PDA

View Full Version : GNS Theory Revisited



Bosh
2007-08-07, 10:40 PM
In a previous thread I brought up GNS Theory (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory ) and was told by someone that it was a bad theory because what the terms actually meant were "the kind of RPG I want to play," "the kind of game I don't want to play," and "other stuff" from the point of view of the person who made up a theory. Because I've had ideas about the theory bouncing around my head, here's a stab of reformulating the theory to make it more useful and balanced:


Gamist: Game play is based around covering various challenges that are callibrated to be of an appropriate difficulty for the party. Sid Meier defines a game as "a series of interesting choices" and a good gamist game would provide these by giving players meaningful choices between various tactics that they could use to overcome the challenges. Dealing with things like food wouldn't be done here since it doesn't really involve any interesting choices.
How results of actions should be determined: balance between different tactical choices would be paramount here since without balance then it is not interesting to choose between the various choices (for example if you have guns in your campaign you probably wouldn't want to make them clearly more powerful than all other weapons).
Why they GM would fudge results: In order to calibrate the difficulty of various challenges that turned out to be easier to weaker than expected.
What fights should be like: Something as abstract as Chess would be fine as long as it gives the players interesting tactical choices.

Narrativist: The focus here is more on interesting stories than tactical challenges. Dealing with things like food would probably be ignored since it doesn't really further the main story.
How results of actions should be determined: according to what would up the drama of a situation. Things like Action/Fate points work well here.
Why the GM should fudge results: to make the plot move in an interesting direction.
What fights should be like: Action movies, what fits the story should trump what is realistic or what results in the most interesting/balanced tactical choices. Fate's system in which players can get extra fate points for doing things that are in-character, whether those actions are tactically sound or not, would be a good example of this.

Simulationist: The focus here is on making the results fit with what is "real." For games based on fictional sources the focus is on fiting the source, for example not having any spells that don't appear in the books in a Middle Earth game.
How results should be determined: according to what is most real or what fits the sort of results that take place in the source material.
When the DM should fudge results: when the result that the dice give is patently unrealistic.
What combat should be like: As close to real combat as possible or as close to the sort of things that exist in the source material.

Acquisitionist (tenative forth category): Game play is based on the acquisition of progressively more wealth and power. Interesting/complex tactics are rare, the story is not the focus and realism goes right out the window. Basically MMORPGs at their worst.

I think that's a bit of a different formulation than the original GNS theory and a bit more balanced since I like playing three of the four types of games described above.

In summary:

Gamist: Guns shouldn't one-hit kill the main characters since that doesn't lead to tactically interesting combat.
Narrativist: Guns hsouldn't one-hit kill the main characters since that would truncate too many plotlines.
Simulationists: Guns should often one-hit kill the main characters because guns kill people.
Aquisitionist: My gun is made out of antimatter.

Feedback?

Rachel Lorelei
2007-08-07, 10:47 PM
I don't like GNS. It's nothing new (some people like the game aspect and some people like the roleplaying aspect and some people like the storytelling aspect? Really? You need a theory for that?) and it's highly simplistic, because very few people actually enjoy just one, because they mix in every game, and because the three interact: the "game" part of the roleplaying game can influence the others in good or bad ways, for example.

Jimmy Discordia
2007-08-08, 01:25 AM
But don't you see? Your game can only be one of those three things. It can have elements of the other two, but only be one, because blah blah blah, et cetera et cetera, and System Does Matter.

Can you tell it's been a while since I read the original GNS theory essay?

Personally, I agree with some of Mr. Edwards's assertions and disagree with others. For instance, I like that he provides a common language in which to discuss the elements of a game, and agree that finding a system that "fits" you is a Good Thing. But thinking that a system that fits you has to be one of three things at heart, and the others aren't really that important, seems a bit too reductionist for my tastes. The expanded essay on GNS theory (found here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/2/), which may be the one you're familiar with anyway, introduces some more complexity, but still tries too hard, in my opinion, to force games and the gamers who play them into three broad camps.

Oh, and Bosh, if I were working in a strictly GNS framework, I'd define your tentative "Acquistionist" category as Gamist focusing on beating the system rather than any specific challenges. Does that sound about right?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-08-08, 06:01 AM
For what it's worth, GNS theory originated as GDS theory (with "Dramatism" instead of "Narrativism") over on Usenet, specifically on rec.games.frp.advocacy.

The idea behind it was to identify the priorities people use to make specific in-game decisions - GM calls, if you will.

So a Gamist decision is one made for reasons of "fairness", a Dramatist decision is one made in order to make things cool and dramatic, and a Simulationist system is one which is made in order to make the game more "believable" (which is not the same as being "realistic").

Forge GNS is almost-but-not-quite the same, and comes with a heavy dose of value judgment.

Specifically Gamism is about the metagame challenge. It's about testing your OOC ability to do what the game asks you to do. Narrativism is about theme, it's about asking moral questions. Simulationism is about exploration which is loosely defined as "everything else."

So to go back to the OP's "guns" example, it is more accurate to say that in a Gamist game guns may or may not one-shot-kill people, depending on whether you want that to be part of the strategic challenge, in a Narrativist game guns may or may not one shot kill people, depending on whether or not you want that to be part of the moral question, and in a Simulationist game guns may or may not one shot kill people, depending on what you want the rules of your fictional world to be.

