GNS Theory: Good, Bad, or Ugly

[Talisman]

Getting a lot of use out of the Dino-Riders pic, eh Frank?

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Game rules aren't art, even though it is communication to an audience, because they're giving you instructions on how to complete a task (playing the game). Chess isn't a work of art, though an individual chess set might be if it's particularly well crafted.

Why should that matter?

1. I write a poem that contains the rules for a game. Art?
2. A composer writes down a series of technical instructions explaining how to play a song, i.e. sheet music. Art?
3. An artist carefully crafts a monster's attack animation to convey to the player the message, "this attack will kill you if you don't dodge it." Art?
4. A programmer designs and implements a computer game in which no instructions are given to the player, because it is assumed that they already know the rules. Art?
5. Frank writes some rules whose main purpose is to show you how shitty the rules for game X are, rather than to actually introduce you to a new game. Art?
6. I design a simple game as a commentary on politics/philosophy/culture/insert-topic-here. Art?

I'll readily admit that "art" has about a zillion different meanings and most of them are hopelessly vague, but this seems like a rather arbitrary distinction. I could understand the claim that listening to someone describe the rules of a game and then writing them down isn't producing art (that's like transcribing a song), but that hardly means that the rules themselves (or the song itself) can't be art.

Game design is a creative expression that produces a recreational experience; I'd say that fits the commonly-used definition of art.

The distinction I'm drawing is that a set of instructions on how to do something is technical communication, not art. Note that instructions aren't the only form of technical communication, but they fall squarely into that category. The value of art, on the other hand, isn't this kind of nuts-and-bolts instruction. The value of art comes either from finding pleasure in the structure or composition of the work, or from contemplating larger themes the work deals with in a more open-ended way.

So going down your list of examples:

1. This could be a hybrid. The reader gains "artistic enjoyment" from the poetic format while also learning the rules of a game.

2. I would say that the sheet-music itself isn't art; the musical piece it describes is.

3. While it's not technical communication, I'm not sure that conveying information critical to success in a game is art.

4. I wouldn't call a spectacular failure to provide appropriate technical communication a work of art.

5. This one could be either art or a hybrid, depending on whether or not the rules written are actually functional.

6. I'd say this one fits squarely in the hybrid category.

[zeruslord]

No. A Eunuch Sorcerer is not a Theme, because a theme is a philosophical conclusion that arises during play and is brought to the game by the GM and/or the players.

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).

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.

"In a word," I replied, "Yes."

Theme is defined as a value-judgment or point that may be inferred from the in-game events.

Slavery Is Freedom.
War Is Peace.
Ignorance Is Strength

[Manxome]

2. I would say that the sheet-music itself isn't art; the musical piece it describes is.

OK, so the game instructions themselves aren't art, but the game mechanics they describe are? Or is there some other distinction you're trying to make that I'm somehow missing?

[Shoggoth]

Shoggoth, you're creating a distinction that is non-existent in the source material. While "theme" is an incredibly important concept for Ron's Narratavism concept (indeed, the concept is entirely dependent upon the idea of theme, since it boils down to "Narratavist play has each person at the table putting their theme into the story"), he doesn't make much of an effort to define it. But apparently a theme is just "something that provokes a response in the intended audience" (which is coincidentally also the player, because it's an RPG, not a canned performance).

So yeah, Eunuch Sorcerer is a "Theme" if it provokes a response from the player putting it into the game. And the entire point of Narratavist play is that each of the people at the table bring ther favorite themes in regardless of genre.

So if the cowboy riding dinosaurs provokes the response of "Holy shit! That's Awesome!" (and it should), then it is theme. And that makes it an acceptable, even desirable thing to include in any Narratavist gaming session, regardless of genre. At least, according to GNS theory; which as I've previously stated is fucking worthless.

theme: a judgmental point, perceivable as a certain charge they generate for the listener or reader.

"literary merit" of a theme is irrelevant.

-Username17

You are redefining the term Theme, and reinterpreting the lines that you are quoting by Edwards. I'll requote for emphasis:

Theme is defined as a value-judgment or point that may be inferred from the in-game events.

theme: a judgmental point, perceivable as a certain charge they generate for the listener or reader.

