GNS revisited: Gamism

[Samurai Jill]

These articles' summary thread may be found here.


Introduction and Clarifications

Gamist play is widely recognised and easily understood: the purpose of play is to win. Even if the win conditions are localised and short-term, even if it's against wholly imaginary opponents, even if it's 'no big deal.' If that's what most of your play revolves around, if that's the foremost average priority in play, then what you have is Gamism in action- you're aiming to Prove Yourself. From Gamism: Step On Up-

Reality check
I might as well get this over with now: the phrase "Role-playing games are not about winning" is the most widespread example of synecdoche in the hobby. Potential Gamist responses, and I think appropriately, include:
"Eat me"
(upon winning) "I win!" and
"C'mon, let's play without these morons."

Combat- being the single most visceral and decisive form of conflict resolution there is- tends to get a lot of attention in such play, but Gamism isn't limited to combat by any means- political maneuvering, social gatherings, arcane duels, feats of simulated artifice or clever puzzle-solving (e.g, finding "clues") can all provide an arena for testing your mettle or flaunting your smarts. What matters is that there is a well-defined array of tactical or strategic options that the player can explore to surmount the difficulty presented.

All of the above are fun during any role-playing, but from a Gamist perspective, the point is for one's acumen to be acknowledged - it's a matter of pure pride. You grokked the system just right for that particular situation; you took into account all the possible variables of the moment.

Neither is Gamist play simplistic, monotonous or childish (Chess, for example, is about 99.8% Gamist and I don't think anyone could call it intellectually undemanding.) What follows below is some clarification of the terms and conditions applied to Gamist play, and it's specific concerns.

Balance

"Balance" is one of those words which is applied to a wide variety of activities or practices that may be independent or even contradictory.

Within Gamist play
1. Parity of starting point, with free rein given to differing degrees of improvement after that. Basically, this means that "we all start equal" but after that, anything goes, and if A gets better than B, then that's fine.
2. The relative Effectiveness of different categories of strategy: magic vs. physical combat, for instance, or pumping more investment into quickness rather than endurance. In this sense, "balance" means that any strategy is at least potentially effective, and "unbalanced" means numerically broken...

Within Simulationist play...
1. One fascinating way that the term is applied is to the Currency [e.g, point-buy-system]-based relationship among the components of a character... That's right - we're not talking about balance among characters at all, but rather balance within the interacting components of a single character...

Within Narrativist play....
1. "Balance" might be relevant as a measure of character screen time, or perhaps weight of screen time rather than absolute length. This is not solely the effectiveness-issue which confuses everyone. Comics fans will recognize that Hawkeye is just as significant as Thor, as a member of the Avengers, or even more so...
2. Balance of [Social] Power is relevant to all forms of play, but it strikes me as especially testy in this mode.

These can't all be balanced at once. Hawkeye can't get as much time in the spotlight (a Nar concern) as Thor without a lot more metagame built into the character while maintaining an accurate depiction of their differences in character effectiveness (the former breaks Sim, while the latter is demanded by it.)

A lot of the hallowed fallbacks of Gamist play, such as HP, XP, Classes and Levels can serve a useful function here: they make combat survivable, allow strategic thinking about character development without constraining per-encounter tactics, ensure niche protection by limiting each class to specific kinds of skills and abilities, and facilitate functional Powergaming (see below) by ensuring each level of each class has equal value to a given character. With that said, however, plenty of Gamist play can get along without it: Shadowrun and Rune have largely freeform skill systems that encourage players to experiment, without restriction, with different forms of skill specialisation. Purist-for-System Simulationist design can often drift into Gamism this way.

Challenge and Competition
The chief distinction here is that Challenge refers to environmental, engineering, or NPC adversity, whereas Competition refers to direct and open clashes of interest between PCs.

Competition is best understood as a productive add-on to Gamist play. Such play is fundamentally cooperative, but may include competition. That's not a contradiction: I'm using exactly the same logic as might be found at the poker and basketball games. You can't compete, socially, without an agreed-upon venue. If the cooperation's details are acceptable to everyone, then the competition within it can be quite fierce.

Conversely, even when Gamist play relies heavily upon efficient teamwork and long-term resource strategies to prevail against pressing challenges, you will be judged based on your individual ability to contribute, minmax your character, and avoid treading on other players' toes- which, in itself, is an arena for competition (of sorts.)

Challenge-heavy Gamist play must provide a constant gradient of difficulty during play (this, in itself, could be construed as a form of 'balancing',) to ensure that the players remain engaged. Too easy and the game becomes trivial- too hard, and they tend to give up in disgust.