GNS is basically a hopeless mess. It doesn't adequately describe the different experiences people want from games, or the different ways in which systems go about providing those experiences.

The Riddle of Steel, for example, is touted by Ron Edwards as a "Narrativist" game, even though it provides detailed and realistic rules for combat (with one-shot kills in point of fact). This is alledgedly because TRoS is designed to "raise the question of what is worth killing and dying for". Some sarcastic people (like, say, me) suggest that in fact Ron defines it as Narrativist because he enjoys playing it.

Jimmy Discordia
2007-08-08, 08:33 AM
The Riddle of Steel, for example, is touted by Ron Edwards as a "Narrativist" game, even though it provides detailed and realistic rules for combat (with one-shot kills in point of fact). This is alledgedly because TRoS is designed to "raise the question of what is worth killing and dying for". Some sarcastic people (like, say, me) suggest that in fact Ron defines it as Narrativist because he enjoys playing it.

Although I'm personally unfamiliar with TRoS, except to the extent that Ron Edwards talks about it, I'd say this is an excellent example of how these elements are equally parts of the system and styles of play. Ron Edwards has stated (in one of the GNS essays) that his focus is Narrativism; therefore, any game he plays (and particularly, one would imagine, those he runs) is a Narrativist game.

I think my own Gaming Theory of Everything boils down to: Pick a system you enjoy playing, and play it with people you enjoy playing it with, in a style you all like. Call yourself whatever you want, or don't. Lacks a certain amount of rhetorical punch, but it's concise.

Winterwind
2007-08-08, 08:47 AM
I generally find the GNS theory quite useful - not to describe players, but to discuss into which direction players want the game to go.

Allow me to explain.

First, I would split the narrativist part into two distinct classes, namely the Storyteller and the Character Player.

Gamist: likes overcoming challenges. Fun is derived by solving puzzles, employing strategy and optimising a character for a certain goal. Loot and Experience are rewards which help overcoming even stronger challenges and customising the character in order to explore the strategic possibilities inherent to the system. A good roleplaying system is one with lots of mechanical options from which to chose, long equipment lists and so forth. The rules have highest priority over everything, because they outline the strategic options. Fairness is absolutely necessary, because without it, there is no contest.

Narrativist 1 - Storyteller: likes telling a story. Fun is derived by advancing a plot and playing through dramatic moments. Loot are items relevant for the plot. Experience is a reward which helps shaping the character more into a form the player considers benefitial for the plot in the long run. A good roleplaying system is one with a well developped background against which the stories can be told. The plot overrules rules and everything - if it is more dramatic that these people die, it won't matter whether they have hit points left, and no healing spell will help.

Narrativist 2 - Character Player: likes exploring his character. Fun is derived by making decisive decisions and learning more about the character. Loot are items the character is meant to possess because they form a part of his personality. Experience is a reward which helps shaping the character more into the character the player ultimately envisions. A good roleplaying system is one with rules imposing as little limitations on developping the character the player wants to play as possible (which often means no rules at all). The character overrules both plot and rules - everything that happens to a character happens to him because the player wanted it to happen, not because dice-rolls dictated it, and also not because it would seem dramatic/tragic/whatever now.

Simulationist: means that, in addition to the above, believability of the rules and the world has a large priority. While being able to chose from a large selection of weapons would be nice to a gamist as long as none of them are unbalancing the world, if (s)he had additional simulationist tendencies (s)he would discard the ones that seem too whacky/off-worldy/whatever. While this NPC surviving his injuries, albeit crippled and out for vengeance, would be the best advancement of the plot, this player would discard this possibility if the injuries were to great. A good roleplaying system is one which does a good job of representing the setting rule-wise. The reality of the setting overrules everything.


Now, of course, every player is all of this to some degree. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to go out and try to classify players as one of those. Also, every system can be played in every of these fashions, so it doesn't make sense to classify systems strictly as one of those, either.
But what it is good for is to determine what system might be suited better for which player. A friend of mine loves ShadowRun more than anything, for reasons quite similar to what I stated a gamist would like. I, on the other hand, prefer a system with very little rules and a huge background. We stopped discussing which system was the better one when we just realised that ShadowRun was more of gamist system, my friend was more of a gamist than me, and that was the reason why ShadowRun was the better system for him. Now, when I see a system I don't know, I can use the above definitions to quickly determine whether I would like to play in this system, and whether my friends would like to play that system. For instance, I can see Wushu would be a system more closely designed for Narrativist1/2 players, without ever playing it myself, and therefore I would probably enjoy playing it, while that aforementioned friend of mine wouldn't. On the other hand, while D&D surely would be fun, there are systems out there which suit my tastes better. I have recommended said friend of mine to look into D&D, though, because I believe this much strategy and optimisation in a system would suit his tastes very well.

Oh, yeah, and welcome back, Dan Hemmens. I missed discussing with you. :smallsmile:

Darrin
2007-08-08, 09:20 AM
Narrativism is about theme, it's about asking moral questions.

Not necessarily. If your theme doesn't involve grappling with tough moral questions (i.e., a Bond-style spy thriller), then it may not be important in that style of game.


