzy logic is, well, fuzzy, but my guess is that most people would not say a narrativist game as defined can truly contain any of the either elements in any relevant sense, even if it does in an absolute sense.


What advocates of the theory have you talked to? My guess is that either you didn't understand them, or they didn't understand the theory. Read Ron Edwards' article on Narrativism/Story Now. He says simulationism and gamism usually do have a story, but the story is more like a backdrop in which the challenges or the simulationism take place, whereas in narrativism, it's all about creating the story through play. In a specific way about which they have some pretty good ideas, actually (once you learn to understand what they mean by what they say, which isn't easy), and if you get story in a different way, it's not Narrativism. At least that's what Ron Edwards (almost literally) says.

Yes, however a story as defined in this theory is not necessarily a narrative, because he attaches the caveat that only stories centered on angst are narrative, and states as well that it's only a narrative if it discludes the other aspects. I do admit my mistake in saying "story" rather than "narrative." Focusing on the definitions as are discernable, an indication of coexistance to some degree (which I admit is there) is strongly overwhelmed by his accusations of incoherence.


Through play. I think the line between writing and figuring out may be a bit fuzzy there.

I disagree. From the definitions and nearly complete disclusion from "gamist" elements, unless you redefine "play" as doing a group activity I'd say that an Edwards based narrative game is closer to collaborative story telling to play.


Is that so different? The game is about overcoming challenges, and that's how you find out who wins.

I'd not say that you've "won D&D" once you've overcome a challenge frankly. Unless you view the DM as an antagonistic when you play. Otherwise, from my reading of the D&D books, D&D is "won" when everyone enjoys the game. Something unrelated to mechanical "gamist" trappings.


Sim is a really big bucket with lots of stuff in it, yes. And two simulationists could enjoy completely different styles of game. It's a category that could do with some extra divisions. But in a sense those divisions are already in the theory: Exploration (of setting, situation, system, character and color) is essential for any kind of roleplaying, but Simulationism puts Exploration on a pedestal, instead of using it as a foundation for either creating story or overcoming challenges. Simulationism wallows in Exploration. It's about immersion, rather than reaching any sort of goals or creating some sort of story.

Anyway, I think these definitions, badly formulated though they may be, are actually useful. GNS does a pretty good job of identifying some really completely different aspects of the game. Where it goes wrong in my opinion is in claiming that you can't have all of those aspects and still have a functional (enjoyable?) game. I think you can have it all. I certainly hope you can have it all, but I also think it's a difficult balancing act, but knowing what you're trying to balance can help a lot.

I disagree. I prefer a balance of the infinitely clearer classifications of story, mechanics and versimilliatude.


But then you're tweaking the system. It's not part of the core mechanics that D&D is about: overcoming obstacles, gaining XP for them, and going up in levels.

That's an awefully minimalist view of the game as a whole. I don't think many people would agree that the point of D&D is ultimately to gain levels. If anything, you gain XP and levels to overcome obstacles that are of a particular scope, while maintaining the feeling that it was earned.

I think it's this thinking that ultimately hampers the GNS theory. A game isn't about any of these things, it's about enjoyment of the game. I think once the theory gets its head around play being for fun, it would be much more functional.


Having NPCs develop the story isn't narrativism. Narrativism is about making it the PCs' (and players') story, rather than making them the protagonists in someone else's story.

That's the difference between an NPC (background character who does not advance the plot independant of the PCs) and a DMPC (an NPC that advances the plot at the behest of the DM). The former is viewed as a good story element (and I'm ignoring "player empowerment" because I view it as stupid) and the latter is generally considered bad.


Sounds like my kind of GM. I don't like gamism very much, and axing XPs could be an effective way to get rid of it. Is does hurt the soul of the D&D system though, and makes me wonder why your GM doesn't use a less XP/level-dependent system instead.

Because D&D doesn't need XP to function at all. The only reason the game includes it is to give people a specific mechanic for getting stronger without advancing the pace of the game too rapidly or too slowly.


Is this your definition or your interpretation of the GNS definition? (In the latter case, you're wrong.)

This has been stated by Jill. If the DM has the world react in a way not desired by the narrative created by the players, it has been defined as "illusionism" in previous posts. I'm critiqueing Jill's essays, and so have stuck to those points as opposed to Edward's.


You've never won a fight? Defeated the BBEG? Gone up a level? Had your moment of glory where you outshone the rest of the party?