The Gamble and the Crunch
These are very important during Gamist play. The Crunch involves following trains of possible cause-and-effect within the system, looking for a way to exploit them during the situation at hand. The Gamble refers to elements of randomisation which oblige the players to adapt their tactics on the fly in response to changing adversity. Different forms of Gamist play might emphasise one much more than the other. (Amber, for example, in it's Gamist variants, involves no mechanical Gamble apart from the inherent unpredictability of your human opponent, and very little crunch.)

A great deal of non-functional Gamist play emerges when the Crunch involves combination of isolated elements (e.g, feats, spells, class powers) whose combined effect is so much greater than the sum of their parts that Breaking occurs (see below,) particularly when irregular scattershot concessions to Simulationism are present in the text.

Gamism and Narrativism

Gamist and Narrativist play have an interesting relationship, but it's hard to see or understand unless you have experience with solid non-Simulationist game play, which very few role-players have. Nearly all of us have dealt mainly with Sim-design and Sim-assumptions, with both Gamism and Narrativism as semi-dysfunctional interfering priorities, and resulting in a lot of compromises rather than solutions... Gamist and Narrativist play often share the following things:

*- Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the arena for conflict...
*- ...Exploration as such can be deferred, rather than established at every point during play in a linear fashion.
*- More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue...
*- Reward systems that reflect player choices (strategy, aesthetics, whatever) rather than on in-game character logic...

Which is a really long-winded way of saying that one or the other of the two modes has to be "the point," and they don't share well - but unlike either's relationship with Simulationist play (i.e., a potentially hostile one), Gamist and Narrativist play don't tug-of-war over "doing it right" - they simply avoid one another, like the same-end poles of two magnets. ...So in Gamist vs. Narrativist play, absent Simulationism, it may be a matter of "what we wanna do," and a very easy adjustment to system to reflect that in many cases, because how we "do" things is very similar already.

This may also explain the apparent absence of stable Gamist/Narrativist hybrids- the greatest difference between the two is psychological, and both rely on obvious metagame concerns- so the players involved are much more willing and able to demolish and remake the rules that stand between them and their favoured goals. Simulationist priorities, by contrast, tend to be formally 'staked out' using explicit rules, text, and concrete outcomes- which makes this mode more problematic from a design standpoint, but also better able to carve out a role for itself under Gamist or Narrativist domination.

Hard Core Gamism

So far I haven't mentioned any negative connotations to Gamist play, despite my hints in the beginning of the essay. The time has come to explain why many people hate and fear any sign of Step On Up, let alone competition, in and among the adversity-situations of their role-playing. It's due to a possible application of Gamist principles to their "perviest" extreme... essentially, all the mechanics become metagame mechanics.

...I perceive four distinct Hard Core applications. They all very easily become dysfunctional, but, contrary to popular belief, quite a bit of Hard Core play may be functional if the Social Contract is being reinforced rather than broken. None of them combine well with secondary Simulationist or Narrativist priorities, which is one reason that people often confound the Hard Core with playing Gamist at all. That's an error, though, because the Hard Core is just as incompatible with high-Exploration Gamist priorities as well.

Turnin' on each other
Gamist play already presupposes some pressure among members of the group. Now add to that not only conflict-of-interest at the Challenge level, but open acknowledgment of one another's player-characters as the only engaging source of Challenge - and given the absence of Exploration, directly applying to a Step On Up struggle for dominance. So now you have both little red dials up to 11, and the arena of resolution is simply whose characters survive mutual attacks...

Powergaming
This technique is all about ramping a system's Currency, Effectiveness, and reward system into an exponential spiral. As a behavior, it can be applied to any system, but most forms of D&D offer an excellent inroad for it: after a certain number of levels achieved, the ability to deliver damage and remain invulnerable itself provides ever-increasing ability to achieve yet higher degrees of damage-delivery and hit-point resources...

...To prevent Powergaming, many game designers identify the GM as the ultimate and final rules-interpreter. It's no solution at all, though: (1) there's no way to enforce the enforcement, and (2), even if the group does buy into the "GM is always right" decree, the GM is now empowered to Powergame over everyone else.

Calvinball
This is the famous "rules-lawyering" approach, which is misnamed because it claims textual support when in reality it simply invents it. Calvinball is a better term: making up the rules as you go along, usually in terms of on-the-spot interpretations disguised as "obvious" well-established interpretations. It basically combines glibness and bullying to achieve moment-to-moment advantages for one's character... Calvinball then quickly transforms into a struggle for control over what is and is not happening in the imaginative situation.

One mistaken solution to this tactic is to hide the rules from the players... The other, more common solution is simply to continue adding rules forever and ever, amen, in order to account unambiguously for any and all imaginable events during play.