Simulationism is about exploration which is loosely defined as "everything else."

Where do you get exploration from? Simulationism is about simulating reality, either the real-world or a fictional one. Where it gets all wonky is you can simulate a very gamist theme (Amber comes to mind) or even a narrative theme (I was shocked when someone told me Feng Shui was a simulationist game, given how much it relies on narrative themes, but have grudgingly come to see that it is very simulationist).



GNS is basically a hopeless mess. It doesn't adequately describe the different experiences people want from games, or the different ways in which systems go about providing those experiences.


One of the minor applications of GNS theory is it can sometimes be used as a tool to examine the structure and design of a game, and how it functionally works or doesn't work for some people. It's primary function is to create incredibly massive discussion threads that ooze with torrents of pretentious criticism and faux intellectualist pedantry, allowing would-be demagogues to bludgeon as many people as possible with their personal view of what the "perfect" game should be and do and why absolutely everyone should agree that this would immediately make the world a shiny happy place.



The Riddle of Steel, for example, is touted by Ron Edwards as a "Narrativist" game, even though it provides detailed and realistic rules for combat (with one-shot kills in point of fact). This is alledgedly because TRoS is designed to "raise the question of what is worth killing and dying for". Some sarcastic people (like, say, me) suggest that in fact Ron defines it as Narrativist because he enjoys playing it.

Urk... well, I see where he gets the narrativist angle from, with the Spiritual Attributes or whatever they're called... essentially an attempt by the game system to "bribe" the player into getting dragged around by narrative hooks. But the brutal/unforgiving combat is a heavy nod towards Simulationist, an attempt at more "realistic" melee combat... which can really screw up your narrative elements if they're unwilling to risk combat or get one-shotted by a meaningless mook.

One thing I did pick up from GNS theory is something John Wick pointed out once (I think in his Warhammer spoof game, with the d1000): the concept of "Pick Two". His example was actually creating costumes for L5R games, where a friend of his said, "You can have Cheap, Pretty, or Fast. Pick two".

GNS is similar, in that most games do two elements very well, and one very poorly.

* D&D tends to be Gamist (notice the loud cries of protest when something isn't "balanced") and Simulationist (if not obsessed with real-world physics, then at least internally consistent magic-world physics), but not Narrativist (hey, you saw that orphanage attack me!).

* WoD tends to be Gamist (balanced via point build) and Narrativist (sometimes to the point of pretentiousness), but not Simulationist (you can hide an M-16 under a black lace camisole? really?).

* Feng Shui does Simulationist (action movies) and Narrativist (he killed your partner? ok, +1 bonus), but is unbalanced from a Gamist point of view (wait, you did 57 damage with a butterknife?).

Actually, I notice the "Pick Two" phenomenon in other areas where design is important (Software = Security/Usability/Stability, Video Games = Gameplay/Graphics/I forget the third thing). But that's an entirely different discussion.

Dausuul
2007-08-08, 10:26 AM
I think GNS could be quite useful if applied as an analytical tool to game design. My major beef with it comes from the idea that a game should pick one of these three things to be (and the thinly veiled suggestion that Narrativist = Good and anything else is bad).

The way I would approach the issue is to say that every RPG contains three sub-games. The Gamist sub-game provides a metagame, strategic challenge. The Simulationist sub-game attempts to model an imaginary reality in a believable way. And the Narrativist sub-game attempts to construct an entertaining and dramatic story with vivid, memorable characters.

All of these sub-games are important and necessary parts of the design. The designer should be aware of all three and how they interact; if one of the three sub-games breaks down, it will manifest as a flaw in the game as a whole, whether as balance problems (Gamist breakdowns), nonsensical outcomes that ruin suspension of disbelief (Simulationist breakdowns), or tedious storylines and/or one-dimensional characters (Narrativist breakdowns).

Of course, this has pretty much nothing to do with GNS theory as written; I'm hijacking the Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist concepts to use as the basis for a totally other theory.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-08-08, 10:29 AM
Not necessarily. If your theme doesn't involve grappling with tough moral questions (i.e., a Bond-style spy thriller), then it may not be important in that style of game.

Which is exactly my point. That's not Forge-definition "Narrativism". That's something else which people stick the label "Narrativism" on because it's convenient.


Where do you get exploration from? Simulationism is about simulating reality, either the real-world or a fictional one. Where it gets all wonky is you can simulate a very gamist theme (Amber comes to mind) or even a narrative theme (I was shocked when someone told me Feng Shui was a simulationist game, given how much it relies on narrative themes, but have grudgingly come to see that it is very simulationist).

Again, Forge definition, Simulationism is about Exploration of Situation. And nothing else.


One of the minor applications of GNS theory is it can sometimes be used as a tool to examine the structure and design of a game, and how it functionally works or doesn't work for some people. It's primary function is to create incredibly massive discussion threads that ooze with torrents of pretentious criticism and faux intellectualist pedantry, allowing would-be demagogues to bludgeon as many people as possible with their personal view of what the "perfect" game should be and do and why absolutely everyone should agree that this would immediately make the world a shiny happy place.

Unfortunately the major function completely outweighs the minor function.


