The Gaming Den

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 consistant.

name_here wrote:

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 consistant.

Hmm.

I would say that Edwards is mistaken in his first statement. If you look at some of the "Narrativist" games that are out there, such as MLWM, the principle themes are built into the game ahead of time, so there is a pre-defined theme. That's inconsistent.

Remove that and everything gels just fine I believe.

Out of curiosity, which documents did you draw those quotes from? I wouldn't be surprised if the first is from the initial GNS theory document. He did revise some of his ideas between the publication of that and the stand-alone essays.

Entirely from the stand-alone essay.

Also, I'd say that the last one is inconsistant with the second one, personally. And possibly with other parts of the essay, but those are so confusingly worded i'm not even sure.

This is all from "Narratavism: Story Now"

But you see the basic problem Shoggoth, every time we give you four quotes, you have to drop one or even two to get them to "gel." The entire document has roughly 2 thousand quotes.

Your position is that the ideas presented in GNS are clear, unambiguous, and useful. If you have to discard even one quote from the Narratavism descriptive essay, you're wrong. Period. End of story.

If your concept of what Narratavism "means" is at odds with even one of the statements that Ron Edwards makes in the master document describing Narratavism and its place in GNS theory, then either the definitions are ambiguous (which you have said they are not), or your personal definitions aren't actually what Ron Edwards is talking about (in which case your claim that the theory of Ron Edwards has utility are suspect, since you aren't using that theory).

So which is it? Is the theory a steaming pile of crap, or is it just so confusing and poorly written that we are to be excused for thinking that it is?

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:This is all from "Narratavism: Story Now"

But you see the basic problem Shoggoth, every time we give you four quotes, you have to drop one or even two to get them to "gel." The entire document has roughly 2 thousand quotes.

Your position is that the ideas presented in GNS are clear, unambiguous, and useful. If you have to discard even one quote from the Narratavism descriptive essay, you're wrong. Period. End of story.

If your concept of what Narratavism "means" is at odds with even one of the statements that Ron Edwards makes in the master document describing Narratavism and its place in GNS theory, then either the definitions are ambiguous (which you have said they are not), or your personal definitions aren't actually what Ron Edwards is talking about (in which case your claim that the theory of Ron Edwards has utility are suspect, since you aren't using that theory).

So which is it? Is the theory a steaming pile of crap, or is it just so confusing and poorly written that we are to be excused for thinking that it is?

-Username17

First off, I take umbrage with the idea that I've had to ignore some quotes to make others not contradict them. In every other instance, it's been a misreading of the quote, and I've addressed that.

In this case though, you're absolutely right. I will have to go check the original document and verify when I have time that it isn't being pulled out of context, but that first quote does in fact contradict the later ones.

The point I'm trying to make here is not that Ron Edwards is perfect, or that his theory is airtight and must be respected as some holy writ from above. I don't think the theory is anywhere near perfect, and it's CERTAINLY doesn't describe every element of gaming, no matter what Edwards says it does.

But I do think that the ideas have utility. Someone earlier in the thread made a comment comparing it to Alchemy vs. Chemistry, and I really like that metaphor.

This insistence that because you've found somewhere where Edwards fucked up in his paper means that every word he's written is utter crap is what bothers me. Yes, you got me with one quote. But I've pointed out 2 or 3 now that were misquoted or misinterpreted, that made perfect sense but were held out as proof that the whole thing was fucked.

I mean seriously, if you built a house from scratch, and it mostly stayed up and kept some of the rain off but you forgot to put hinges on the door, would that mean that the whole house was forfeit because of it?

I feel that that's not a good comparison, because while there may be somthing useful in there, It's kinda buried by totally incomprehensible bits where he seems to redefine his terms, like so:

The real variable is the emotional connection that everyone at the table makes when a player-character does something. If that emotional connection is identifiable as a Premise, and if that connection is nurtured and developed through the real-people interactions, then Narrativist play is under way

I'd think he substituted premise for theme, except that he even included the proper-nouning.

Shoggoth wrote:But I've pointed out 2 or 3 now that were misquoted or misinterpreted, that made perfect sense but were held out as proof that the whole thing was fucked.

No.

You've shown how you can make increasingly elaborate semantic constructions to force some square pegs into round holes. I flat don't believe you when you make your claims about the intent of some of those sentences. The thing about Eunuch Sorcerers is a classic example. That you can come up with a frankly laughable defense of the statement to say that part one is talking about Themes and non-Themes interchangeably but the very next sentence is talking about themes exclusively is... extremely thin.

That there are sentences that you can't even make excuses for doesn't even matter. The excuses you were already making pushed my bullshit meter right off the table.