Breaking the game
Here's the most extreme form of the Hard Core; it's the only one that I can't imagine is functional in any circumstances... Here's the key giveaway in terms of system design: it is Broken (i.e. Breaking consistently works) if repetitive, unchanging behavior garners benefit. The player hits no self-correcting parameters and is never forced to readjust his or her strategy... Trying to prevent this... behavior has led many game designers mistakenly to provide endless patch rules, full of exceptions to cover the exceptions, none of which accomplishes anything except to open up even more points of vulnerability.

As mentioned, Hard Core isn't neccesarily dysfunctional at all- Kobolds Ate My Baby is all about Turnin', 4E D&D is very much about Powergaming. Both can be great fun, and perhaps the bulk of computer games cater to either one or both of these approaches.

From a role-playing design perspective, Magic and many other customizable card games reminded people of a principle that had been abandoned for almost a decade: (1) that competitive Step On Up is actually fun, rather than automatically Broken; (2) that elegant and highly-prioritized game design permits easier entry and more satisfaction in play; and (3) that Exploration may be customized to taste, rather than considered an all-or-nothing variable.

...The common reaction to this easy transition, for non-Gamist-inclined players, is pure terror - it's the Monsters from the Id! In-group conflicts over the issue have been repeated from group to group, game to game, throughout the entire history of the hobby. ...some groups and game designers [treat] Gamism's easy "in" as a necessary evil and [take] an appeasement approach. The "Id" can be controlled, they say, as long as the Superego (the GM) stays firmly in charge and gives it occasional fights and a reward system based on improving effectiveness. This approach may rank among the most-commonly attempted yet least-successful tactic in all of game design. It will never actually work: the Lumpley Principle correctly places the rules and procedures of play at the mercy of the Social Contract, not the other way around. Therefore, even if such a game continues, it has this limping-along, gotta-put-up-with-Bob feel to it.

Potential GNS Conflicts

Narrativist Conflict: Staying In The Game
No player wants to be 'out of the action' for long, but for Gamists, this means that long-term reductions in character effectiveness relative to other players are simply not tolerable. Expended or compromised resources need to be recoverable within a reasonable timeframe (that's what, e.g. Raise Dead, Restoration and Regeneration spells in D&D are there for.) This isn't to say that Gamist play shouldn't involve 'loss penalties'- on the contrary, they add an edge of excitement to the Gamble and help provide an incentive for teamwork against common enemies- but they can't add up to more than temporary inconvenience. Dramatic self-sacrifice is not really possible within those constraints.

Narrativist Conflict: What's my angle?
This is really just an extension of 'staying in the game', above, but also infringes on Simulationist priorities: it is hard to reconcile the convincing role-play of a character with deep commitments and beliefs with an unwillingness to tolerate a behavioural straitjacket during conflicts. Convictions for which you make no sacrifices aren't convictions, and exactly how inconvenient a given ethical or moral hangup will prove depends almost entirely on the whims of the GM- If a Paladin is given hordes of ravening undead to smite, then obligations to take care of prisoners and give fair warning don't even come up, if he or she has an ideal opportunity to slip arsenic unnoticed into the tyrant's cup, that's a different matter.

Narrativist Conflict: Niche protection.
This is a milder version of the Simulationist/Narrativist conflict between specialisation of character and setting and the freedom to address Premise. Basically, the more specialised a character becomes, the narrower their viable role in the story once the setting is mapped out in detail. Either characters' roles should be flexible and the setting fixed, or the setting flexible and the characters' role fixed, but not both.

Narrativist Conflict: Spare me the details.
This, again, is very similar to one of the ways where Narrativism and Simulationism clash: the precise means by which a given conflict are resolved are simply less interesting, to the Narrativist, than what the conflict was about in the first place: Endless discussion of flanking mechanics, spell combinations, martial maneuvers, initiative order, etc. are basically a waste of time.

Simulationist Conflict: Staying 'in character'.
Simulationists often gravitate toward what's called 'Actor stance'- the idea that a character's decisions should be made based solely on IC information. By contrast, Gamists (and, in fairness, Narrativists,) generally favour Author stance- making decisions based on OOC information, then retroactively justifying them to ensure plausibility. Some Gamists even default to Pawn stance- basically, making decisions with no attempt to rationalise them at all (this sometimes turns up in Sim play, but only where the rules-resolution guarantees 'realism' in the first place.)

When I see a player completely abandon all Stances but Pawn through several scenes of play, it's like the sinister drumming emanating from the leafy jungle the night before the massacre. Many a GM in a Gamist-oriented group strictly enforces justifications of characters' behavior in an attempt to stave off the problem, although frankly, if he has to resort to decrees, threats, and pleas, it's probably already too late.

Any major decisions made in this fashion by the Gamist (or again, Narrativist,) is going to break immersion for the Simulationist: things are happening in the world, but not because of the world.