Urk... well, I see where he gets the narrativist angle from, with the Spiritual Attributes or whatever they're called... essentially an attempt by the game system to "bribe" the player into getting dragged around by narrative hooks. But the brutal/unforgiving combat is a heavy nod towards Simulationist, an attempt at more "realistic" melee combat... which can really screw up your narrative elements if they're unwilling to risk combat or get one-shotted by a meaningless mook.

Okay, you're completely missing the point of what Ron Edwards calls "Narrativism". Narrativism has nothing to do with following a plot, it has everything to do with exploring themes.

Ron doesn't think TRoS is Narrativist (or rather "primarily Narrativist Facilitating") because you can use the SAs to "bribe" the players into following plot hooks. In fact, he views it as Narrativist because it makes the players unwilling to risk combat and allows them to get one shotted by a meaningless mook. This - according to Ron - underscores the "Narrativist" theme of the game, which is that violence always has consequences. You can't just say "that guy's a nameless mook" you have to say "that guy poses a threat, so I should not challenge him unless I really, really care about what I'm fighting for."


One thing I did pick up from GNS theory is something John Wick pointed out once (I think in his Warhammer spoof game, with the d1000): the concept of "Pick Two". His example was actually creating costumes for L5R games, where a friend of his said, "You can have Cheap, Pretty, or Fast. Pick two".

GNS is similar, in that most games do two elements very well, and one very poorly.

I don't agree at all. In all the situations you cite, you've just arbitrarily picked two axes of the threefold and says "this game does these and not the other one.


* D&D tends to be Gamist (notice the loud cries of protest when something isn't "balanced") and Simulationist (if not obsessed with real-world physics, then at least internally consistent magic-world physics), but not Narrativist (hey, you saw that orphanage attack me!).

Why is D&D not Narrativist? The entire system is designed to produce a Hero's Journey.


* WoD tends to be Gamist (balanced via point build) and Narrativist (sometimes to the point of pretentiousness), but not Simulationist (you can hide an M-16 under a black lace camisole? really?).

The World of Darkness is the textbook example of "not narrativist". Hell, the entire concept of "Narrativism" was pretty much invented so that Ron could have a go at Vampire.

The WoD is, in fact, hugely simulationist. It's about exploring what it is like to be a (say) Vampire in the vampiric society described by the books.


* Feng Shui does Simulationist (action movies) and Narrativist (he killed your partner? ok, +1 bonus), but is unbalanced from a Gamist point of view (wait, you did 57 damage with a butterknife?).

Again, you're just making this up to fit your pattern. Feng Shui isn't Narrativist, because it doesn't have a core theme, nor does the possibility of doing 57 damage with a butterknife preclude it from being "gamist".

Dan_Hemmens
2007-08-08, 10:38 AM
I generally find the GNS theory quite useful - not to describe players, but to discuss into which direction players want the game to go.

I used to, but I found that everything wound up overlapping, and Simulationism wound up containing too many conflicting priorities.


Allow me to explain.

First, I would split the narrativist part into two distinct classes, namely the Storyteller and the Character Player.

Interestingly, neither of your two definitions of "Narrativism" actually fit forge-definition "Narrativism" at all. They're both (as far as I can tell) forms of Simulationism. One might even be gamism (where the challenge is "complete the plot and get it right").

This is more or less why I gave up on GNS theory. The basis of the theory is the idea that different people have different assumptions about gaming, but it then goes and crowbars those myriad different assumptions into three categories. Narrativism, being Ron's pet, winds up being the one that's actually well defined (so well defined, indeed, that it's useless, and people tend to redefine it back into old GDS "Dramatism").


Oh, yeah, and welcome back, Dan Hemmens. I missed discussing with you. :smallsmile:

Aww, shucks, ya missed me...

Darrin
2007-08-08, 11:14 AM
Okay, you're completely missing the point of what Ron Edwards calls "Narrativism". Narrativism has nothing to do with following a plot, it has everything to do with exploring themes.

...but you can explore themes through Gamism and Simulationism. I guess I miss the older term "Dramatic", where the structure of the game is supposed to reflect a "narrative" in the sense of a story, drama, movie, etc.



Ron doesn't think TRoS is Narrativist (or rather "primarily Narrativist Facilitating") because you can use the SAs to "bribe" the players into following plot hooks. In fact, he views it as Narrativist because it makes the players unwilling to risk combat and allows them to get one shotted by a meaningless mook. This - according to Ron - underscores the "Narrativist" theme of the game, which is that violence always has consequences. You can't just say "that guy's a nameless mook" you have to say "that guy poses a threat, so I should not challenge him unless I really, really care about what I'm fighting for."


That's a bit absurd. So if a game contains violence without a lot of risk, then it's not narrativist?

My concept of a "narrative" game is one where one of the primary goals of the game is to create a "narrative", i.e., a story, and the structure of the game, along with the decisions and options available to the players facilitate that. The risks and consequences of certain actions... that could be shoved into the Gamist or Simulationist corner (as RotS does with it's combat engine).



I don't agree at all. In all the situations you cite, you've just arbitrarily picked two axes of the threefold and says "this game does these and not the other one.


Entirely subjective examples, yes. But historically, most of the criticism leveled at D&D is how poorly it supports narrative play with it's emphasis on combat, levels, and memorizing stat blocks. Likewise, WoD is marketted to "Storytelllers" and puts a great deal of emphasis on character development, mood, themes, and narrative structures.