-Username17

Actually, the henchman example seems to be completely inadmissable on either side, because it seems the E-mail writer was suffering term confusion. If i'm reading that segment right, the E-mail guy was using a different theme definition when giving the examples.

If that's the case, then what the email guy means is that in narrativist play you'd have a story of true love in Shadowrun. Which isn't objectively bad unless true love in Shadowrun annoys other players at the table.

name_here wrote:Actually, the henchman example seems to be completely inadmissable on either side, because it seems the E-mail writer was suffering term confusion. If i'm reading that segment right, the E-mail guy was using a different theme definition when giving the examples.

No. See if that is the case, then I'm right.

I don't actually have to be right about what the passage really means to be right about the essay as a whole. Because my position is that the essay is a meandering piece of garbage that doesn't bother even trying to use terminology consistently and uses term confusion to hide behind a wall of vaguery to sound more intellectual than it actually is and to hamper counter arguments by being impossible to pin down. If this particular passage is so vague and confusing that we cannot agree as to what it "really means" and the terms are used inconsistently throughout in a manner that just further muddies the waters - then all I have to say is "QED."

The thing is that Ron Edwards selected that email as something that encapsulated Narratavism and its distinction from Simulationism. He gave it his full and unconditional support. If that passage is suffering from term confusion, then so is the theory. By definition.

-Username17

Manxome wrote:

Absentminded_Wizard wrote: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?

If you think game mechanics have the same artistic value as music, I guess you could call them art. The mechanics are a process, and a process may or may not qualify as art.

---

Back to the GNS debate. I have to go back to the quote name_here posted:

The real variable is the emotional connection that everyone at the table makes when a player-character does something. If that emotional connection is identifiable as a Premise, and if that connection is nurtured and developed through the real-people interactions, then Narrativist play is under way.

So if the emotional connection with the character is what charges everybody's batteries, then it's Narrativist play. But wait, isn't method acting a Simulationist thing?

At the end of the day, GNS theory, which Ron Edwards presumably put hours into writing and editing in multiple articles over years, is as poorly thought out as my off-the-cuff definition of art, especially the distinction (if any) between Narrativism and Simulationism.

For example, Shoggoth argues that a Narrativist who introduces themes totally incompatible with the setting is being an asshole rather than a Narrativist. But if you're letting your choice of theme be limited by the setting, aren't you being a Simulationist? Regardless of how you define theme, it looks like a hardcore Narrativist, as Edwards defines the term, is an asshole.

And as the person who made the Alchemy quote, I have to point out that GNS could have been the Alchemy of RPG theory. I say "could have been" because GNS attaining that status would require a bunch of perceptive RPG theory to have followed in its wake. Instead, it's produced a bunch of people who think it's the beginning and end of RPG theory, and nothing's really pushed the "field" forward.

So if the emotional connection with the character is what charges everybody's batteries, then it's Narrativist play. But wait, isn't method acting a Simulationist thing?

You're slightly misreading the quote there, actually. It's the other player's connection to the character.

The bit that's off is using the word Premise when it clearly does not fit. Even him using theme there would be somewhat off, because theme seems inconsistent with an emotional connection, being as it is a philosophical something

But you're supposed to have an emotional engagement with the philosophical something. I have no idea how an emotional connection with a character is a question that play addresses or an answer to said question, and it definitely does not fit the human definition of a premise, because "Vampires engage in a deadly game of politics, assassination, and debate over whose guys, exactly, Hitler was one of" is in no way, shape or form an emotional connection with a character.

FrankTrollman wrote: I don't actually have to be right about what the passage really means to be right about the essay as a whole. Because my position is that the essay is a meandering piece of garbage that doesn't bother even trying to use terminology consistently and uses term confusion to hide behind a wall of vaguery to sound more intellectual than it actually is and to hamper counter arguments by being impossible to pin down. If this particular passage is so vague and confusing that we cannot agree as to what it "really means" and the terms are used inconsistently throughout in a manner that just further muddies the waters - then all I have to say is "QED."

Yeah, really if you read any essay on GNS, it's very confusing and honestly, most of the people I've seen use GNS don't actually use it as it was used in most of the large essays and just invent their own definition based on the word. That's what I do anyway.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:Yeah, really if you read any essay on GNS, it's very confusing and honestly, most of the people I've seen use GNS don't actually use it as it was used in most of the large essays and just invent their own definition based on the word. That's what I do anyway.

Yeah, the actual theory is a bunch of BS, but the titled divisions could be usable if relabeled in a clearer, more useful way. It wouldn't even be hard. For example, if I were going to, I'd use them as a set of divisions to help talk about different aspects of RPG design goals:

Gamist = How the RPG's mechanics help the GM present a challenge.
Narrativist = How the RPG's mechanics help the GM tell a story.
Simulationist = How the RPG's mechanics help the GM represent the world.