Simulationist Conflict: Life is Unfair
I've covered this already in the Sim essay, but in summary: the social conventions or physical and biological laws prevailing in a given setting or source of inspiration rarely conform perfectly to the Gamist demand for sustained, diverse, and balanced tactical competition. A faithful Simulationist approach to, for example, katana duels would have to face up to the fact that they're almost invariably over within a handful of moves, leaving one or both opponents dead. (Interestingly, combat this deadly has thus far only been well-represented in Narrativist-Simulationist hybrids- Burning Wheel and The Riddle of Steel- where you basically need metagame resources earned through protagonism to survive it.)


A Closing Word

Gamist play and Gamist groups are virtually everywhere, but tabletop RPGs that catered to it efficiently were lost for years in the shuffle of incoherent systems, including, but by no means limited to, AD&D, Vampire, and late-edition Champions. Rifts, ugly as a carrot though it was, at least had it's priorities straight, so too did Shadowrun (and, to a degree, 3E D&D, in that the system was at least driftable toward functional Gamist play: players of 3E rarely realise the extent to which they are playing with a whole pile of unwritten 'house rules' regarding, e.g, the use of Polymorph and Monks vs. Druids.) Rune and Kobolds Ate My Baby are more recent examples of highly functional Gamist design.

Despite being much maligned as 'Munchkins', 'Powergamers', 'Rules-Lawyers' or just plain 'pushy bastards', Gamists aren't doing anything fundamentally wrong. They've simply been lumped in with folks that had very different objectives during play.

But it's just a game!
This phrase is an alarm bell. Oh, it looks like an attempt to reconciliate disagreements by calling attention to fun and the shared, social context, but it disguises something far more unpleasant... Rather, it is code for, "Stop bothering me with your interests and accord with my goals, decisions, and priorities of play." I strongly urge that individual role-players not tolerate any implication that their preferred, enjoyed range of role-playing modes is a less worthy form of play.

[The New Bruceski]

I might as well get this over with now: the phrase "Role-playing games are not about winning" is the most widespread example of synecdoche in the hobby.

I realize those aren't your words, but that has to be the worst misuse of "synecdoche" (referring to an object by its part) I've seen. The word refers to things like calling a woman "legs" or "toots", or referring to a car as "a set of wheels". I'm having difficulty figuring out what word he *meant* to use.

[Samurai Jill]

I presume it's a reference to the idea of N or S play-objectives being used to represent role-playing as a whole. I think that's more-or-less consistent.

[Yukitsu]

Once again, I'd have to point out the improper use of terms here. What is defined is competition, where a winner/loser is expected or necessary to win. What the theory defines as a game is not necessarily a game in and of itself, but rather a competition.

What a game is more typically defined as, is a form of entertainment (noting that not all entertainments are games). From here, I'll simply assume that Edward's theory is talking about "competetive" play, and not "game" play. Much like much of the theory, I view this as missing the point.

Balance is rather equivocated in its description to be all inclusive of all forms of balance, assuming that a competetive individual will be interested in balance in all forms, and that other, non-competetive players would care at all. This is false. A competetive individual only needs balance related to the aspect of the game itself, much as the other forms do not require balance at all, making the expansion on the point redundant.

The contrast between groups, again, shows no reason why reasonable individuals can't reconcile differences between play styles, and enjoy a variety or spectrum of things. For the same reasons as outlined in the other topics, there is no reason for me to buy into people moving into any one category at the complete expense of the others as this theory requires.

The line "...and resulting in a lot of compromises rather than solutions" reveals what I believe is half of the problem with Edward's theory. A compromise is a solution, and is considered the ideal in a given situation. Making forced choices between "my way" and everything else is essentially the same as throwing a hissy fit because the world isn't exactly as you like it.

On note of the very last quote placed in that essay, it is again a sign that Edward's basically wasn't mature enough to own up to his own inability to play the game in a mature manner. People who say that say it when people are getting angry over a game, not because someone is trying to do something different. "It's just a game" shouldn't be an alarm that the person who said it is trying to manipulate an individual into playing the game by the rules. It's a warning sign that the individual to whom it is told needs to calm down and stop yelling.

On the use of pop psychoanalysm ala Freud, he presents this lack of maturity as well. The DM "taking control" of the world, in the event of individuals who are mature enough to empathize at all, the problems should not at all arise, or in the event that it does, it should be accepted. One gets from that argument that the original writer doesn't particularly like gamists. It sounds as though he was not good at games, did not recieve a portion of the spotlight due to his lack of aptitude, threw fits, and wanted to be the game's Mary Sue due to ad hoc "narrative" conventions. Though of course, that may just be due to the vitriol that is readily detectable in his essay on gamists when contrasted to the narrativists.

