GNS theory- what the hell is it anyway?

[Samurai Jill]

Pretentious Intro
I just thought I should make some effort to clear up a little bit of confusion on the topic of Gamist, Narrativist and Simulationist playing modes, and exactly what they mean in the context of play. Each style of play represents a different creative agenda- a top-most priority for the group in play, and there's a lot of terminology involved, mos' of which I've skimmed over for the sake of brevity. For now I'm just hoping to give a broad overview of the key concepts for your perusal.

Gamism: The defining feature of Gamism is competition- whether against other players, or external adversaries supplied at regular intervals during play (typically by the GM.) Contrary to the maxim that winning and losing don't apply to role-play, Gamism is explicitly all about setting win and loss conditions- albeit localised, short-term ones- during play.

What is important to and enjoyable about Gamism? Enjoyment in gamism comes from the satisfaction of mastering diverse tactical options to maximise advantage over your opponents and/or among fellow players. Balance between these options is therefore vital to enjoyable gamist play- but 'balance' itself can have several meanings. 'Balance' might mean equality in starting resources for each character- in which case, finding 'optimised builds' itself becomes an arena of competition- or it may mean that tactical options available to a given character are all equally viable. Or, it may mean that characters advance in power and influence at an equal rate over time- the purpose of all these is to ensure that all players have an equal opportunity to 'step on up' and win bragging rights during a conflict. This is not to say that teamwork is unimportant in gamism, but if so you are judged by your ability to contribute, which in itself is a kind of competition.
Gamism, at it's best, is straightforward and sportsmanlike group fun.

Gamism Is Not: Merely providing your characters with challenges or adversity now and then- some form of difficulty or problem-solving is inherent in any 'game'. In Gamism, however, it's the whole point, rather than a means to other ends, such as dramatic tension or opening further areas for exploration.

What are the potential downsides of Gamism? Dysfunction in gamism generally results when the drive to compete eats away suspension of disbelief in favour of naked personal ambition at others' expense. There are four classic forms of this dysfunction (quite separate from basic personality defects) known collectively as The Hard Core.
Turnin'- Players cease cooperating meaningfully toward long-term goals and instead turn upon eachother as the only engaging opponents available. This is quite distinct from gamist play which explicitly supports and encourages interplayer conflict. Turning can be avoided by rewarding teamwork and providing meaningful loss conditions against secondary adversaries- otherwise, there's little incentive to stick together.
Powergaming- The reward mechanisms of play result in an ever-escalating spiral of character effectiveness that eventually reaches nonsensical heights. Powergaming may not be a problem provided all players are aboard for the ride and benefit equally from such escalation, but it leads to risks of Breaking The Game. Powergaming can be avoided through hard limits on character effectiveness and progression feedback, whether explicit or mechanically implied.
Calvinball- Essentially, rules-lawyering for personal gain- twisting ambiguity or inconsistency to make up the rules as you go, all under the pretence of commitment to exploration.
Breaking The Game- This means finding weak points of imbalance or absurdity within the rules framework which can be exploited to yield insurmountable advantage without variation in tactics, thus rendering the creative agenda nonsensical.
While the first two forms of Hard Core play can be functional under the right circumstances, Calvinball and Breaking are helpful only insofar as they make the weaknesses of a rule set obvious. The only reliable defence against either is elegance and consistency, from the ground up, eliminating all mathematical ratios, recursions and break points by design. Patch rules simply introduce further points of vulnerability to exploit.

I also need to acknowledge that a bored Gamist-inclined player, seeing no engaging Challenge, has been known, on occasion, to turn his attention toward the Hard Core, specifically Turnin' and Breaking the game. If it's clear that the other individuals don't appreciate this, and if he or she continues, then what's happened is the Birth of a Prick that some better understanding of contrasting GNS goals might have prevented. I used to see this all the time in Champions groups, and it's horrible.

Gamism- Step On Up


Simulationism: The defining feature of Simulationism is accuracy and faithfulness to some externally-defined 'reality'. Notable forms include Purist-for-System- the search for a generic, highly realistic rule set that can capture the salient nuances of physical interaction and skill progression across a wide variety of scales and contexts- and High-Concept simulationism, which simply aims to recreate the conventions of a particular genre. Simulationism isn't expressly concerned with larger, overriding agendas, such as victory or storyline- if they happen along the way, that's nice- but the primary objective is the strict enforcement of internal cause-and-consequence in an impartial fashion.

What is important to and enjoyable about Simulationism? Enjoyment in simulationist play essentially comes from the pure abstract pleasure of faithful abstraction- finding generalisations that usefully predict given aspects of the world and allow you recreate a working model of it within your heads. It's the joy of unbiased understanding as manifested by rules which help keep the group on the same page. It's not necessarily limited to just the rules of in-game physics- individual personalities and collective political entities can also be modelled with the same attention to detail. And this isn't to say that personal choice can't affect the larger world- but the parameters of choice and consequence are strictly cordoned off to preclude violation of the basic tenet of accuracy. Simulationist play is often willing to accept involved and complex rule resolution, together with very detailed and comprehensive rule sets and settings, so that the parameters of play are well-understood beforehand and allow internal cause/effect to reign unchallenged. Metagame mechanics- by definition external to the world's cause and consequence- are generally anathema to simulationist play.

Simulationism Is Not: Merely having detailed and complex rules- these might not accurately model any external system, and conversely, certain external models can be reproduced with relatively simple rules. Nor is it just trying to avoid abstraction- in order to role-play at all, recognisable elements to grasp on to in play are needed, but in simulationism accuracy is the whole point, rather than a means to other ends, such as ambience or suspension of disbelief.