He states here that theme is a value-judgement or a judgemental point. Valid themes include statements like "Slavery is wrong" or "Immortality is worth the cost of taking human life". Both of those statements make a value judgement, both of them constitute a point. For the game to have relevance to the players, of course you want the theme to provoke an emotional response; otherwise what's the point?

The existence of a Eunuch Sorcerer in and of itself does not make a value judgement. It is an element of play. How that sorcerer is interacted with in game can promote a theme (kill the sorcerer and free his eunuchs because slavery is wrong) but that character does not constitute a theme in and of itself.

There are plenty of elements of play that merit an emotional response. That's the whole reason we play. When I roll a Nat 20 against a boss, I feel elation. That doesn't mean that rolling a crit is a theme. What you're doing is confusing cause and effect. Themes elicit an emotional response, but that doesn't mean that anything that elicits an emotional response is a theme.


The point of this is that what sorts of play constitute G or N or S is defined by the primary intent of the play.

So if you have a Eunuch Sorcerer in a game because you are playing Conan, cause Conan is awesome, and the world as defined by Howard includes cool Eunuch Sorcerers and that's the point, to play around in the world of Conan, then it's Sim. Themes will arise, competition may happen, but that's not really the point here.

If you have a Eunuch Sorcerer in a game because you've decided to play a game exploring the question "Is ultimate magic power worth the cost of my sexual life", and the decisions you make in game reflect directly on that question, then it's Narrativist. Story will happen, it's gonna be in a coherent world, but that's not really the point here.

If you have a Eunuch Sorcerer because the loss of a penis gives a +2 to your Concentration roll, and the lack of a sexual appetite allows you to lose less resources or something else mechanical, then it's Gamist. You're there to win, and the Sorcerer is a Eunuch only because it gives you an edge in the competition of GM vs. Player (or PvP, or whatever). It will happen in the context of a story, it'll happen in a genre, themes may arise, but that's not really the point here.[/b]

[Username17]

Zeruslord got it in one:

Since "Theme" is defined as being something that players acquire in play and as something that the players bring into the game from before the game, the term is fucking meaningless.

The Narratavism definition is basically "something you do to get your Theme going." But "Theme" is contradictorily defined.

You can make a valid claim that Narratavism "is" anything you want it to be. I can make a valid claim that it is literally anything else. Contradictory definitions do that.

...which is why the theory as a whole is useless and less than useless.

-Username17

[Shoggoth]

Zeruslord got it in one:

Since "Theme" is defined as being something that players acquire in play and as something that the players bring into the game from before the game, the term is fucking meaningless.

The Narratavism definition is basically "something you do to get your Theme going." But "Theme" is contradictorily defined.

You can make a valid claim that Narratavism "is" anything you want it to be. I can make a valid claim that it is literally anything else. Contradictory definitions do that.

...which is why the theory as a whole is useless and less than useless.

-Username17

More bullshit semantics. What zeruslord said is:

...because a theme is a philosophical conclusion that arises during play and is brought to the game by the GM and/or the players.

A theme is a philosophical conclusion - this is the definition.

Also, something can arise in play, and also be brought to the game. I show up with the theme of "slavery is wrong" to explore in the game, and while we play a different theme of "violence is not a good solution" comes up. Both themes, one was brought by a player at the beginning and one arose out of play. They're not mutually exclusive.

[Username17]

But since you can challenge the themes, they aren't conclusions.

This isn't "bullshit semantics," this is any semantics. The very concept of providing unique meaning with communication - the Narratavism thing refuses to do that.

No one fucking knows what the fucking hell he means by "Theme" because it's contradictory through and through. You've latched onto the idea that it is a "philosophical conclusion" but since it isn't the fucking end of the argument (I am using "argument" in its logical sense here) it's more akin to a "premise." But he can't call it a "premise" because he fucking shat all over that word making it mean some sort of crazy bullshit soul introspection thing.

Yes. There are enough croutons on that word salad that you can select bits you like until you have virtually a complete meal. But you can't swallow the whole thing because the whole thing can't exist at one time.

-Username17

[Shoggoth]

But since you can challenge the themes, they
aren't conclusions.

Fair enough. Better to say that they are philosophical statements.

This isn't "bullshit semantics," this is any semantics. The very concept of providing unique meaning with communication - the Narratavism thing refuses to do that.