[The New Bruceski]

I presume it's a reference to the idea of N or S play-objectives being used to represent role-playing as a whole. I think that's more-or-less consistent.

...that's not how it works at all. You're describing a logical fallacy (assuming some qualities of one object are shared among all), and synecdoche is a type of descriptive style. Referring to a car as "a set of wheels" identifies an object by a part, and is synecdoche. Saying "all cars have wheels" is making a logical statement, and is not synecdoche.

[Raum]

I'll say this much for you Jill - you're persistent.

[Thinker]

Why do you keep posting new threads about GNS? Wouldn't a single thread have been sufficient? There's not much to talk about in a widely-panned theory that tries to pigeon-hole various styles of play based on personal anecdote rather than objective analysis. Why do we even need categories for the way people play? It seems like an unnecessary and trivial practice.

[Fiery Diamond]

I think the reason Samurai keeps making new threads is to convince people from previous ones not to follow for fear that they will get nabbed for bringing in luggage from another thread (or because they're so darn bored with the topic, either one). If that isn't the reason, then I have to concur - Samurai is rather persistent. Remember, Samurai - a good warrior knows when to keep fighting and when to withdraw.

[Tiki Snakes]

I think the reason Samurai keeps making new threads is to convince people from previous ones not to follow for fear that they will get nabbed for bringing in luggage from another thread (or because they're so darn bored with the topic, either one). If that isn't the reason, then I have to concur - Samurai is rather persistent. Remember, Samurai - a good warrior knows when to keep fighting and when to withdraw.

Actually, I believe the idea is that Jill is constructing a series of Articles, (on Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism, natch) and is seeking feedback (otherwise why put them on the internet in the first place?).

Single Thread or multiple doesn't really make much of a difference. We're not going to run out of internets, and it does at least partly succeed in channelling the nerd-rage and rampant tangents in the general direction of the GNS letter of the Week.

Speaking of which - The term 'crunch' as you have defined it meshes badly with my understanding of 'Crunch' in relation to RP discussions, (given that 'crunch' vs 'Fluff' is, afaik, simply a way of differentiating the crunchy bits, ie, rule related content usually, from flavourfull, non crunchy, 'fluffy bits'. It doesn't to my experience have any of the connotations that part of your essay seems to imply. Perhaps a different word or phrase would keep the meaning you are trying to put across clear and free of potential misunderstandings?

[Typewriter]

Sorry to ask a stupid question, but I've seen these threads popping up periodically, but never read any of them. After reading the initial post I'm curious as to what's going on.

Are you saying you agree with the theory and are looking for debate? It may be in there and I missed it, but I had a bit of trouble retaining anything more than a paragraph at a time, so sorry if I missed it.

Just curious :)

[Draz74]

There's not much to talk about in a widely-panned theory that tries to pigeon-hole various styles of play based on personal anecdote rather than objective analysis.

I think the very fact that Jill has written these articles -- clearly carefully thought-out, and long enough that many of us are too lazy to actually read through them -- in and of itself proves you very wrong on this point.

(I plead guilty to not actually reading them, just skimming them. But from what I've skimmed, they seem to be high-quality commentary.)

Indeed, perhaps Jill's purpose in writing these is precisely to attack the recent fad of dismissing GNS theory as useless and empty.

Why do we even need categories for the way people play? It seems like an unnecessary and trivial practice.

... or, then again, maybe the purpose of these articles is to answer this question.

[Yukitsu]

I think the very fact that Jill has written these articles -- clearly carefully thought-out, and long enough that many of us are too lazy to actually read through them -- in and of itself proves you very wrong on this point.

(I plead guilty to not actually reading them, just skimming them. But from what I've skimmed, they seem to be high-quality commentary.)

I, and other critics have been thoroughly reading them (I read each one at least twice before posting), and have pointed out some very, very persistent flaws that we've percieved in the presentation, actually.

Indeed, perhaps Jill's purpose in writing these is precisely to attack the recent fad of dismissing GNS theory as useless and empty.

Equivalently, a lot of points raised are not that it's by default pointless, but that there is no support for it, and little coherency.

[Roog]

I presume it's a reference to the idea of N or S play-objectives being used to represent role-playing as a whole. I think that's more-or-less consistent.

It's definitely consistent with the way Edwards uses the English language.

[Meek]

Why do you keep posting new threads about GNS? Wouldn't a single thread have been sufficient?.

Nope, because this is how Forgies try to get their theories accepted and eventually tolerated in every forum they propagate to – by bludgeoning you over the head with them until you have been rendered too dazed to offer any sort of resistance. It doesn't matter how unwanted or unneeded the commentary is.