What are the potential downsides of Simulationism? Simulationism's weakness is that, in essence, it's appeal is limited strictly to those who seek 'the right to dream' for it's own sake- there's no other payoff in terms of narrative coherence or friendly competition, and the price it demands is often extortionate. Players who aren't 100% committed to the- highly specific- expectations of play from the beginning will often find such stiff rule sets to be stifling and baroque. A more generic system can help open more options for the player, but only at the cost of even-more-elaborate rules-consultation- and more than this, Purist-For-System simulationist design in particular is really, really, hard to do, quite aside from the work it demands of the players. Rules-bloat and excess bookkeeping are a constant hazard. But are more insidious threats-
Illusionism- Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain: Simulationist GMs rarely overtly railroad, as that betrays the implied agreement that 'internal cause is king'- but in order to impose an overall storyline, will frequently employ illusionism- in essence, the artificial manipulation of likelihood and external adversity (or Force) to give the superficial impression of player freedom when their characters are actually being funnelled toward predefined conclusions. If other players consent to this, then there's no problem, and the only alternative may well be...
Ouija-board Role-Play: This is the opposite extreme, where neither the GM or the players have any overall direction for story development at all. Essentially, it's illusionism perpetrated by the players upon themselves, as at any given time somebody is guiding the planchette, but no-one is allowed is make an explicit mission-statement to that effect. The result is an unfocused meandering from event to event without development or resolution.
The Bitterest Role-Player In The World: If Ouija-board role-play is the hope that narrativism can emerge from simulation without overt effort, then the bitterest role-player in the world expects gamism to just 'emerge', organically, from pure simulation (note- this is actually taken from the Gamism essay):

This man (I've met no women who fit this description) is cursed. He's cursed because the only people who can enjoy playing with him, and vice versa, are those who share precisely his goals, and these goals are very easily upset by just about any others.

*- His heavy Sim focus keeps away the "lite" Gamists who like Exploration but not Simulationism.
*- The lack of metagame reward system keeps away most Gamists in general.
*- Hard Core Gamists will kick him in the nuts every time, just as they do to Simulationist play.
*- Most Simulationist-oriented players won't Step Up - they get no gleam in their eye when the Challenge hits, and some are even happy just to piddle about and "be."
*- Just about anyone who's not Gamist-inclined lumps him with "those Gamists" and writes him off.

I've known several of these guys. They are bitter, I say. Imagine years of just knowing that your "perfect game" is possible, seeing it in your mind, knowing that if only a few other people could just play their characters exactly according to the values that you yourself would play, that your GM-preparation would pay off beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Now imagine years of encountering all the bulleted points above, over and over.

Simulationism- The Right To Dream


Narrativism: Confusingly, this style of play actually has relatively little to do with narration per se. The defining feature of narrativist play is addressing a particular premise- a similar question posed to all the players that, when answered, reveals something about their characters- everything else is just a means to that end. Good narrativist play is defined by the extent to which a transcript of such play reveals an underlying story, and the whole purpose of play is to construct that story as you go.

What is important to and enjoyable about Narrativism? Enjoyment of narrativist play comes from protagonism- the sense that you are a central player in the story with true power to reflect meaningfully on a particular theme through your actions. This collaborative address of an underlying 'premise' has several implications- firstly, no one person can dictate the outcome of the story- each character must be free to give different responses, and to have those answers' consequences expressed honestly within events.

I REPEAT: NO ONE PERSON CAN BE IN CHARGE OF DIRECTING THE STORY.
I REPEAT: THE CONSISTENT ADDRESS OF PREMISE- A SINGLE THEMATIC QUESTION WHICH EACH PLAYER CAN ANSWER DIFFERENTLY- IS A NECCESSARY UNIFYING FACTOR IN NARRATIVIST PLAY.

Secondly, the parameters of scene or outcome resolution are often deliberately loose, with relatively simple, streamlined rules dedicated to modelling highly specific situations that convey a strong premise- "How much are you willing to sacrifice for power?", "What are you willing to kill for?", or "Does individual expression outweigh social needs?" etc, etc. This reflects the fact that many narrativists are often impatient with elaborate rule-consultation, so that any degree of verisimilitude requires specialisation in order to keep complexity manageable. Heavy metagame mechanics are often employed to ration influence over the storyline directly, and specific task resolution is usually abandoned in favour of conflict resolution- each player decides what's 'at stake' whenever interests are at odds, and the 'winner' imposes their version of events, often after the dice are rolled.

Narativism Is Not: Merely 'having a story' OR 'having no predefined story', nor is does it simply mean having lots of emphasis on description or character definition OR a rules-lite system (though these may help.) Every RPG will have a transcript of events from play, but in narrativism, shaping events to reveal an underlying theme is the whole point to play, rather than the story being a means to other ends, such as party coherence or homage to genre convention.

What are the potential downsides of Narrativism? The lack of specific, detailed enforcement of cause-effect guidelines, initiative or authority can leave Narrativist systems prone to abuse by (or simply uninteresting to) those who can't buy into the given premise. But that is at least easily spotted- more troubling is the prospect of bullying by other players who genuinely do buy into the premise-

The non-GM version is the Prima Donna, a devoted Premise-addresser - but what he can't do is share. If a given scene is not about the issue that he cares about, he disrupts things until it is. If his character is present in a scene, then he'll demand center stage until forcibly stopped. He understands protagonism, but won't permit anyone else to have it. Essentially, he's the equivalent of the Hard Core Gamist, but with a significant difference: only one person can do it successfully; it can't even spread through the group. Prima Donnas are obnoxious, selfish, and pushy. Their typical fate is to be removed from a group or to become its GM (often to the present GM's consternation), in which latter case to become a Typhoid Mary.

What's a Typhoid Mary? Well may you ask. It's a would-be Narrativist GM who uses tons of Force upon the player-characters. He introduces the Premise and is emotionally invested in how the players are supposed to address it, to the extent that he makes their characters' significant decisions for them. Effectively, this means the other people are present only to praise and reflect the GM's ego. Play amounts to "we tell the story, but I'm writing it" - he continually demands that the players appreciate his Narrativist aesthetic, but suppresses the same aesthetic in their behavior. He prioritizes and insists upon Premise-addressing input yet makes it subject to his approval.