Why is D&D not Narrativist? The entire system is designed to produce a Hero's Journey.


Actually, it does this exceedingly poorly, in fact so poorly that I wonder why people bring up this point at all.

The standard D&D theme has very little to do with the Unhealing Wound, The Call to Adventure, the Refusal, the Journey to the Underworld, and Father Atonement (nor does the game system provide much, if any, by the way of rules to deal with those issues). D&D characters and personality are defined one-dimensionally via their class and alignment. They are punished *by the game system* for having any flaw (heroic or otherwise), where optimized characters are mathematically proven to out-perform more "heroic" characters.

The only real scrap of D&D that could be considered part of the heroic journey is you're more of a bad-ass at 20th level than you were at 1st. But even I'd have a go at that... if you look at the examples we have of the heroic journey, very few of them start out with the hero at 1st level and take them up to 20th. Usually they start out fairly bad-ass, and don't get all that much better towards the end. Because of the oral storytelling tradition, most heroes don't "improve" from story to story, any iconic abilities they have in one story are just as likely to appear in the next. Hercules doesn't pick up "Great Cleave" as part of the journey, he started with it and keeps using it.



The World of Darkness is the textbook example of "not narrativist". Hell, the entire concept of "Narrativism" was pretty much invented so that Ron could have a go at Vampire.


This is the problem with GNS in a nutshell: no one can agree what the terms mean.



The WoD is, in fact, hugely simulationist. It's about exploring what it is like to be a (say) Vampire in the vampiric society described by the books.


But you just said that to Ron, exploring theme = narrativist.



Again, you're just making this up to fit your pattern. Feng Shui isn't Narrativist, because it doesn't have a core theme, nor does the possibility of doing 57 damage with a butterknife preclude it from being "gamist".

The core theme is emulating what happens in an action movie... and from there, you get another theme based on what kind of movie you're trying to emulate. Granted, the narrative structure is a bit weak... Robin Laws has been working on better tools for narrative games since then, but the intention in the rules is to encourage players to base their decisions on what would be more dramatic or cinematic... essentially, a narrativist goal.

The butterknife example is about game balance, which in my mind is the goal of gamist play. There are people who would get really bent out of shape if they designed a character to do a lot of damage with a huge anime-style greatsword, only to watch some scrappy kid do more damage with a butterknife. Feng Shui is designed to place a great deal of power in the hands of the players, and things start to break if you try to come at it from a game balance point of view.

Winterwind
2007-08-08, 11:19 AM
I used to, but I found that everything wound up overlapping, and Simulationism wound up containing too many conflicting priorities.Which is why I believe it makes sense to re-define the three kinds, in a way which is both more clear and more usable. That's what the OP attempted with his redefinitions, and what I attempted with mine.
While realising there are various sources of fun for various people, which can be mostly summarised in a few different types, these don't necessarily need to be the traditional GNS ones.


Interestingly, neither of your two definitions of "Narrativism" actually fit forge-definition "Narrativism" at all. They're both (as far as I can tell) forms of Simulationism. One might even be gamism (where the challenge is "complete the plot and get it right").I have read the forge-definition you stated above again, and I guess you are right. What I always meant by Narrativism (and, looking at this thread, apparently I'm not alone with this conception) seems to fit more closely with the Dramatism you mentioned once. Though a good story (from my N1 definition) would be likely to be centered around some theme involving moral decisions, since a good story is, at least for me, inherently connected with some depth.


This is more or less why I gave up on GNS theory. The basis of the theory is the idea that different people have different assumptions about gaming, but it then goes and crowbars those myriad different assumptions into three categories. Narrativism, being Ron's pet, winds up being the one that's actually well defined (so well defined, indeed, that it's useless, and people tend to redefine it back into old GDS "Dramatism").Well, let us agree, then, for the sake of simplicity, that when people say "Narrativism" they actually mean "Dramatism", and we can discuss about it again. I mean, while people do have a myriad different assumptions, I actually think these three categories - rather four categories, for I find the difference between the N1 and N2 I stated above important (which, by the way, is your fault, for it was you who made me realise there was such a thing as the N2 approach) - are pretty much the basic ingredients. It's just a question of different mix for different people.


Aww, shucks, ya missed me...New insight is won when discussing with people with unique views, and yours tend to be highly original. Besides, I originally signed on onto this forum for no other reason than because your opinions in the Metagaming thread intrigued me so much. :smallsmile:

Dan_Hemmens
2007-08-08, 12:05 PM
Which is why I believe it makes sense to re-define the three kinds, in a way which is both more clear and more usable. That's what the OP attempted with his redefinitions, and what I attempted with mine.
While realising there are various sources of fun for various people, which can be mostly summarised in a few different types, these don't necessarily need to be the traditional GNS ones.

I actually think that any attempt to produce a "big model" of gaming is counterproductive. The most that I think you can do is to identify a bunch of broad axes ("Do you like simple systems or complex ones? Do you care more about internal consistency or game balance? When did you stop beating your wife?").


