I'd say this is fairly accurate, although I'm not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg. Johnny, Timmy, Spike has always seemed GNS inspired to me.
Only in that there are three of them - they would all fall under the "Gamist" category. There was a follow up article that added, IIRC, "Vorthos", who was more story-oriented.
I'd say GNS is only mostly worthless. It does have one useful concept, albeit one that was already obvious to some people, which is that mechanics can be geared toward different types of play-style.
Last edited by Ice9 on Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:48 pm, edited 3 times in total.
There's some decently-useful Social Contract stuff hidden in there as well.
If nothing else, if provides useful standardization of vocabulary; most times (i.e., in RPG discussions) people end up talking past each other due to lack of codified terminology.
*WARNING*: I say "fuck" a lot.
"The most patriotic thing you can do as an American is to become filthy, filthy rich."
- Mark Cuban
Ice9 wrote:It does have one useful concept, albeit one that was already obvious to some people, which is that mechanics can be geared toward different types of play-style.
WRONG!
BZZZZZT!
GNS says entire GAMES (not just individual mechanics), MUST (not just can), be geared towards ONE OF THREE SPECIFIC INSANE PLAY STYLES (not just "different types of play style" that you feel like imagining because you desperately want back every second of your life you wasted on reading GNS).
GNS has nothing useful whatsoever in it. It is counter productive to good game design on EVERY level. If you look into the mirror of the wall of text gibberish and nonsense that is GNS and see ANYTHING it is PURELY IN YOUR IMAGINATION. Just like when your ALPHABET SOUP IS TALKING TO YOU IN CODE.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
GNS says entire GAMES (not just individual mechanics), MUST (not just can), be geared towards ONE OF THREE SPECIFIC INSANE PLAY STYLES (not just "different types of play style" that you feel like imagining because you desperately want back every second of your life you wasted on reading GNS).
Everything I have seen Ron Edwards write on the subject has stated the exact opposite of this, that no game or player is ever purely G, purely N, or purely S and every player and game is a different mix of all three.
I agree with you as far as "GNS is not a productive addition to good discussion of game design/good game design".
For a minute, I used to be "a guy" in the TTRPG "industry". Now I'm just a nobody. For the most part, it's a relief.
Trank Frollman wrote:One of the reasons we can say insightful things about stuff is that we don't have to pretend to be nice to people. By embracing active aggression, we eliminate much of the passive aggression that so paralyzes things on other gaming forums.
hogarth wrote:As the good book saith, let he who is without boners cast the first stone.
TiaC wrote:I'm not quite sure why this is an argument. (Except that Kaelik is in it, that's a good reason.)
PhoneLobster wrote:Just like when your ALPHABET SOUP IS TALKING TO YOU IN CODE.
Oh shit! That happens to you, too?
I think that them and the guys at Alpha-Bits are setting up some kind of crazy cabal to make us all go insane, ala A Beautiful Mind style.
*WARNING*: I say "fuck" a lot.
"The most patriotic thing you can do as an American is to become filthy, filthy rich."
- Mark Cuban
PhoneLobster wrote:Just like when your ALPHABET SOUP IS TALKING TO YOU IN CODE.
Oh shit! That happens to you, too?
I think that them and the guys at Alpha-Bits are setting up some kind of crazy cabal to make us all go insane, ala A Beautiful Mind style.
I was thinking of writing a story where the protagonist receives messages in such a manner, and it is somewhat questionable for a while whether he is delusional or not.
Schwarzkopf wrote:I'd say this is fairly accurate, although I'm not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg. Johnny, Timmy, Spike has always seemed GNS inspired to me.
The concept of Timmy existed by 1998, because that's when they printed this card:
I've aways liked GNS theory ... then again I've never read it.
And the guy's an idiot so there.
But seriously, the whole idea is flawed because it is misplaced. A game is a collection of individual rules. It is only at the specific rule itself that you might be able to assign a GNS attribute. Because few people actually make a game rule set with this in mind the actual game will have rules of all sorts.