For the first, winning a fight isn't winning the game, which is what the theory seems to be talking about (if it's not, all three aspects are gamist, as the protagonist should "win" in those situations in a narrative, and in a simulation, a competent person can "win" just as well as he could in a game). The others are not victories by definition of the term. I don't "win" soccer when I get better at it, and I don't "win" soccer when I outshine my team. You win when you've achieved the victory condition of the game. There isn't a defined or definite one in D&D.


If that's what you like to simulate, then sure, go ahead.

It's in essense what it defines. Any game where details are important is sim, and any game that adheres to perfect cause and effect devoid of free will is how Jill has defined simulationist.


The dictionary doesn't help you in applying those to roleplaying. There are many, many different roles that story and rules can have in an RPG, and it can only help you if you're able to distinguish between those roles.

It doesn't matter what role it takes. A story, which is to say a connected series of events in which the characters are somehow involved is all I need. The rules are whatever rules the game happens to follow.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-09-19, 07:54 PM
The short of it is that it's not only a crackpot theory with no practical application, it is a systematic attempt to entirely control the debate surrounding RPGs by inventing terminology and foisting it upon any discussion available to be stolen. All of this is done in promotion of games developed by those who are doing the foisting and demagoguery, and the personalities behind the development of those games (such as Mr. Edwards). But really, do read the articles so you can understand their modus operandi and why people don't like them.

Their eventual goal on the internet is to control the moderation (and administration, such as at the Forge which used to be quite different than it is now) of popular forums and web sites so they can turn them into bases for the GNS/Storygames Hivemind, serving to heavily promote their own games over anyone else's. Don't agree with them? Well that means you're flaming/trolling, there goes your posting privileges, yoink.
I bet the GNS people are responsible for faking the moon landing too! Just kidding. :smallwink:

I guess I'm just not interested in game design theory enough to take one side or the other; let alone read through the whole GNS write-up or its rebuttals. Which is odd, considering that I'm constantly writing house rules and/or my own game system. *shrug*

Kylarra
2009-09-19, 07:58 PM
In the interests of, I suppose adding, to the overall debate in a place where it's more likely to be seen, as Roland has requested we stick to this thread, I'll crosspost my last post for now.


It's been an interesting run, but I think I may just bow out of it for now as I don't really see any headway being reached. The definitions of terms from the GNS theory (ADBE) are specifically written to suit the theory, and thus any counters to the theory itself are swamped with re-definitions that are trying to be used in place of their normal definitions in gaming. Eg: Story, Protagonism, Drama.

It is useless to argue that Story (ADBE) can be achieved without Drama (ADBE), because Story (ADBE) is only created through Drama (ADBE), regardless of what stories can be created or written without it.

Drama (ADBE) can only be achieved when you're in a moral grey area fighting against opposite aspects of your Cause. Anything with a clear right and wrong would not be Dramatic (ADBE), and thus anything that is drama, but not Drama (ADBE) cannot be used as evidence against the statement.

Protagonists (ADBE) can only be Protagonists if they have one Cause (ADBE) and are challenged against it on an episodic basis, else they would not be Protagonists (ADBE), regardless of what other protagonistic meanings there are.

Narritivism (ADBE) requires that players have authorship of the story and are challenged episodically in situations that they themselves write out, as the GM is not allowed to respond to their situations with the world evolving, but rather must follow the script of their decisions. The players are all omniscient and know the results of their choices before they even make them (see Duke example). It is explicitly impossible to be N (ADBE) and S(ADBE) or G(ADBE) because S (ADBE) would take authorship away from the players and give it to the GM, and G (ADBE) would take authorship from the players and limit them by the system.

Admittedly, I'm not sure why S (ADBE) and G(ADBE) cannot co-exist, but that's probably because I got lost in the legalese somewhere.

I've probably missed some, but those are key recurring elements that I see now. I may be back later, but I need a breather.

For those unaware of my previous posts, ADBE is As Defined By Edwards, in other words, the parlance of the GNS theory.

Winterwind
2009-09-20, 06:17 PM
Posting my reply to a post made in the Gamism-thread here for the sake of sticking to the thread Roland asked us to.


It may, but quite often, it doesn't. If it never does- because the GM is steering the plot in such a way that the issue never comes up for the player- then the player's role-playing is, in effect, limited to providing low-level colour rather than embodying significant convictions.Firstly - only if you assume making sacrifices is necessary to embody convictions. Which is utter nonsense, because evidently, a person can have quite strong convictions even if never forced to prove it. And players can make it abundantly clear to the rest of their group what their character believes in by the way they play her or him. As dramatically pleasant as a sacrifice for the sake of convictions is, it is in no way necessary.