Such play is appallingly unrewarding and is rightly labeled railroading. To sustain it, the Typhoid Mary must exert primary dominance over all aspects of the Social Contract, which is usually not possible among adults. I can think of no more effective means of ensuring that other people never role-play again, than encountering a Typhoid Mary. Also, unsurprisingly, get one Narrativist player with a spine in that game, and it's root hog or die, the worst Force-vs.-Narrativist duel possible - such conflicts have been known to disrupt romances, friendships, and even jobs and marriages.

Narrativism- Story Now


Why The Heck Does GNS Matter?
GNS theory essentially states that these three modes of play do not easily mix.

Here I suggest that RPG system design cannot meet all three outlooks at once. For example, how long does it take to resolve a game action in real time? The simulationist accepts delay as long as it enhances accuracy; the narrativist hates delay; the gamist only accepts delay or complex methods if they can be exploited. Or, what constitutes success? The narrativist demands a resolution be dramatic, but the gamist wants to know who came out better off than the next guy. Or, how should player-character effectiveness be "balanced"? The narrativist doesn't care, the simulationist wants it to reflect the game-world's social system, and the gamist simply demands a fair playing field.

In short, GNS theory constitutes a kind of psychological profiling of player preferences- because, even in cases where a particular player is capable of enjoying more than one style of play, it seems that the human mind has an inherent tendency to 'shift gears' toward one mode or another at any given time, depending on what the rules of a given game seem to emphasise. And herein lies the problem- a game that emphasises, in terms of either fluff or crunch- more than one mode of play leads to either conflicted player expectations within the group, or time wasted as a particular a group culls whatever rules do not complement it's aims.

Narrativist-Gamist Conflict:
Conflict between gamism and narrativism most frequently arises because of their structural simularity: both revolve around expectations of active contribution by other players in order to shape unfolding events, but their arenas are very different: in gamism, it's the length of a bout, and the payoff is victory- in narrativism, it's the length of a story, and the payoff is thematic unity. However, at any given moment in play, each agenda might demand very different responses.

Let's say that characters A and B are in the middle of a dungeon crawl. A happens to be hopelessly smitten with love for B, will not directly compete with her for resources, and will favour her preferentially for tactical support. That is the players response to underlying premise, and being asked to compromise this decision for the sake of tactical efficiency is deprotagonisation by peer pressure.

The effect of this is that gamism and narrativism don't mix- groups just peacefully go one way or the other.

Narrativist-Simulationist Conflict
Detailed pre-play character creation helps to establish a given PC's concrete skills and capabilities, thus supporting depiction of what they can realistically achieve when applying themselves to particular tasks. A detailed, comprehensive and conflict-rich setting has the effect of constraining the circumstances under which a character can realistically employ their talents. Both these features compliment the simulationist creative agenda of ensuring fidelity to genre convention, but narrativism demands flexibility in the address of premise, and this benefits from freedom to establish elements of both during play. Consequently, ensuring absolute fidelity to simulationist priorities will inevitably undercut the narrativist creative agenda.

As a more general observation, many narrativist players are impatient with elaborate and complex rules-consultation or dice mechanics, which are the precise things required to accurately mechanise many settings' idiom for combat, diplomacy, stealth, etc. Narrativist players like to be able to fill in mechanical blanks to suit thematic purposes, but simulationist players like a degree of assurance that what is being described is uniformly plausible within the parameters of the external model. Here, again, narrativism and simulationism are frequently at odds.

Simulationist-Gamist Conflict:
Image that you're trying to develop an RPG based on Ursula K. le Guin's Earthsea series. There are vast differences in the respective capabilities of normal humans, human wizards, and dragons, all of whom feature prominently in 'adventuring parties' within this setting, and the simulationist agenda mandates that you represent them faithfully based on the author's description. The gamist agenda, however, requires balanced and varied tactical options be available to each member of the party, which is simply not remotely compatible with being able to recreate the types of story associated with the setting.

Alternatively, consider what happens when an arrow genuinely comes crashing down and lodges in your entrails- assuming you don't die instantly, septic shock will probably get you within the week. How likely is it that skill and equipment alone can reliably shield you against such hazards in combat?- not nearly well enough to make for a viable long-term campaign. In order to service the gamist agenda, you must distort realism, thus undermining the simulationist agenda.


Is 'outright hybridisation' of the GNS modes possible? The short answer is No. The longer answer is that it is sometimes possible to have another mode present purely as support for another, and dominant, GNS mode. The longest answer?-

*- Simulationism can work very well as a 'support mode' for gamism- that is, fidelity to realism or genre expectations whenever this does not conflict with balanced tactical competition, which is dominant.
*- Simulationism can also work as a support mode for narrativism, (though there are not many successful examples of this.) It basically requires temporary lulls in the address of premise so you can get down to the gritty business of calculation, but the metagame benefits of addressing premise must remain dominant.
*- Neither gamism nor narrativism work well as 'support modes' for simulationism, because they tend to be more psychologically compelling, and eventually take over- Gamism, in particular, is probably the single most 'primal' of the three modes and any policy of appeasement is a recipe for disaster-

The common reaction to this easy transition, for non-Gamist-inclined players, is pure terror- it's the Monsters from the Id!

...so either commit to gamism, or don't.
*- Gamism and narrativism, for reasons already touched upon, don't mix, but neither do they result in outright acrimony if the text is confused on this point. Some groups and player which do employ regular compeition, but not railroading or illusionism, are under the mistaken impression that this is equivalent to gamist-narrativism, but it isn't: the consistent address of premise is needed to give shape to events, or all you have is gamism attached onto Ouija-Board Role-Play.

[Darrin]

Usual Disclaimer: It is certainly possible to have players who are capable of enjoying more than one mode of play. What you can't do is have two or more of these modes firing on all cylinders at the same time. Also, in practice, many, if not most, players do tend to gravitate to a particular mode above and beyond the others, so that RPG design should still bear in mind an intended audience.

First, a much shorter, more workable definition of:

"GNS Theory", n.: A small kernal of insightful and possibly useful structural analysis of role-playing games burried inside a supermassive black hole of recriminations, egomaniacal grandstanding, and pedantic wankery.