Schwarzkopf wrote:Everything I have seen Ron Edwards write on the subject has stated the exact opposite of this, that no game or player is ever purely G, purely N, or purely S and every player and game is a different mix of all three.
And I am pretty sure we went into that in detail in the LAST thread on this and you were TOTALLY FUCKING WRONG.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
Oh, goddamn it ....
From THIS article; written by Mr. Edwards himself (emphasis mine):
For a given instance of play, the three modes are exclusive in application.
[...]
Over a greater period of time, across many instances of play, some people tend to cluster their decisions and interests around one of the three goals. Other people vary across the goals, but even they admit that they stay focused, or prioritize, for a given instance.
[...]
Other common misunderstandings of GNS include:
* Perceiving the terms' purpose as a means to classify game design.
Hmm.
Last edited by wotmaniac on Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
*WARNING*: I say "fuck" a lot.
"The most patriotic thing you can do as an American is to become filthy, filthy rich."
- Mark Cuban
Ron Edwards wrote:There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s).
Landon Darkwood wrote:In Narrativism, by contrast, the major source of themes are the ones that are brought to the table by the players / GM (if there is one) regardless of the genre or setting used.
Ron Edwards, in response to the above wrote:"In a word," I replied, "Yes."
Ron Edwards wrote: (1) the actions of the players (2) teach the players something
Please state how this is internally consistent.
We already had a ten-page thread on this.
DSMatticus wrote:It's not just that everything you say is stupid, but that they are Gordian knots of stupid that leave me completely bewildered as to where to even begin. After hearing you speak Alexander the Great would stab you and triumphantly declare the puzzle solved.
It includes links to the canonical GNS essay, which is where I pulled those quotes from.
DSMatticus wrote:It's not just that everything you say is stupid, but that they are Gordian knots of stupid that leave me completely bewildered as to where to even begin. After hearing you speak Alexander the Great would stab you and triumphantly declare the puzzle solved.
Schwarzkopf wrote:Everything I have seen Ron Edwards write on the subject has stated the exact opposite of this, that no game or player is ever purely G, purely N, or purely S and every player and game is a different mix of all three.
And I am pretty sure we went into that in detail in the LAST thread on this and you were TOTALLY FUCKING WRONG.
Refresh my memory? If you mean that 2008 thread someone just quoted, I wasn't around these parts back then. You must be thinking of someone else.
Edit: Yeah, you're definitely thinking of someone else. Ease down there, tough guy.
RadiantPhoenix wrote:
Schwarzkopf wrote:I'd say this is fairly accurate, although I'm not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg. Johnny, Timmy, Spike has always seemed GNS inspired to me.
The concept of Timmy existed by 1998, because that's when they printed this card:
That probably predates GNS, then! I'm not sure. I remember being surprised at how old GNS was.
Last edited by Neurosis on Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:10 am, edited 3 times in total.
For a minute, I used to be "a guy" in the TTRPG "industry". Now I'm just a nobody. For the most part, it's a relief.
Trank Frollman wrote:One of the reasons we can say insightful things about stuff is that we don't have to pretend to be nice to people. By embracing active aggression, we eliminate much of the passive aggression that so paralyzes things on other gaming forums.
hogarth wrote:As the good book saith, let he who is without boners cast the first stone.
TiaC wrote:I'm not quite sure why this is an argument. (Except that Kaelik is in it, that's a good reason.)
Discussion was pretty much over for me on third post where it was demonstrated that the terms contradict themselves and had no value whatsoever. Everything after that is gravy.
Holy shit this is fucking hilarious. Reminds me why I come here.
For a minute, I used to be "a guy" in the TTRPG "industry". Now I'm just a nobody. For the most part, it's a relief.
Trank Frollman wrote:One of the reasons we can say insightful things about stuff is that we don't have to pretend to be nice to people. By embracing active aggression, we eliminate much of the passive aggression that so paralyzes things on other gaming forums.
hogarth wrote:As the good book saith, let he who is without boners cast the first stone.
TiaC wrote:I'm not quite sure why this is an argument. (Except that Kaelik is in it, that's a good reason.)