No one fucking knows what the fucking hell he means by "Theme" because it's contradictory through and through. You've latched onto the idea that it is a "philosophical conclusion" but since it isn't the fucking end of the argument (I am using "argument" in its logical sense here) it's more akin to a "premise." But he can't call it a "premise" because he fucking shat all over that word making it mean some sort of crazy bullshit soul introspection thing.

Yes. There are enough croutons on that word salad that you can select bits you like until you have virtually a complete meal. But you can't swallow the whole thing because the whole thing can't exist at one time.

-Username17

The stuff I'm referring IS bullshit semantics. You say that it's impossible to be two things at once, when it clearly is. You ignore half of a definition, confuse the definition for an example, then generalize that example in ridiculous ways and cite that as proof that the original premise can't be valid.

And Ron Edwards is using Theme in the exact same way that every other person in the fields of literature use the word. The only difference here is that because the story in an RPG game unfolds over time, as opposed to being consumed post creation, those themes can be emergent as well as intentional.

[Elennsar]

The problem seems to be that Edwards (intentionally or otherwise) implies that you can pull a "Theme" from your ass and even if it has nothing to do with what's happening in the game, the genre, or anything else, that's Narrativism.

In fact, it may be more Narrativistic to pull it from your ass.

Again, that may be implication, but its an incredibly stupid implication.

[Shoggoth]

The problem seems to be that Edwards (intentionally or otherwise) implies that you can pull a "Theme" from your ass and even if it has nothing to do with what's happening in the game, the genre, or anything else, that's Narrativism.

In fact, it may be more Narrativistic to pull it from your ass.

Again, that may be implication, but its an incredibly stupid implication.

I don't understand how "pulling a theme from your ass" is an any way a bad thing. Let me give an example:

We're playing in the Wild West. There are a ton of themes that are common to Western scenarios, such as might makes right, what happens when the law becomes vigilantism, etc. What's wrong with bringing in some sort of theme that you wouldn't expect? What about something like "is immortality worth the cost of human lives?". It's not something you'd expect in a Western, but there's no reason it can't be done. You don't need vampires or anything, having your name in the history books is the only kind of immortality anybody has ever had in real life. Is it worth killing everyone who gets in your way while you make a name for yourself?

That could even arise out of play, as your character does crazier and crazier stuff with the goal of robbing the train car. It wasn't your intent to have that theme come up, you just wanted to rob the train car, but as the bodies mount, it becomes part of the game.

Alternatively, you could make the character specifically to address that theme. That's valid too. Either way, it's Narrativist and that's fine.

Edit: Replace the above with "Either way, it's only Narrativist if the theme is the point. Otherwise, if it's just incidental to play, then it's not Nar."

[Elennsar]

Because there's no distinction other than the one of "the GM says no" between "odd but doable" and something that we can tell was ass pulled because it stinks.

Or to put it more clearly, is out of place.

I'm not sure if "is immortality worth the cost of human lives" is a legitimate theme to explore in a Western because it is unexpected, which means that it doesn't necessarily (it might) fit in with the elements of the setting and so on.

Maybe it would. Maybe it wouldn't. Maybe it would work well in a Western (better than some themes done to the point of "cliche"). But that's hardly clear at the begining and dragging it in "to see what it is like" may ruin the story instead of create it.

And spontaneously pulling it out of your ass and shoving it into the game is just being a dick.

So, Edwards's "Narrativists pull themes from their ass whether they fit the setting or not." implication reeks of, in internetspeak, fail. It may have a legitimate aspect, but it is a terrible notion if not done very well.

[Shoggoth]

Because there's no distinction other than the one of "the GM says no" between "odd but doable" and something that we can tell was ass pulled because it stinks.

Or to put it more clearly, is out of place.

I'm not sure if "is immortality worth the cost of human lives" is a legitimate theme to explore in a Western because it is unexpected, which means that it doesn't necessarily (it might) fit in with the elements of the setting and so on.

Maybe it would. Maybe it wouldn't. Maybe it would work well in a Western (better than some themes done to the point of "cliche"). But that's hardly clear at the begining and dragging it in "to see what it is like" may ruin the story instead of create it.