Second, I'm not sure I understand your purpose for starting this thread... are you just summarizing for general education purposes, are you asking some kind of question or looking for answers on a particular problem, or just generating another black hole because the forum somehow managed to skip the monthly "Do monks suck?" thread?

Almost all GNS threads are inherently circular. They produce a prodigious amount of text on why it might be important to analyse how RPGs work from a philosophical framework, but after a few dozen posts they quickly reach the point where the only purpose of the discussion is to justify and maintain the discussion, rather than lead to any meaningful products of analysis.

However, I did find your explanation of "support modes" interesting, as it has some similarities with my own "Pick Two" design philosophy (stolen from John Wick, who stole it from an L5R cosplay seamstress.) Designing anything functional requires three elements, but you can only pick two at the expense of the third.

For costumes: Pretty, Fast, Cheap.
For software: Stability, Security, Usability.
For RPGs: Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist.

[Grey Paladin]

Great primer.

While I agree with the core idea, I find it ridiculous that a given game cannot 'serve two masters'- a game can (and in most cases, does) cover all three aspects. a game can only focus upon one primary motivation at any instance, but morphs freely.

[Saph]

Interesting read.

However, after reading through, I have to say that pretty much everything in this section:

Why The Heck Does GNS Matter?

is wrong. GNS theory doesn't matter; you can manage just fine without it, and the vast majority of good DMs do. While there are some good insights there, there's also an awful lot of wall-of-text talking for the sake of talking which isn't really any help at all.

As for the either/or idea:

The reason why GNS matters is because you cannot serve two masters. The fundamental distinction between these modes is the payoff you expect from play, i.e, it's a reflection of player priorities. Failing to recognise a clear hierarchy of such priorities results in RPG design that is either abashed (i.e, salvageable through house rules) or incoherent (-i.e, not so much.)

. . .

Is 'outright hybridisation' of the GNS modes possible? The short answer is No. The longer answer is that it is sometimes possible to have another mode present purely as support for another, and dominant, GNS mode.

. . . every successful campaign I've seen has contained elements of all three of the modes you're talking about; enough game to be challenging, enough simulation to give the feel of a world, enough narrative to let the players feel like protagonists of their own story.

Now, I'm sure a GNS devotee could quiz me about the details of those games and say, "Well, obviously that was a G/N/Sist game, with maybe some elements of S/G/Nism, but you're clearly mistaken in thinking that it had anything to do with N/S/Gism." The question becomes, though: who cares? Sure, you can fit anything into a model if you're willing to chop enough bits off. The question is whether what's left is going to be any use to anybody.

So far I've found GNS analysis to be over-theoretical and of very limited value, although it does generate some good discussions.

- Saph

[Satyr]

The whole theory construction may be a neat intelectual practice, but for the actual game, it is an immense and crippling trap.
At first, the whole breakup into different and disparate gaming styles is bith limiting and creates uneccessary and counterproductive disruptions between players; if you include the stupid and often completely arbitrary categorisation of people into one of these arbitrary pigeonwholes that create the foundation of the whole theory, you have a great way to disrupt gaming groups or establish artificial boundaries.

The whole theory is based on one central assumption, which is not only completely subjective but also - if you ask me - completely wrong. This assummtion is that any of the more or less arbitrarily defined modes as central components that are contradicting each other. This leads to the assumotion that a game should be clearly belingeing into one of the hthree modes or else it would become dysfubctional.
And this is the black whole of all traps in Roleplaying Games. Good campaings are not specilised. Good games combine the better effects and elements of all game styles and combine them to a greater synthesis. The good game is were Edward's game modes overlap, not were they differentiate. A good set of rule is flexible and adaptable and can be formed into the specific wishes and imagination of each specific gaming group. The rules adapt to the game and the individual campaign, not vice versa. Systems that were developed under the impression of this whole GNS baggage are unable to do so, as they try to fit especially into one specific genre and moot; they are like coala bears specifically suited only for one single kind of eucalyptus and bound to fail horribly when facing any variation, which also paves over individual adaptation.

The pseudo-intelectual terms and writing style makes it even worse as it creates an atmosphere of academic justification and scienitfic argumentation which distribute a certain argumentative authority; and there are enough peole who fall for this lure of academic argumentation, asociating it with research and proof.

[Samurai Jill]

"GNS Theory", n.: A small kernal of insightful and possibly useful structural analysis of role-playing games burried inside a supermassive black hole of recriminations, egomaniacal grandstanding, and pedantic wankery...
Second, I'm not sure I understand your purpose for starting this thread... are you just summarizing for general education purposes, are you asking some kind of question or looking for answers on a particular problem, or just generating another black hole because the forum somehow managed to skip the monthly "Do monks suck?" thread?

Well, primer mostly, but at least it's a change...

I like to think that GNS sort of emerged as the kernel of wisdom from said black hole, rather than being the source of it. But that's just me.

While I agree with the core idea, I find it ridiculous that a given game cannot 'serve two masters'- a game can (and in most cases, does) cover all three aspects. a game can only focus upon one primary motivation at any instance, but morphs freely.

Insofar as the modes are defined as 'what is your topmost priority', not really. A top priority is a top priority. Having two top priorities simply means you will serve both ineffectively/indecisively during design.

...is wrong. GNS theory doesn't matter; you can manage just fine without it, and the vast majority of good DMs do.

Again, I'd like to quote from another source:

It may fairly be asked, how can GNS be applied to design features, when few if any RPG designers know about it, or even care? I use a physics analogy: prior to the insights of Newtonian physics, bridges could be built. Some of them were built rather well. However, in retrospect, we are well aware that in order to build the bridge, the designer must have been at the very least according with Newtonian physics through (1) luck, (2) imitation of something else that worked, (3) use of principles that did not conflict with Newtonian physics in a way that mattered for the job, or (4) a non-articulated understanding of those principles. I consider the analogy to be exact for role-playing games.