Of course, my version doesn't require 40 pages of rambling. So clearly it's not as good.

Neeeek wrote:
Of course, my version doesn't require 40 pages of rambling. So clearly it's not as good.

Yeah, more or less you can define each in a paragraph at most.

In general, the more people talk about defining each, the more likely they are going to go into the vague confusing garbage that you see in the essays.

Neeeek wrote:

RandomCasualty2 wrote:Yeah, really if you read any essay on GNS, it's very confusing and honestly, most of the people I've seen use GNS don't actually use it as it was used in most of the large essays and just invent their own definition based on the word. That's what I do anyway.

Yeah, the actual theory is a bunch of BS, but the titled divisions could be usable if relabeled in a clearer, more useful way. It wouldn't even be hard. For example, if I were going to, I'd use them as a set of divisions to help talk about different aspects of RPG design goals:

Gamist = How the RPG's mechanics help the GM present a challenge.
Narrativist = How the RPG's mechanics help the GM tell a story.
Simulationist = How the RPG's mechanics help the GM represent the world.

Of course, my version doesn't require 40 pages of rambling. So clearly it's not as good.

Your version is what I assumed until this thread informed me otherwise.

Before this thread, I had always assumed that the definitions were:

Gamism = making the rules functon as a game (issues like balance, etc.)
Narrativism = moving the "story" along
Simulationsim = reflecting the "reality" of the setting

Maybe we should distinguish between original GNS and "neo-GNS," -- the various theories people make up by redefining the basic terms. Of course, the various types of neo-GNS, while eliminating one of the problems of the original theory (vague, inconsistent definitions) still inherit a couple of other problems from the original. First of all, they still tend to create overly broad categories which might include mutually contradictory subsets. They're also wide open to the charge that they list three concerns that no game can afford to ignore entirely. For example, if a game ignores my kind of Simulationism completely, it ends up with some of the worst aspects of 4e.

While the idea of "neo-GNS" is certainly an improvement, in that the definitions are comprehensible and consistent and the neo-Theory accepts that all portions are to some extent desirable rather than being opposing forces, I still don't think it's a particularly useful theory.

The problem is that I would say that each of those can be further subdivided into a heavy handed and light touch version that are entirely at odds that can make good games.

So for example: A "good" game can be good because it moves forward quickly, and it can be good because it has a lot for people to do. Smash Brothers is a good game and so is Civilization. The fist game has an attack button and a special attack button and games take 2 minutes. The second game has dozens of hot keys and takes many hours. Making Civilization more like Smash Brothers or vice versa wouldn't make it any better. You could call that "Rules Light Gamism" and "Rules Heavy Gamism" fairly easily. And I think that it's important to note that while either of those goals fits well with Simulationism or Narratavism, it doesn't fit well with each other.

Simulationism can be like Feng Shui, where the events "on camera" are well represented by the rules and the game doesn't really even bother to try to represent the rest of the world. Simulationism can also be like Role Master or Traveler, where the world is chart generated and people can focus on whatever part of that world they want. Having more rules that you aren't using is considered wasteful and confusing to people favoring the rules-light approach and not having rules covering things you're going to need is considered to break the immersion by people favoring a heavier rules approach.

Narratavism breaks down based on input best I think. That is, there are those who favor the generation of a story and others who pride themselves on being able to modify the story. That is, in a game of Teenagers From Outer Space it is part of the point of the game that each of the players can derail the plot on a whim by pulling out crazy crap. It is a point of pride in Vampire that the themes (and I use the word theme in its actual definition) of the game enforce themselves and it's fairly difficult to derail things.

Thus it is that I feel that if you're gong to try for a three fold model it is important to come to grips with the fact that you aren't having a battle between Gamism and Narratavism, but rather that there are different kinds of Gamism, Narratavism, and Simulationism which are at odds with themselves. The question is not whether your game should be G or N, but what kind of G and what kind of N.

-Username17

Absentminded_Wizard wrote: And as the person who made the Alchemy quote, I have to point out that GNS could have been the Alchemy of RPG theory. I say "could have been" because GNS attaining that status would require a bunch of perceptive RPG theory to have followed in its wake. Instead, it's produced a bunch of people who think it's the beginning and end of RPG theory, and nothing's really pushed the "field" forward.

Alchemy as a study had it's very strong adherents, and it had people (most people in fact) who thought it was dangerous heretical garbage. It was over a long period of time that alchemy slowly changed into real chemistry, and even that happened in halting steps.

In fact, discussions like the one happening here, when they don't get bogged down in "is it right" and move on to "what is crap and what is not" help to advance gaming ideas.

FrankTrollman wrote:While the idea of "neo-GNS" is certainly an improvement, in that the definitions are comprehensible and consistent and the neo-Theory accepts that all portions are to some extent desirable rather than being opposing forces, I still don't think it's a particularly useful theory.