Brian Gleichman really puts the sordid history of this stuff better than anyone else can, and why you should probably not bother to debate it.

[Saph]

I think the very fact that Jill has written these articles in and of itself proves you very wrong on this point.

(I plead guilty to not actually reading them, just skimming them. But from what I've skimmed, they seem to be high-quality commentary.)

The thing is, we have read them, and we're not impressed. Raum and Yukitsu, as well as many others, have posted detailed explanations as to why.

Here's Raum's summary from the previous thread:

I'll list a few of the specifics again.

• GNS makes claims based on superficial observations with no objective or repeatable testing.
• Most statements of "fact" made by GNS are left unsupported, as if they should be accepted as a priori knowledge.
• No trichotomy of gamer style or gaming goals has been shown. In fact, data has shown five differing divisions.
• Nothing has been shown to make differing gaming goals exclusive or zero sum. Again, data shows common desires for certain elements across types of gamers.

We've challenged Jill repeatedly to back up her trichotomy assumption. Her arguments in response have been . . . poor.

[pingcode20]

Not to jump into the debate here, but could anybody post a link to WotC's study? The link in Gleichman's blog is dead - does anybody have an alternative mirror?

It seems like it'd be an interesting read, is all.

[Kalirren]

Draz74: This really is why you can't afford to skim something and argue about it unless you have a good idea what it's about already.

If you're interested in RP theory, go look up newer writings on the topic. In as far as the development of ideas go, going on the Forge and reading GNS and the Big Model in 2009 is like cracking open a 19th-century young-Earth geology textbook when we're in the 21st century. Check out the IJRP (see my sig) for some newer developments. There are references in each of the articles that will give you names to Google. There are also some good RP blogs out there. Raum made a nice list in one of the previous threads, I'll try to find it for you.

They're easier to read and more valuable than Edwards' stuff because they more succinctly model the reality of both RP and gaming dynamics. It's like how my textbook Evolving Brains is shorter than the Bible.

Edit: Here's Raum's list from the Narrativism thread, which contains a working link to the results of the WotC study.

For anyone interested in ludology, I recommend browsing through some of the following sites:

• Digital Games Research Association (DIGRA)
• Richard Bartle's academic papers
• John Kim's system design page and his RPG theory page. (John Kim has a lot of worthwhile stuff, including a fairly comprehensive list of games.)
• International Journal of Role-Playing (Also posted in another thread.)
• Some of the Whitehall Paraindustries' blogs are worth a read. (Some posts were mentioned in another thread on GNS.)
• As are many from ars ludi.
• Mu's ramblings on design theory.
• Some of Greg Costikyan's essays.
• Lumpley's gatherings.
• Some of Greg Stolze's writings.
• Perhaps Ray Winninger's Dungeoncraft Essays.
• Forge articles by Edwards and others.
• And, for completeness, WotC's research Breakdown of RPG Players and Market Research Summary (Both posted earlier in this thread.)

Some of the pages and articles linked advocate GNS in one form or another, some debunk GNS, and others don't even mention it.

[Raum]

Not to jump into the debate here, but could anybody post a link to WotC's study? The link in Gleichman's blog is dead - does anybody have an alternative mirror?

It seems like it'd be an interesting read, is all.

Here is a post with several links, including WotC's study results.

Edit: Ah, thanks Kalirren!

[Winterwind]

The one thing I never understood about people talking about GNS theory is why so many people tend to assume GNS states every player is one and only one of these things. I always figured it makes much more sense to not assume it talks about people at all, but rather about possible aspects to like about roleplaying, with individual players putting different emphasis on all of these three aspects, but in no way necessarily being just one of them.

And if viewed this way, I find it does actually serve a purpose - namely that of helping understand other people's motivations. It cuts a lot of "you're playing it wrong!" discussions short by enforcing the insight that people may like different aspects about roleplaying more than oneself, and helps outline what these different aspects might be. Anything that serves mutual understanding of players in a group is a good thing, right?

Or am I completely missing something about GNS theory there that runs contrary to the above?

[The Rose Dragon]

The one thing I never understood about people talking about GNS theory is why so many people tend to assume GNS states every player is one and only one of these things.

[...]

Or am I completely missing something about GNS theory there that runs contrary to the above?

GNS (though it may just be Samurai Jill) states that you can't adhere to more than one of these "playstyles" or your character becomes "wishy-washy and inconsistent".

So, yes, you're missing something.

[Winterwind]

Mmm, I see. Okay, in that incarnation, that makes no sense to me either.