. . . every successful campaign I've seen has contained elements of all three of the modes you're talking about; enough game to be challenging, enough simulation to give the feel of a world, enough narrative to let the players feel like protagonists of their own story.

Here, I think, a crucial distinction needs to be made- feeling like a protagonist and actually being a protagonist are different things. Players may feel as if their input is relevant to story even when it isn't, as long as the GM employs covert illusionism (or at least railroads with restraint.)

Sure, you can fit anything into a model if you're willing to chop enough bits off. The question is whether what's left is going to be any use to anybody.

The distinction is still relevant because it forces you to ask what your priorities in play are. Is accuracy your top priority, followed by competition as a close second, with storyline a distant third? Is storyline your priority with accuracy an entirely secondary goal? Are competition and storyline "equally important" to you? Some of those can work well, some of them will need to be customised during play, and some of them fail flat-out.

GNS theory is relevant because it has predictive power- If the priorities the rules express are incoherent, play cannot become coherent without changing those rules, in which case those rules are wasting players' time.

But I'd like to thank each of you, in any case, for highlighting possible areas of confusion where I should communicate things better. So, my bad.

[AKA_Bait]

Having two top priorities simply means you will serve both ineffectively/indecisively during design.

This is the claim that needs better defending. Why does 'x is not a top priority' or 'x and y are equally important' mean that x or y must be ineffectivley or indecisivley served?

GNS theory is relevant because it has predictive power- If the priorities the rules express are incoherent, play cannot become coherent without changing those rules, in which case those rules are wasting players' time.

I'm not sure what this means. What is the predictive power of GNS? What does it predict in a falsifiable manner?

[Saph]

It may fairly be asked, how can GNS be applied to design features, when few if any RPG designers know about it, or even care? I use a physics analogy: prior to the insights of Newtonian physics, bridges could be built. Some of them were built rather well. However, in retrospect, we are well aware that in order to build the bridge, the designer must have been at the very least according with Newtonian physics through (1) luck, (2) imitation of something else that worked, (3) use of principles that did not conflict with Newtonian physics in a way that mattered for the job, or (4) a non-articulated understanding of those principles. I consider the analogy to be exact for role-playing games.

This is amazing hubris. Ron Edwards is seriously comparing his pet theory in gaming to Newtonian physics in the natural sciences? I've heard stories of this guy's ego, but . . .

Here's an alternative and much simpler explanation: perhaps few if any RPG designers or GMs know or care about GNS theory because GNS theory just isn't all that useful?

The distinction is still relevant because it forces you to ask what your priorities in play are. Is accuracy your top priority, followed by competition as a close second, with storyline a distant third? Is storyline your priority with accuracy an entirely secondary goal? Are competition and storyline "equally important" to you?

So the distinction is relevant because it forces you to think in terms of GNS theory? But the whole point is that I'm not convinced that thinking in terms of GNS theory is particularly productive in the first place. If someone comes up to me while I'm planning my next session and demands to know "Is accuracy, competition, or storyline your first priority?", my honest answer, if I'm not concerned about being polite, is going to be "I don't care."

GNS theory is relevant because it has predictive power- If the priorities the rules express are incoherent, play cannot become coherent without changing those rules, in which case those rules are wasting players' time.

I think you need a track record of verified and reliable predictions before you can claim predictive power. I've seen GNS theory generate a whole lot of discussion, but very few quantifiable predictions.

- Saph

[RPGuru1331]

This is the claim that needs better defending. Why does 'x is not a top priority' or 'x and y are equally important' mean that x or y must be ineffectivley or indecisivley served?

I know this one, though I consider GNS Theory to merely be a very useful tool in identifying motives, and nothing more (It's a worthless model, because it predicts nothing)

Choices are going to have to be made, if you don't choose Narrativism and Gamism. Simulationism doesn't play that well with others, because realism generally gets in the way of good stories, or to say the least, makes them exponentially harder to tell, and realism plays with game mechanics like vinegar plays with salt; That's why DnD pretends it's simulationist, but has peasant rail guns that deal 1d2+Str. damage. If you don't pick a top priority, things start getting mucked up after a few mishmashed decisions. Perhaps realism takes over for the Peasant Rail Gun's damage, but that still leaves the fact that moving the pig at super speed required gamist abuses, to continue with the one metaphor.

[Kiero]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I have little truck with GNS, because it's really just about Ron's own preferences. First he started with defining thing in games he liked, and called that Narrativism. Then he went about defining all the stuff he doesn't like, and called that Gamism.

Then he was left with a whole bunch of stuff that didn't fit either category, but couldn't be ignored. So he clumsily lumped them all together, and called it Simulationism.

Thing that bothers me most about it - there's nothing under any of the three types that actually appeals to me.

[RPGuru1331]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I have little truck with GNS, because it's really just about Ron's own preferences. First he started with defining thing in games he liked, and called that Narrativism. Then he went about defining all the stuff he doesn't like, and called that Gamism.

Then he was left with a whole bunch of stuff that didn't fit either category, but couldn't be ignored. So he clumsily lumped them all together, and called it Simulationism.

Thing that bothers me most about it - there's nothing under any of the three types that actually appeals to me.

I believe you have that backwards; Ron Edwards declares things he doesn't like simulationist. Hence, World of Darkness. Which really just tells me he can't read his own definitions. The definitions themselves are fine, Ron Edwards is just a tool who doesn't know what they are.

[Samurai Jill]

This is the claim that needs better defending. Why does 'x is not a top priority' or 'x and y are equally important' mean that x or y must be ineffectivley or indecisivley served?...
I'm not sure what this means. What is the predictive power of GNS? What does it predict in a falsifiable manner?

These questions are closely related.

Let's just take the case of simulationism and gamism.
Imagine that you're trying to recreate the world of Tolkien. The simulationist agenda mandates that you must faithfully represent wizards, elves and dunedain as intrinsically superior to lesser mortals. By contrast, the gamist agenda requires that all player-characters have an equally viable array of tactical options available to them- this is not compatible with lesser mortals being slower, stupider or weaker than wizards, elves, and dunedain. You could attempt to balance the racial options available by hobbling the stronger races with level adjustments, fewer resources or onerous restrictions on how their powers may be employed. However, neither is likely to go far enough, the former violates simulationism as a explicit metagame mechanic, and the latter encourages Calvinball play with players seeking loopholes in their arbitrary codes of conduct.