I have read the forge-definition you stated above again, and I guess you are right. What I always meant by Narrativism (and, looking at this thread, apparently I'm not alone with this conception) seems to fit more closely with the Dramatism you mentioned once. Though a good story (from my N1 definition) would be likely to be centered around some theme involving moral decisions, since a good story is, at least for me, inherently connected with some depth.

And that's essentially the problem: a "good story" means different things to different people. One of the things I find most egregious about GNS is that Ron tries to define explicitly what a "good story" is.


Well, let us agree, then, for the sake of simplicity, that when people say "Narrativism" they actually mean "Dramatism", and we can discuss about it again. I mean, while people do have a myriad different assumptions, I actually think these three categories - rather four categories, for I find the difference between the N1 and N2 I stated above important (which, by the way, is your fault, for it was you who made me realise there was such a thing as the N2 approach) - are pretty much the basic ingredients. It's just a question of different mix for different people.

The problem is that some people are going to use "Narrativism" to mean "Dramatism" others are going to use it to mean "Thematic Play" and still others are going to use it to mean "good roleplaying". I think that the use of jargon here is something of a barrier to clear communication.

If somebody says "I am a Narrativist" they might mean "I value the exploration of my character" or they might mean "I value the exploration of theme" or they might mean "I think RPGs should be cool and exciting like an action movie" or they might mean "I think that players should shut up and follow the GM's plot" or they might mean "I think the GM should keep the hell out of the players' plots".


New insight is won when discussing with people with unique views, and yours tend to be highly original.

Nah, I'm just rehashing a bunch of old indie stuff.


Besides, I originally signed on onto this forum for no other reason than because your opinions in the Metagaming thread intrigued me so much. :smallsmile:

It's remarkably nice to know that the hours I spend ranting on the internet can, very occasionally, have a positive effect on people.

Dausuul
2007-08-08, 12:39 PM
The butterknife example is about game balance, which in my mind is the goal of gamist play. There are people who would get really bent out of shape if they designed a character to do a lot of damage with a huge anime-style greatsword, only to watch some scrappy kid do more damage with a butterknife. Feng Shui is designed to place a great deal of power in the hands of the players, and things start to break if you try to come at it from a game balance point of view.

Actually, that strikes me as a Simulationist issue (whee!).

Having a butter knife do the same damage as a greatsword has no impact on game balance; in fact, it makes for a better balanced system, since the butter knife fighter is balanced against the greatsword fighter. So it's not a problem from the Gamist standpoint. From a Narrativist standpoint, it's weird, but certainly it can make for an exciting story, and I suppose you could explore the theme of the Secret Way of the Butter Knife. It only becomes a problem when you try to imagine how, exactly, you're lopping someone's head off with a butter knife...

Darrin
2007-08-08, 01:08 PM
Actually, that strikes me as a Simulationist issue (whee!).

Touche.

More likely, just a bad example on my part. The point I was trying to make is Feng Shui isn't very balanced from a Gamist point of view. The character archetypes aren't well balanced against each other, there are schtick combos that can stretch "fair play" to the breaking point, and a super-optimized character can perform very poorly if the player is unable to come up with creative or interesting stunts. The kicker is the lack of rules and degree of subjective opinion that goes into adjudicating stunts, both from the player being able to control scenery, and the GM deciding how "cool" or "boring" a stunt might be.

As a "Dramatic" (my version of Narrativism... I'm having trouble wrapping my head around what Ron means by "exploring a theme") and "Simulationist" game (it helps if you consider Action Movie Physics to be consistent for that particular genre), I think those are still strong arguments.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-08-08, 01:16 PM
Actually, that strikes me as a Simulationist issue (whee!).

Having a butter knife do the same damage as a greatsword has no impact on game balance; in fact, it makes for a better balanced system, since the butter knife fighter is balanced against the greatsword fighter. So it's not a problem from the Gamist standpoint. From a Narrativist standpoint, it's weird, but certainly it can make for an exciting story, and I suppose you could explore the theme of the Secret Way of the Butter Knife. It only becomes a problem when you try to imagine how, exactly, you're lopping someone's head off with a butter knife...

Which incidentally highlights another huge flaw in GNS theory. What one person views as a game balance issue, another person views as a realism issue and a third person views as a narrative issue.

GNS recognizes that different people want different things from a game, but it fails to recognize that even people who want the *same* things from a game won't necessarily go about getting them the same way.

Winterwind
2007-08-08, 07:57 PM
I actually think that any attempt to produce a "big model" of gaming is counterproductive. The most that I think you can do is to identify a bunch of broad axes ("Do you like simple systems or complex ones? Do you care more about internal consistency or game balance? When did you stop beating your wife?").Pretty much this is what the GNS-theory means to me. It's basically just a question of what a player cares most about/what emphasis should be put on which aspect of a roleplaying game.

And that's essentially the problem: a "good story" means different things to different people. One of the things I find most egregious about GNS is that Ron tries to define explicitly what a "good story" is.He does? Okay, that's just poor style. Note that I didn't include any definition of "good story" into the description of my Narrativist; just that to a Narrativist, the telling of a story (s)he considers good has a larger priority than following the rules strictly, or having realism.


The problem is that some people are going to use "Narrativism" to mean "Dramatism" others are going to use it to mean "Thematic Play" and still others are going to use it to mean "good roleplaying". I think that the use of jargon here is something of a barrier to clear communication.