Though I still think it can be quite insightful if one does not insist on that. It's a bit too narrow, as I can think of more than three noteworthy things people can desire in roleplaying games (for instance, the wish to explore the character one plays and the wish for as good a story as possible are two quite distinct preferences, yet are both summarized under Narrativism - of course, in line with my belief the GNS theory should describe facets common to all players to various degrees, most people will want both anyway), but it's still quite worth it, in my eyes.

I've written up a few more elaborate posts on that matter some two years ago, but I don't seem to be able to find them anymore.

[Morty]

Even if not used strictly, GNS theory doesn't cut "You're doing it WRONG" arguments short but rather spawns them by dozens, by giving people who'd use such arguments a perfect tool - instead of simply saying "you're wrong", one can say "you're a gamist/simulationist/narrativist and therefore, you're wrong".

[Winterwind]

I've written up a few more elaborate posts on that matter some two years ago, but I don't seem to be able to find them anymore.

Ha! Found it after all!

...funny how that thread's title was almost the same as this one's.

Even if not used strictly, GNS theory doesn't cut "You're doing it WRONG" arguments short but rather spawns them by dozens, by giving people who'd use such arguments a perfect tool - instead of simply saying "you're wrong", one can say "you're a gamist/simulationist/narrativist and therefore, you're wrong".

...how? If the essence of the theory is "there are different things people like about roleplaying. None of them is right, but different playstyles and stances towards roleplaying may be caused by a different emphasis of preferences", then using it to state the other is wrong for playing a certain way is in direct opposition to what lies at the theory's heart.

[kamikasei]

Winterwind, I don't think people are objecting to the basic notion of working out what different parts of a game players may prefer or prioritize, but rather to the specifics of GNS and the claims and conclusions of its advocates. For example, the model's author claims that striking a balance between the different modes leads to incoherence and mediocrity, and the proper way to design a game is to pick one aspect and focus on it. You may say that this doesn't mean calling the neglected aspects wrong (though the author seems to have convinced plenty of readers that he thinks exactly that, by his treatment of the various modes), but it does lend itself to groups essentially saying "your preference is X and X is not ever going to be catered to in this game".

[Morty]

...how? If the essence of the theory is "there are different things people like about roleplaying. None of them is right, but different playstyles and stances towards roleplaying may be caused by a different emphasis of preferences", then using it to state the other is wrong for playing a certain way is in direct opposition to what lies at the theory's heart.

I'm pretty sure that original GNS theory by Ron Edwards blatantly favored Narrativism while berating Simulationism. Also, even if a theory isn't in favor of one gameplay style, arbitrary distinctions like this one do encourage people to pick one of them and dismiss the others, especially if meshing them together is called "incoherent design", by essentially glorifying their short-sightedness. If GNS were used as general descriptions of notions in RPG systems and among gamers, it wouldn't be so bad, but the it isn't.

[Diamondeye]

...how? If the essence of the theory is "there are different things people like about roleplaying. None of them is right, but different playstyles and stances towards roleplaying may be caused by a different emphasis of preferences", then using it to state the other is wrong for playing a certain way is in direct opposition to what lies at the theory's heart.

It's done rather subtly, but if you look, for example, at "Narritivism"; it includes all sorts of unnecessary qualifications beyond "the game is primarily about the story", such as the players having an equal 'say' in the creation of the story and so forth, cleverly disguised by misusing words like "narritive", "drama", and "protagonist".

This artificially narrows that portion of the theory, and shoves story-based gaming that doesn't conform to these unparsimonious additions over into one of the other 2 arms of the theory, even though they don't have much in common with those arms, using terms like "illusionism" which have pejorative connotations.

It's a little more complex than just "You're doing it wrong", but basically what it's saying is "If you're playing a game around a storyline but aren't doing it in way X, you're doing narritivism wrong, (same thing for the other two arms) and if you're mixing aspects of more than one arm, you're doing it wrong because your game is 'incoherent'".

Essentially the theory is one huge circular argument where the theory categorizes games a cerain way because that's how the theory categorizes them.

[Winterwind]

Winterwind, I don't think people are objecting to the basic notion of working out what different parts of a game players may prefer or prioritize, but rather to the specifics of GNS and the claims and conclusions of its advocates. For example, the model's author claims that striking a balance between the different modes leads to incoherence and mediocrity, and the proper way to design a game is to pick one aspect and focus on it. You may say that this doesn't mean calling the neglected aspects wrong (though the author seems to have convinced plenty of readers that he thinks exactly that, by his treatment of the various modes),

I... see.
Alright, if GNS indeed refers to such conclusions, too, and not just the outline of these three basic possible directions of preferences, I do see what I was missing and what makes people scorn that. I'd still say a listing of the various aspects people can like about roleplaying is a sensible and worthwhile thing, but I guess this might no longer be called GNS then.

but it does lend itself to groups essentially saying "your preference is X and X is not ever going to be catered to in this game".