If you wish the tactical options of all races to be equally viable, without dysfunction, then you must relegate simulationism to a secondary and subordinate role. Conversely, if you wish the game to be entirely faithful to Tolkien's representation, you must abandon gamism. There's no way around it. That's the prediction- go prove me wrong.

[RPGuru1331]

If you wish the tactical options of all races to be equally viable, without dysfunction, then you must relegate simulationism to a secondary and subordinate role. Conversely, if you wish the game to be entirely faithful to Tolkien's representation, you must abandon gamism. There's no way around it. That's the prediction- go prove me wrong.

Bad proof; Conceivably, you could simply say the only allowable options are Dwarves, Elves, Dunedain, and Wizards. Remember, you said 'allowable tactical options', and nothing mandates the PCs to be ordinary mortals.

[AKA_Bait]

Choices are going to have to be made, if you don't choose Narrativism and Gamism. Simulationism doesn't play that well with others, because realism generally gets in the way of good stories, or to say the least, makes them exponentially harder to tell, and realism plays with game mechanics like vinegar plays with salt;

This still doesn't show any necessary connection between diminishment to the point of failure and limitation of goals to only one GNS option (which is probably part and parcel of why there isn't really any predictive power to the theory).

It may or may not be useful in picking out motivations for why particular mechanics are the way they are in any given system. Personally, if that is all it's good for... I could care less. What a system is good at stands separatley in terms of my desire to use it from the intentions of its creators. In other words, I don't care what the designers wanted to the system to do. I care what the system actually does in practice.

Bad proof; Conceivably, you could simply say the only allowable options are Dwarves, Elves, Dunedain, and Wizards. Remember, you said 'allowable tactical options', and nothing mandates the PCs to be ordinary mortals.

That is exactly what I was about to write. Alternativley, you can also say that none of those races are 'player races' and everyone must be a hobbit.

[Samurai Jill]

Bad proof; Conceivably, you could simply say the only allowable options are Dwarves, Elves, Dunedain, and Wizards. Remember, you said 'allowable tactical options', and nothing mandates the PCs to be ordinary mortals.

Simulationism does! You have four halflings + Boromir accompanying the main party, along with plenty of other examples of significant human characters in Tolkien's work- you can't just arbitrarily exclude the viable possibility of such party members offhand without violating the simulationist creative agenda. There's no compelling IC reason for excluding such characters right off the bat, and in simulationism, internal cause is king.

[RPGuru1331]

This still doesn't show any necessary connection between diminishment to the point of failure and limitation of goals to only one theory (which is probably part and parcel of why there isn't really any predictive power to the theory).

Oh, it doesn't. It weakens the final product, but it doesn't necessarily equate to the failure of the game (Granted, the only wishy washy systems I've seen, I consider failures). And you don't have to limit yourself to one goal, you simply have to acknowledge priorities. There's a difference between "Priorities" and "Utter mutual exclusion". For instance, you can make the most interesting story path the most mechanically appealing (Either by making it the easiest to beat, or by making it the greatest mechanical challenge)

It may or may not be useful in picking out motivations for why particular mechanics are the way they are in any given system. Personally, if that is all it's good for... I could care less. What a system is good at stands separatley in terms of my desire to use it from the intentions of its creators. In other words, I don't care what the designers wanted to the system to do. I care what the system actually does in practice.

In most systems, the two are actually pretty close together, because the designers actually did their jobs. Identifying the traits, if not the labels, can make your search for a new system or player faster. I for one am going to drop a system that is attempting to simulate reality. I simply couldn't care less, and there's too much else I could use with less kitbashing. Similarly, a player who's crazy insane about totally immersive gameplay is of no interest to me, as is a GM who wants similar.

That is exactly what I was about to write. Alternativley, you can also say that none of those races are 'player races' and everyone must be a hobbit.

Well, with hobbits it might be fun. If you say they're all humans, it would probably be boring

[AKA_Bait]

Simulationism does! You have four halflings + Boromir accompanying the main party, along with plenty of other examples of significant human characters in Tolkien's work- you can't just arbitrarily exclude the viable possibility of such party members offhand without violating the simulationist creative agenda. Why can't the party? For the sake of balance?! Then that's a metagame mechanic- OOC concerns intruding upon the world's integrity.

I'm not seeing how the simulationist agenda as defined in your OP has any problem with this. You wrote:

Simulationism isn't expressly concerned with larger, overriding agendas, such as victory or storyline- if they happen along the way, that's nice- but the primary objective is the strict enforcement of internal cause-and-consequence in an impartial fashion.

All simulationism needs to be concerned with according to what you have there is internally consistant rules that cleave to the setting. Elves, Wizards etc. need to exist within the setting, but nothing in the simulationist agenda demands that those races be available as player races. Bill the Pony accompanies the party for a long time, does not having a player race for donkeys also then violate the simulationist agenda?

[Samurai Jill]

ll simulationism needs to be concerned with according to what you have there is internally consistant rules that cleave to the setting.

The setting includes lots of human 'adventurers'! This would be like playing Serenity and disallowing Browncoat characters!

There is a simple question here: What aspect of the setting would automatically exclude human mortals from getting involved in important events, such that it would justify the total exclusion of their characters from play? There isn't any.

[AKA_Bait]

The setting includes lots of human 'adventurers'! This would be like playing Serenity and disallowing Browncoat characters!

No, it would be more like saying that supergenuis psychicninjas (i.e. River) cannot be PCs.

There is a simple question here: What aspect of the setting would automatically exclude human mortals from getting involved in important events, such that it would justify the total exclusion of their characters from play? There isn't any.