And spontaneously pulling it out of your ass and shoving it into the game is just being a dick.

So, Edwards's "Narrativists pull themes from their ass whether they fit the setting or not." implication reeks of, in internetspeak, fail. It may have a legitimate aspect, but it is a terrible notion if not done very well.

I agree with you to a point here. If not done well, yeah, it's gonna suck.

But you can say the same about any other kind of play. If you try to play Narratively in a game that really doesn't support it, and none of the other players want to play that way, then yeah, it's definitely gonna suck. If we're playing DnD, and we're all here to kill the dragon, but you're refusing to buff the party because you're trying to introduce some theme into play that you want to explore, then you're definitely being a dick. I can't argue that point.

But the same applies the other way. If we're playing a game like My Life With Master, where the whole point is to explore certain themes, and you're hell bent on killing the master, despite the fact that there aren't really mechanics to do it, then you're still being a dick.

Ron Edwards is not saying that you should be able to play any way you want, whenever you want, no matter what the rest of your group is doing. His point is that games that are written well for one kind of game don't work well for others, and playing differently can lead to one player hijacking another player's agenda.

[Elennsar]

The problem is that he overlooks that you can be playing "Narratively" (is that even a word?) in a narrativistic game and still be a game derailing dick.

That is the problem (with this particular definition, I'm not familiar enough with the theory to judge where Simulationist and Gamist can derail as well).

But saying "exploring themes" makes something narrativistic, but if those themes aren't introduced and new then you're just being a simulationist...

Wait, what?

If the idea was something like this "Narrativists want character development, simulationists want world development" and something equally logical for "gamists", it would make sense. It'd be broad and vague, but at least it would be a coherent basis to define a game as "Narrativist", for instance.

As is, it doesn't work like that, because by his definition (again, I am assuming this is unintentional, because its so stupid no one in their right mind would do it), introducing "I want to betray the master and kill him" is perfectly legitimate Theme and a narrativistic thing to do in My Life With Master.

That can't seriously be intended. But it is how the theory comes off.

The fact that it is possible to conjure legitimate and sane definitions using his words doesn't, unfortunately, mean that he did so.

To misuse an old quote to make a point:

Infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters will mostly produce gibberish.

[Shoggoth]

The problem is that he overlooks that you can be playing "Narratively" (is that even a word?) in a narrativistic game and still be a game derailing dick.

Again, DUH. You can derail any kind of game, any time, by being a dick. If we're playing DnD, and my rogue steals your shit even though everyone else thinks that's rude, then I'm derailing the game. If I hold my action so that I can go just before you and kill the target I know you want to kill, then I'm derailing the game and being a dick. If we're playing Shadowrun and we're all sitting in the office with Mr. Johnson, and you decide that you want to kill the guy because "your character hates people in yellow" and they guy has a yellow hat on, you're derailing the game and being a dick.

Likewise, if you introduce a theme that's totally inappropriate to the game and derail it, then you're being a dick. That doesn't mean it has to be appropriate the the genre, just appropriate to the game. People mix genres all the time, after all.

[Shoggoth]

The fact that it is possible to conjure legitimate and sane definitions using his words doesn't, unfortunately, mean that he did so.

To misuse an old quote to make a point:

Infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters will mostly produce gibberish.

I'm not saying anything he hasn't already said in his articles, and I'm more than happy to quote extensively to prove it.

[Elennsar]

That doesn't mean it has to be appropriate the the genre, just appropriate to the game. People mix genres all the time, after all.

Unfortunately, "being appropriate" is not stated as necessary to be Narrativistic. There is a slight implication that its not relevant, in fact, but more importantly, there is no emphasis on (new things introduced) being appropriate.

Shoggoth: Quotes or not, there's a lot more gibberish than Shakespeare in here.

If it was a "There are three basic types of games", where narrativistic games are focused on exploring the themes the players seek to explore, simulationist games are focused on living in the world as if it was real, and gamists are something else...and he didn't bother with the things that allow for claiming "I seek to kill my master." is narrativistic, it would be a much sounder theory.

[Shoggoth]

That doesn't mean it has to be appropriate the the genre, just appropriate to the game. People mix genres all the time, after all.