Secondly - deciding in the favour of committing a sacrifice does still in no way exclude the existence of different tactical options how to commit that sacrifice. If the warrior decides to sacrifice himself holding back the monsters pursuing the party, he can still try to take four instead of three of the pursuers down.


I am basing this on the fact that you cannot simultaneously make significant sacrifices to prove the convictions of a multifaceted character AND pursue victory with maximum efficiency. These are not compatible things. (Hell, between Raise Dead, Restoration and Regeneration spells, your options for meaningful personal sacrifice are limited to begin with, because entering combat is never actually dangerous.)Which is why at this point we enter in the area of compromises. Like that of a character deciding to limit the scope of a possible victory by choosing a sacrificial course, and then trying to achieve that victory.


That is not a compromise between S and G. That is Simulationism winning. G only gets what it wants after S has taken it's pick.Why? Seems like a fairly clear case of a player first exhibiting Sim, then exhibiting Gam behaviour to me, and as such a fair compromise...

..though, you know what? Other people have asked this question before me in similar context, without the discusion moving onward, so let's try a new approach.

Let's assume you are right, and one of the aspects got more out of it than the other, and for some reason I don't understand (but which is, I think, ultimately of little importance to the discussion) we are not allowed to call this a compromise. So what? It is still an example of a player demonstrating both Sim and Gam behaviour, and in fact in spite of Gam supposedly having gotten the worse part of it, it may actually easily take up the bigger part of the session, when the character tries to achieve his chosen goals to the best of her or his capacities. So even if not a compromise, it's still Simulationism and Gamism working hand in hand harmoniously.

Even if you are unwilling to consider it a compromise, it would seem this demnstrates they can coexist and merge to a better game together, if the players are interested in both.


Then don't add addenda or qualifications to the effect of 'realistic' or 'consistent'. There is no way that the internal logic of the game world can guarantee a 'correct' deterministic outcome here, because it's been made as ambivalent and complex as possible- the player's thematic choice, instead, becomes the most important factor. That is Nar prevailing over Sim....huh?
Why should it have to guarantee a deterministic outcome in the first place? Consistency has nothing whatsoever to do with determinism!

When I roll a die, I cannot predict whether it is going to show a 4 or a 6, but as long as the die has at least six sides, either result is consistent with reality. The only unrealistic/inconsistent result would be if I got a 7 on a six-sided die.

If the situation is ambivalent and complex, all it means that the options of what the player can do to stay in-character have increased. Any behaviour to which the group-members can look back and say, yes, I could see this character behave this way in this situation is realistic and consistent. If the situation is traumatic enough, this may well include a behaviour that would have been unthinkable for that character under usual circumstances.


That is Narrativism beating Simulationism beating Gamism, based precisely as you describe upon the order of priorities in decision-making. This is perfectly possible, perfectly coherent, and can be perfectly fun, but it does not represent a compromise. It is one mode winning, making another second-in-command, and leaving the third with scraps of the scraps.Okay... but if so, what would an example for incoherent play be, then? Because, to me, if the above can still be considered possible, coherent and fun, there doesn't seem to remain very much room in the triangle where such is no longer the case...


The 'aesthetic' in question could be tactics, consistency, or drama. As for predefined theme- the point in Narrativist play is to manufacture theme as the result of addressing premise- the answer to the question expressed through protagonism. But I don't think story can be good without that, any more than poetry can be good without metre, stress, or rhyme.Why not? I see absolutely no reason why a story being good should be in any way tied to either addressing just one moral question rather than any other, or to addressing any moral questions at all for that matter.

Unless you are using a non-standard definition of 'story', anyway.


'Immersive and action-laden adventure' can absolutely be fun for the participants, but by itself won't make for a good story. I mean, imagine that you took the transcript of events, stripped it of all the small-scale details of events, and just presented a summary of the main characters' crucial decisions. Would that have some kind of evocative message to it?No, but as has been mentioned before, neither would a narrative game if one did that to it.

On the other hand, if I leave all the small-scale details of events in, but have a story with no major sacrifices, moral issues or anything else you described as necessary for narrativist play, I'll end up with something similar to Indiana Jones or James Bond (barring the new ones) - light-hearted, without deep moral massage, just some action-laden fun, but (for any usual definition of 'story') most certainly a story nonetheless. Considering their fame and cult-status, one that quite a lot of people would consider 'good', even.


The players don't neccesarily have that directly (though to some degree they often do.) The point is that the GMs' job, in many respects, is to make play revolve primarily around their choices, rather than primarily around internal logic, tactical challenges, or his/her idea of what 'should happen'.Mmm, okay. That makes sense.