No aspect of the system needs to keep 'humans from being involved in important events'. The only aspect of the system we are talking about is one that prohibits humans as player characters rather than NPC's. NPCs can be involved in important events.

The simpler question is: What part of simulationism requires that if a thing exists in a particular setting that it must be available as a player character?

[Person_Man]

People wrote thousands (millions?) of excellent books before literary theory was ever conceived of. And the people who are still writing excellent books rarely get their PhD's in English or Literature. In fact, the over analysis of writing tends to kill whatever joy they might otherwise find in it. Theory in the soft sciences exist almost entirely to employ college professors. Except for maybe grad students, they are the only people who care about them.

Roleplaying games are a hobby - not a science - and not even a social science. Sometimes its fun. Sometimes its ridiculous. Sometimes its broken, and people do their best to fix it to make it fun again. There is no workable meta theory to explain it that will lead to better games, just as their is no workable meta theory to explain baseball that will lead to better games.

If you're a game designer, your best bet is to:

1) Think of an interesting idea, preferably an original one.
2) Copyright it.
3) Find a set of game mechanics that fit well with that idea.
4) Find a niche group of people who would pay money to read/play it.
5) Spend every waking moment marketing your idea/game to said niche.

You'll notice that contextualizing your idea in terms of GNS theory is not listed there. That's because doing so will probably make you screw with other steps, which are far more important for accomplishing the goal of getting people to pay you money for your idea(s).

[RPGuru1331]

Roleplaying games are a hobby - not a science - and not even a social science. Sometimes its fun. Sometimes its ridiculous. Sometimes its broken, and people do their best to fix it to make it fun again. There is no workable meta theory to explain it that will lead to better games, just as their is no workable meta theory to explain baseball that will lead to better games.

I'm relatively certain that Baseball players actually have to do a lot of analysis, it's just htat the analysis is grounded in physical things, rather then meta-concepts..

If you're a game designer, your best bet is to:

1) Think of an interesting idea, preferably an original one.
2) Copyright it.
3) Find a set of game mechanics that fit well with that idea.
4) Find a niche group of people who would pay money to read/play it.
5) Spend every waking moment marketing your idea/game to said niche.

You'll notice that contextualizing your idea in terms of GNS theory is not listed there. That's because doing so will probably make you screw with other steps, which are far more important for accomplishing the goal of getting people to pay you money for your idea(s).

Out of ever so vague curiosity, have you designed a system?

[Lord Tataraus]

These questions are closely related.

Let's just take the case of simulationism and gamism.
Imagine that you're trying to recreate the world of Tolkien. The simulationist agenda mandates that you must faithfully represent wizards, elves and dunedain as intrinsically superior to lesser mortals. By contrast, the gamist agenda requires that all player-characters have an equally viable array of tactical options available to them- this is not compatible with lesser mortals being slower, stupider or weaker than wizards, elves, and dunedain. You could attempt to balance the racial options available by hobbling the stronger races with level adjustments, fewer resources or onerous restrictions on how their powers may be employed. However, neither is likely to go far enough, the former violates simulationism as a explicit metagame mechanic, and the latter encourages Calvinball play with players seeking loopholes in their arbitrary codes of conduct.

If you wish the tactical options of all races to be equally viable, without dysfunction, then you must relegate simulationism to a secondary and subordinate role. Conversely, if you wish the game to be entirely faithful to Tolkien's representation, you must abandon gamism. There's no way around it. That's the prediction- go prove me wrong.

I can make a game in a Tolkien setting that adheres to simulationist, gamist, and narrativist all in one. All players are "higher" mortals (which are easier to balance than you think), making them the definite center of the world, especially if you locate your game outside of Middle-Earth where you have a set of guidelines but are otherwise free of restraints so you don't mess with simulationists and you have a bunch of battles to satisfy the gamist hack 'n' slashers. Actually, that sounds familiar, oh yeah I ran that game and it worked beautifully. I didn't need to even know about GNS (I've never heard of it before) I just happen to be a simulation fan and I have equal number of what you might consider "gamist" and "narrativist" players, but I don't really agree with any of those terms.

[Raum]

Wikipedia has a more concise summary of GNS without the editorials. Two things are worth noting; the theory's creator (Ron Edwards) has discarded it in favor of a differing model (though he still incorporates portions of GNS) and, per Edwards, GNS was intended to model a single decision or behavior within a game not games as a whole. As long as it remains narrowly focused on that single decision point, it has some validity. But not when expanded beyond that narrow focus.

Check out this essay for a comparison between games and narratives. I'll warn you, it's long and occasionally abstruse. It shows many of GNS' shortcomings, even without discussing GNS itself. As far as I can tell, academia hasn't given GNS much, if any, weight.

[Neek]

[Edit]If you thought tl;dr, then here's the short-version.

Spoiler

Show

GNS IS BULLOCKS

Attempting to conceptualize meta-concepts in the name of a better product that's more appealing to a certain niche, the niche defined by the straw-man meta-concepts, is faulty. It's faulty to design a game based around the motivations of the players, especially because ANY SYSTEM will promote any of these three concepts, no matter how hard you try to emphasize or remove these.

The system also trivializes gamers to only a relationship with the rules as presented.

• The [Gamists] identity-token only operate if the [Players] token has Options, and the [Gamists (Power-Gamer)][Player-Token] token only works if there are Options to exploit to gain an advantage against [Gamists (Power-Gamer)][Player][x] tokens.
• The [Simulationists] identity-token only operate if the [Players] token has Mechanics, superseding Options, and only if those Mechanics can produce any relationship that the [Players] token has to the [Universe] token.
• The [Narrativists] identity-token only operates if the [Players] token has Mechanics, superseding Options, and only if those Mechanics can produce any relationship that the [Players] token has to the [Non-Players] token.

... waitaminute... So [Narrativists] tokens and [Simulationists] tokens contrast with each other in that the purpose of the Mechanics is separate, while [Gamists] tokens contrasts with everything else on the purpose that it only works with Options?