Unfortunately, "being appropriate" is not stated as necessary to be Narrativistic. There is a slight implication that its not relevant, in fact, but more importantly, there is no emphasis on (new things introduced) being appropriate.

It doesn't have to be. Narrativism, Gamism, and Simulationism are styles of play. You can play in that style well, or you can do it poorly.

He's not giving you carte blanche to be an asshole, just because he doesn't tell you NOT to.

[Username17]

I'm not saying anything he hasn't already said in his articles, and I'm more than happy to quote extensively to prove it.

When you're quoting from an essay that says both A and ~A, quoting extensively does not demonstrate your point no matter what those quotes actually say on their own.

-Username17

[Shoggoth]

I'm not saying anything he hasn't already said in his articles, and I'm more than happy to quote extensively to prove it.

When you're quoting from an essay that says both A and ~A, quoting extensively does not demonstrate your point no matter what those quotes actually say on their own.

-Username17

I have extensively ripped apart your critiques where you quote what you think are antithetical statements that he makes in his essays. In every case it a situation where you mistake an explanation for a definition, or take a situational example as some kind of law, then show an example where it doesn't apply and call that proof.

Please, show me where he contradicts himself.

[Username17]

I have extensively ripped apart your critiques where you quote what you think are antithetical statements that he makes in his essays.

No you haven't. You nailed me quite spectacularly on the whole "interdependent vs. independent" thing, but other than that you don't ave shit. I quote a thing where he says that Theme means A and another thing where he says it means ~A. Then you find a quote where he says it means C or Q.

That doesn't refute the claim that it is rambling and contradictory.

At all.

-Username17

[Shoggoth]

I have extensively ripped apart your critiques where you quote what you think are antithetical statements that he makes in his essays.

No you haven't. You nailed me quite spectacularly on the whole "interdependent vs. independent" thing, but other than that you don't ave shit. I quote a thing where he says that Theme means A and another thing where he says it means ~A. Then you find a quote where he says it means C or Q.

That doesn't refute the claim that it is rambling and contradictory.

At all.

-Username17

How about the one where you keep pretending that Eunuch Sorcerers constitute a theme? Ignoring the actual definition of theme, as well as the definition of theme that RE provides, and pretending that they are a theme because somebody else put the Eunuch Sorcerer in the same comma'd list of items with some themes doesn't actually fly.

Are you disagreeing with that statement?

[Shoggoth]

Also, citing examples of something is not the same thing as defining something. An example is not a definition. You continue to do this.

[Username17]

How about the one where you keep pretending that Eunuch Sorcerers constitute a theme?

It's given as an example of a god damned theme. Also it is consistent with some of his fucking definitions of the word theme.

Which dovetails nicely into my point: it's rambling. And contradictory. The fact that you found some definitions of theme in his continual statements and restatements of what the fucking hell that he's talking about that would disallow a "Eunuch Sorcerer" to be considered a theme does not refute the fact that it is still given as an example of a theme or that it is consistent with other definitions of the word.

Indeed, you just made my point. OOOOOOOWWWWWWWNNNNN GOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLL!

-Username17

[Shoggoth]

How about the one where you keep pretending that Eunuch Sorcerers constitute a theme?

It's given as an example of a god damned theme. Also it is consistent with some of his fucking definitions of the word theme.

Which dovetails nicely into my point: it's rambling. And contradictory. The fact that you found some definitions of theme in his continual statements and restatements of what the fucking hell that he's talking about that would disallow a "Eunuch Sorcerer" to be considered a theme does not refute the fact that it is still given as an example of a theme or that it is consistent with other definitions of the word.

Indeed, you just made my point. OOOOOOOWWWWWWWNNNNN GOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLL!

-Username17

I just freaking covered this 5 posts ago. The Sorcerer is not listed as a theme! It's listed as an element of play, along with other elements of play. The intent of the example is to show that, For Simulationist play, themes are just another element of the story, just like characters such as a Eunuch Sorcerer.

Go reread that quote again. Lockwood does not say "These are some themes, including a Sorcerer", he says "For Simulationist play, these are all just elements, right? Including the themes on the list?".

Intentionally failing to understand any of the subtleties of someone's statement, then equating those reductionist understandings does not make someone's argument incoherent. It just means you don't know how to read for understanding.