If somebody says "I am a Narrativist" they might mean "I value the exploration of my character" or they might mean "I value the exploration of theme" or they might mean "I think RPGs should be cool and exciting like an action movie" or they might mean "I think that players should shut up and follow the GM's plot" or they might mean "I think the GM should keep the hell out of the players' plots".Which means that, before one uses GNS theory in discussion, one has to make sure all participants are aware of the definitions used. This greatly limits its use for discussions with strangers, but doesn't pose any problems for discussions with people one knows.
Besides, I find that knowing about the GNS theory is its greatest benefit anyway: It grants one awareness that
a) there are people who derive fun from very different aspects of roleplaying, so much different actually that these are not the same kinds of games anymore, and
b) what some of these other kinds of outlooks on roleplaying might be. This is especially benefitial since, while many people do realise that other roleplayers enjoy other kinds of roleplaying, quite a lot of them have a very limited idea on what these other kinds might be.

Which incidentally highlights another huge flaw in GNS theory. What one person views as a game balance issue, another person views as a realism issue and a third person views as a narrative issue.It might be attributed to the hour (it's 3 am here right now), but I fail to see how that is a flaw? I mean, the basic idea of the GNS theory is telling you that there are people for whom balance is an issue, people for whom realism is an issue, and people for whom the nerrative is an issue, so I'd say the theory worked perfectly here?

Bosh
2007-08-08, 10:40 PM
System Does Matter.
Ya, even if the rest is bunk I think that that a very important point that a lot of people forget.


Oh, and Bosh, if I were working in a strictly GNS framework, I'd define your tentative "Acquistionist" category as Gamist focusing on beating the system rather than any specific challenges. Does that sound about right?
Hmmm, maybe. But I think that there's a big difference between someone who is really really looking forward to getting new abilities for their character and looking forward to him kicking ass in the future to someone who is looking for a more intellectual tactical exercise. Maybe its because I'm a good bit of a Gamist myself but I can't stand the MMORPG-style grind that's all based on acquiring new stuff.


The idea behind it was to identify the priorities people use to make specific in-game decisions - GM calls, if you will.
Ya, that's exactly what I was saying just in a much more concise matter. This difference is VERY important.


"believable" (which is not the same as being "realistic").
You're right, that's a better term.


Fairness is absolutely necessary, because without it, there is no contest.
Right. Fairness is most important for the Gamists but I think its very vital for a Narratavist game. If the rules are unfair then if people do things/create characters based on narratavist concerns rather than gamist concerns then you can end up with a badly gimped character and having a character who can't accomplish anything can really mess up the mood for even the most dedicated narratavist player.

According to Winterwind's classifications I think I'm a bit of a hybrid Gamist/Character Player since I like characters with very strong personalities who do a lot of things that are irrational from a game perspective but I do a lot of Gamist type stuff to keep these characters from being gimpy from a gamist perspective. Basically I'm sort of a gamist who handicaps himself by being a character player, if that makes any sense...

As a DM I lean more Simulationy, since I'm a big history geek and I like playing games rooted in real history since I'm a crappy story teller :)


(and the thinly veiled suggestion that Narrativist = Good and anything else is bad).
Right, I think that's a problem and that GNS works better if you yank out those value judgements. D&D annoys me a lot not because its a gamist game but because its not always a very good gamist game (due to balance problems).


WoD is marketted to "Storytelllers" and puts a great deal of emphasis on character development, mood, themes, and narrative structures.
And in my experience at least doesn't do the best job of this in practice...


If somebody says "I am a Narrativist" they might mean "I value the exploration of my character" or they might mean "I value the exploration of theme" or they might mean "I think RPGs should be cool and exciting like an action movie" or they might mean "I think that players should shut up and follow the GM's plot" or they might mean "I think the GM should keep the hell out of the players' plots".
In game mechanics terms Narrativist should mean IMHO that there is some mechanical mechanism that allows results to happen that further the story/theme/whatever that is built into the system. A good example of this would be Fate aspects.

Hmmm there's also a few types of gamers that don't really fit in GNS:
-The "hey look at me!" gamer.
-The social/joker gamer (he of the constant puns).
-The quiet gamer who seems more of an audience than a participant.

Winterwind
2007-08-09, 04:17 AM
Right. Fairness is most important for the Gamists but I think its very vital for a Narratavist game. If the rules are unfair then if people do things/create characters based on narratavist concerns rather than gamist concerns then you can end up with a badly gimped character and having a character who can't accomplish anything can really mess up the mood for even the most dedicated narratavist player.I'm not so sure about that. See, in my favorite RPG, the items/equipment/money a character starts with depends on the cult/organisation the character belongs to. This is not rebalanced in any way: a character from a poorer cult is just poorer and does not gain any kind of other advantages in exchange for that. And the effect is fairly extreme - this can go as far as one character starting with a sword and maybe 100 money-units, whereas the other has a motorcycle, a shotgun and 5000 money-units from the beginning (actually even much further in the case of the richest cult, but that is somewhat... special). This would definately be a problem to a Gamist, for it is clearly unfair mechanically. On the other hand, it is that way in order to represent that, yes, the Scrappers (I'm making terms up now, this RPG has not been translated into English yet) who go out into the barren lands and dig for artifacts of the old civilisation, or the wild clans who live out there, just are not as wealthy and well-equipped as the mighty Chronicler order, who lives in hi-tech fortresses and surrounds itself with all artifacts it can get its hands on. So it is a Simulationist issue. But a Narrativist (of the Character Player type) would be likely pleased with this as well (I know I am), because it means the system actively tries to help him generate a character more fitting to what he wants to play (sure, if he wanted to play a rich Scrapper, this would be a problem, but it's just so unlikely that such a thing exists in the world - and would also kind of defeat the entire concept of a Scrapper - that it's unlikely to happen), instead of forcing some wealth onto him due to generic character creation rules. Instead of fairness, the system instead looks more closely on who the character is (it goes beyond just looking at the characters affiliations actually) and tries to create exactly this character, not some other.
For a Gamist, horrible. For a Narrativist, perfect.