To put it into English: [Gamists] tokens care about races, classes, skills available, feats, equipment choices, and magic spells available to them--the Options that the Mechanics can provide. It doesn't matter if the Mechanics are faulty, as long as the Options within the Mechanics can be exploited. [Simulationists] tokens care about how the rules for Swim, Jump, Attack, overland movement, et. al operate in correlation to the real world. Everyone can be a Human Commoner with 4 hp--the options are irrelevant. What is relevant is if, when the commoner jumps, does he jump like a real person? [Narrativists] tokens care about how the rules operate for Charisma-related checks, how Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate alter the motivations of [Non-Players]. Again, it doesn't matter what the Options are, as long as the Mechanics see fit that Intimidate garners appropriate responses.

Can't you see the problem here? These design elements are exclusive to another--they're not supposed to co-exist because of the two-thirds rule, so no game system can contain all three, nor can any gaming group. But yet... it happens, doesn't it?

Design elements in any system aren't meant to conflict or exclude each other. Space doesn't contradict nor conflict Lines, and not knowing what these are doesn't make poorer artwork than if you did.

This is amazing hubris. Ron Edwards is seriously comparing his pet theory in gaming to Newtonian physics in the natural sciences? I've heard stories of this guy's ego, but . . .

Here's an alternative and much simpler explanation: perhaps few if any RPG designers or GMs know or care about GNS theory because GNS theory just isn't all that useful?

This I can agree with. The theory doesn't add anything except for an idealized model about how players are motivated to relate themselves to the rules as presented. This means nothing. This is like designing video games based around how players relate themselves to the OS the game is programmed in.

Those're my two cents in. Two Cents of Flaming +1. Let this boat sink.

[icefractal]

Ron Edwards declares things he doesn't like simulationist. Hence, World of Darkness.

While I have my doubts about the GNS model, I can see where he's coming from on this. While some people assume roleplaying and storytelling are the same, or at least on the same branch of things, they can actually be at odds with each-other.

Fundamentally, roleplaying is 1st person, storytelling is 3rd person. The ideal environment for roleplaying, at least IME, is moderately simulationist. Not in the sense that you're looking at ballistics charts to determine where your arrow landed, but in the sense that a character would be able to open a door because they're good at lockpicking - not because the player invested more narrative control in the door being open than the DM did in keeping it closed. WoD fits a lot more into this category than it does into being a storytelling game.

Of course, lumping all the things that are part of "simulationism" into one category has its own issues - genre simulation isn't going to give you the same result as rules-as-physics or immersion.

[RPGuru1331]

Fundamentally, roleplaying is 1st person, storytelling is 3rd person. The ideal environment for roleplaying, at least IME, is moderately simulationist. Not in the sense that you're looking at ballistics charts to determine where your arrow landed, but in the sense that a character would be able to open a door because they're good at lockpicking - not because the player invested more narrative control in the door being open than the DM did in keeping it closed. WoD fits a lot more into this category than it does into being a storytelling game.

...It defines time. In dramatic units. It explicitly discusses themes for the game. It's just not simulationist. It can sorta be made to be so, if you pick apart all the setting inconsistencies, but it just doesn't work out of the box as such.

[Kurald Galain]

1) Think of an interesting idea, preferably an original one.
2) Copyright it.

Copyright Does Not Work That Way. Good night.

[Tengu_temp]

Gamism and narrativism are however, in a sense, mirror images of eachother- they both revolve around expectations of active contribution by other players in order to shape unfolding events, but their arenas are very different: in gamism, it's the length of a bout, and the payoff is victory- in narrativism, it's the length of a story, and the payoff is thematic unity. The effect of this is that gamism and narrativism don't mix- groups just peacefully go one way or the other.

I disagree with this statement. In the games I DM, story and players taking prime roles in it are the most important aspects, but when combat starts I pay heavy attention to the rules and try to make it challenging and fun not only on storytelling level, but also on mechanical level. That's a combination of narrativism and gamism.

[Ethdred]

First off, I'd like to congratulate the anti-GNS-ists (if I can call you that) for collectively presenting some of the best arguments I've have seen in an Internet discussion - logical, well argued, and moderate. Unfortunately, you are arguing against something that is illogical and hence impervious to your weapons. The whole 'theory' sets out a serious of (in my opinion badly written and badly argued) premises and assumes them to be true, and then goes from there. So you either argue from their premises, in which case they've already won, or you try to argue with their premises, which they won't accept.

Most roleplayers will blend all three of these types of gaming (and several others which have not been identified) in a dynamic way, depending on the situation they are in. Yes, some game systems will favour or encourage certain types of play, but generally they won't force you down any particular route. In the end, each group will find a balance between the motivations of all its members, or (as we have seen in many examples on this board) fall apart. But this 'theory' won't help them either way.

[Samurai Jill]

No, it would be more like saying that supergenuis psychicninjas (i.e. River) cannot be PCs.

You're talking about a team composed exclusively of supergenius psychicninjas! (Plus, River was balanced by being insane.)

5 members of the fellowship are hobbits or standard humans, and all but two of bilbo's companions are dwarves- It is completely ridiculous to say that a Tolkien-based RPG could exclude them from adventuring parties and remain faithful to the spirit of the setting.

Besides- there's no indication that dwarves, elves, wizards, and dunedain are evenly matched in power levels either. You're just staving off the larger issue.

The simpler question is: What part of simulationism requires that if a thing exists in a particular setting that it must be available as a player character?

The fact that these things were intimately involved in adventuring parties within that setting. In order to adhere to simulationist aesthetics, you must be able to faithfully recreate the stories associated with that setting within the bounds of rule mechanics. And don't tell me that the GM can fill in the blanks with NPCs in the party. You might as well argue that the GM can play all the characters and save himself some time to masturbate.

Right. We'll include humans and hobbits in the setting- strictly as NPCs. To taunt you.

All players are "higher" mortals (which are easier to balance than you think), making them the definite center of the world, especially if you locate your game outside of Middle-Earth

Oh, because abandoning the entire setting along with elves and wizards is definitely in-keeping with simulationism.