A most unfriendly thing to do, and something I'd hope not to see amongst friends, but better they warned this person than if they had not, right? Since presumably they would have played in this fashion either way, even if they were not aware of the various preferences at all. As long as they formulated it more as "I thought your preference is X?", and left the ultimate decision to the person in question - shoehorning people into roles they may not even consider for themselves is horrible, excluding them from games for that reason is even worse.

Contrariwise, I find it can be quite useful to tailor games more for people - I have a friend who places more focus on story, and another who likes to come up with mechanically highly tuned characters and to see their prowess in action (and several others who fall somewhere in the middle). When only the former is around, I sometimes DM adventures with tons and tons of social elements, very little dice rolling and far more weird events that happen to drive the story in some direction with much less input from the player, because I know she likes it this way - I wouldn't even consider using even a fraction of this amount of railroading and such a lack of dice-involving challenges if the latter was around, because he would hate that. Just like the former wouldn't like the more dungeon crawl like adventures I come up with if only the latter is around. If both of them are there (or any of the other people I play with), I know I need to combine aspects from both directions. This way, I can always try to cater to the people I am currently playing with to ensure everyone has as much fun as possible.

I could still do this if I didn't know about GNS theory, of course, but having it formulated in clear, concise form helps.

EDIT:

I'm pretty sure that original GNS theory by Ron Edwards blatantly favored Narrativism while berating Simulationism. Also, even if a theory isn't in favor of one gameplay style, arbitrary distinctions like this one do encourage people to pick one of them and dismiss the others, especially if meshing them together is called "incoherent design", by essentially glorifying their short-sightedness. If GNS were used as general descriptions of notions in RPG systems and among gamers, it wouldn't be so bad, but the it isn't.

Well, I don't blame a theory for people misusing it, if it is useful if they don't (see above).
Of course, if the theory itself contains these flawed concepts, that's a different matter entirely...

It's done rather subtly, but if you look, for example, at "Narritivism"; it includes all sorts of unnecessary qualifications beyond "the game is primarily about the story", such as the players having an equal 'say' in the creation of the story and so forth, cleverly disguised by misusing words like "narritive", "drama", and "protagonist".

This artificially narrows that portion of the theory, and shoves story-based gaming that doesn't conform to these unparsimonious additions over into one of the other 2 arms of the theory, even though they don't have much in common with those arms, using terms like "illusionism" which have pejorative connotations.

It's a little more complex than just "You're doing it wrong", but basically what it's saying is "If you're playing a game around a storyline but aren't doing it in way X, you're doing narritivism wrong, (same thing for the other two arms) and if you're mixing aspects of more than one arm, you're doing it wrong because your game is 'incoherent'".

Essentially the theory is one huge circular argument where the theory categorizes games a cerain way because that's how the theory categorizes them.

Oh, I see. Didn't know that. Yes... this is bad, quite bad indeed.
Quite enlightening though, with regards to the problem people have with the theory. Thank you for that (and the others who posted in response to me, too).

[kamikasei]

A most unfriendly thing to do, and something I'd hope not to see amongst friends, but better they warned this person than if they had not, right? Since presumably they would have played in this fashion either way, even if they were not aware of the various preferences at all.

Well, see Morty's post immediately after mine, which you quoted. The perception seems to be that GNS encourages people to say "sorry, we're Narrativists playing a Narrativist game, your concerns are Simulationsist and inherently incompatible with our priorities so either shut up or get out" (okay, the last bit doesn't have to be phrased that way), where left to their own devices a group might be more likely to say "you're right, we could stand to pay a little more attention to verisimilitude and indulge your desire to track certain details, we can compromise on that".

[Winterwind]

Well... I certainly would hope that a better understanding of other people would not turn anyone into a bigger egoist, and the reaction would rather be "you're right, we could stand to pay a little more attention to verisimilitude and indulge your desire to track certain details, we can compromise on that. Also, while we're at it, you seem to have a bigger preference on Simulationism than us - consequentially, is there anything else you think we could improve in this direction to make the game more fun for you (as long as it doesn't make the game less fun for the others)". This would certainly be more in line with my own experience, but of course anecdotal evidence from the experience of one particular person is no kind of evidence at all.

Either way, I see how it could go the way you describe.

[kamikasei]

You still seem to be thinking in terms of a purely descriptive model of players. GNS is supposed to be applied to systems too and guide how to design them, which extends naturally to how to run a game in accordance with its system's design.

Again, a model that only tried to identify the different priorities of different types of players would not lead to what I'm describing, but GNS is not such a model. (And even then, I couldn't say how much of what it's criticized for comes from its author and advocates rather than any necessary consequence of its stated goals.)