I would classify myself mostly as Storyteller, though with influences of all four aspects (Simulationist maybe a bit less than the others). It somewhat depends on the system and even the character within the system I play at the moment, too.



In game mechanics terms Narrativist should mean IMHO that there is some mechanical mechanism that allows results to happen that further the story/theme/whatever that is built into the system. A good example of this would be Fate aspects.In my opinion it's mostly about overrides. Narrativists just tell the mechanics to sit down and shut up whenever the rules say something which doesn't fit story or characters. Good mechanics are those which do not collide with these higher priorities as often.

I once read in another forum something which went more or less like this:
"There are factors which increase happiness but do not decrease un-happiness, and there are factors which decrease un-happiness but do not increase happiness. Game mechanics in a RPG belong to the second kind."
What this guy meant was, that as long as mechanics are good, one doesn't even notice them. They only draw attention when they clash with the game one wants to play.
While I find this somewhat oversimplifying I think I can agree with the basic idea.


Hmmm there's also a few types of gamers that don't really fit in GNS:
-The "hey look at me!" gamer.
-The social/joker gamer (he of the constant puns).
-The quiet gamer who seems more of an audience than a participant.The first one of those derives enjoyment from sources outside the game, and the third one pretty much decides not to participate in the game. Therefore, they are not really playing the game, so the GNS theory is not supposed to extend to them, since it applies only to gamers.
The second kind, well - if you mean those people who joke and are silly OOC while playing, that's not about gaming either, if you mean people who try to be silly IC, I guess that would indeed be a kind of its own, but I have never met somebody like this before.
Except once, sort of - he played the character doing absolutely random things all the time, including initiating a massacre in a disco for absolutely no reason (save for "I thought this'd be fun!"). He was absolutely new to roleplaying and, well, let's say he didn't take the concept of immersing into a world very seriously. He was so destructive for the atmosphere that we have stopped playing with him soon.

But then, there's this other sort of classification, too, which classifies people as Real Men, Real Roleplayers, Loonies and Munchkins. It's not as refined as GNS, but very much more fun. :smallbiggrin:
Example:

Real Men walk up to the dragon, challenge it to a duel, defeat it in a huge battle and collect the treasure.
Real Roleplayers parley with the dragon, until they convice it to give them its treasure voluntarily.
Loonies throw blueberry pie at the dragon.
Munchkins slay the dragon in its sleep, collect ALL the treasure, and strip the dragon of its scales to forge an Armour of Invulnerability+5 out of them!

Dan_Hemmens
2007-08-09, 08:42 AM
It might be attributed to the hour (it's 3 am here right now), but I fail to see how that is a flaw? I mean, the basic idea of the GNS theory is telling you that there are people for whom balance is an issue, people for whom realism is an issue, and people for whom the nerrative is an issue, so I'd say the theory worked perfectly here?

Just replying to this one point, since I'm more or less onside with all the rest.

The point is that Joe Gamist A might look at the ability of a character in a particular game to do 150 points of damage with a butterknife and say "that's crap, that game is totally unbalanced, butterknives are way overpowered." Joe Gamist B might look at it, though, and say "hey great, that's totally balanced, and it means my greataxe fighter stacks up well against your guy with a butterknife".

Similarly Joe Simulationist A might look at it and say "Hey, that's stupid, a butterknife shouldn't do as much damage as a greataxe" while Joe Simulationist B might look at it and say "Hey, that's great, that totally represents the way greataxes don't do much damage in the movies, and butterknives do" while Joe Simulationist C might say "hey that's great, finally a system that realises that you're just as dead from being killed with a butterknife as you are from being killed with a greataxe".

And similarly Joe Narrativist A might say "Hooray, this game doesn't sweat the details of combat, so it allows me to pursue my thematic play in peace" or he might say "Dammit, this game still seems to be focusing on ideas like 'combat' and 'damage' instead of the narrative themes I'm interested in."

Does that make sense?

The basic idea is that even if two people want *exactly* the same thing out of a game, they probably won't agree on how to get it.

Winterwind
2007-08-09, 08:56 AM
Does that make sense?

The basic idea is that even if two people want *exactly* the same thing out of a game, they probably won't agree on how to get it.Ah. Now I get it.
...Yes, I agree with that. Even though there likely will be rough, general tendencies on which they will agree (like, that all Gamists probably will prefer a game which offers many strategic options over one which doesn't).