The problem is that I would say that each of those can be further subdivided into a heavy handed and light touch version that are entirely at odds that can make good games.

So for example: A "good" game can be good because it moves forward quickly, and it can be good because it has a lot for people to do. Smash Brothers is a good game and so is Civilization. The fist game has an attack button and a special attack button and games take 2 minutes. The second game has dozens of hot keys and takes many hours. Making Civilization more like Smash Brothers or vice versa wouldn't make it any better. You could call that "Rules Light Gamism" and "Rules Heavy Gamism" fairly easily. And I think that it's important to note that while either of those goals fits well with Simulationism or Narratavism, it doesn't fit well with each other.

Simulationism can be like Feng Shui, where the events "on camera" are well represented by the rules and the game doesn't really even bother to try to represent the rest of the world. Simulationism can also be like Role Master or Traveler, where the world is chart generated and people can focus on whatever part of that world they want. Having more rules that you aren't using is considered wasteful and confusing to people favoring the rules-light approach and not having rules covering things you're going to need is considered to break the immersion by people favoring a heavier rules approach.

Narratavism breaks down based on input best I think. That is, there are those who favor the generation of a story and others who pride themselves on being able to modify the story. That is, in a game of Teenagers From Outer Space it is part of the point of the game that each of the players can derail the plot on a whim by pulling out crazy crap. It is a point of pride in Vampire that the themes (and I use the word theme in its actual definition) of the game enforce themselves and it's fairly difficult to derail things.

Thus it is that I feel that if you're gong to try for a three fold model it is important to come to grips with the fact that you aren't having a battle between Gamism and Narratavism, but rather that there are different kinds of Gamism, Narratavism, and Simulationism which are at odds with themselves. The question is not whether your game should be G or N, but what kind of G and what kind of N.

-Username17

Putting aside definitions of G, N, and S for a minute, I find the last paragraph to be really interesting. I don't think it's a competition between different play styles. It's really more a question of what kind of play styles you want to include, and whether or not the game will support it.

Also, I think the FIRST question is "Should the game be G? N? S? A mix?". The SECOND question is "OK, what KIND of G? N? S?"

There are plenty of competitive feeling games out there, and you can really like one and not the next. DnD is at it's heart a G game, but so is Burning Wheel. But Burning Wheel enforces character motivations with mechanics, where DnD doesn't. They're really different, but they're both very G. That's just an example.

I don't think any of these labels are universal. You can't say Narrativist game and know what kind of game you'll have exactly, because Narr only refers to one little element of it. It's not some big thing, just an element of play.


On a totally unrelated note - How exactly does Vampire enforce it's themes? The only mechanic in Vampire that comes anywhere close to addressing anything thematic is Humanity, and that stat is a joke.

Wait a minute, shog. If the labelings are not universal then how can you use them to define how much a game has [GNS] in what amount if at all. It can't be a labeling/categorizing theory and not at the same time. Also making sub categories doesn't help much either.

Pretty much every PnP RPG has all the elements of GNS. I can't think of a single PnP RPG that doesn't have all three in them.

Leress wrote:Wait a minute, shog. If the labelings are not universal then how can you use them to define how much a game has [GNS] in what amount if at all. It can't be a labeling/categorizing theory and not at the same time. Also making sub categories doesn't help much either.

Pretty much every PnP RPG has all the elements of GNS. I can't think of a single PnP RPG that doesn't have all three in them.

I think I phrased that really poorly. Lemme try again.

What I was trying to say is that games aren't in and of themselves G, or N, or S. The way in which they are played by the participants is G, or N, or S, and the degree to which the system supports that kind of play dictates what kind of game it is. So you can play a game like DnD in a Narrativist way, but there aren't any rules to help you, so you have to make it up as you go.

But by the same token you can have two games that support Narrativist play really well, but one does it in a very competitive way (Burning Wheel) and another does it in a very Simulationist way (what WoD tries for). But those games are nothing alike, so you can see that saying that a game is Narrativist doesn't tell you anything about it other than that it has mechanics for dealing with themes directly.

That's what I was trying to communicate. Better?

Does that make more sense?

Does that make more sense?

Not really.

How does someone play a game to tell a story without playing the game to play the game or simulate the events in the story?

-Username17

Has it not been described that the general consensus that GNS works as...
* Narrativist - Magic Tea Party
* Gamist - Munchkinism
* Simulationist - Rules Bloat

FrankTrollman wrote:

Does that make more sense?

Not really.

How does someone play a game to tell a story without playing the game to play the game or simulate the events in the story?

-Username17

A) Narrativism isn't telling a story, it's exploring themes within a story. There is always a story, no matter what kind of game you play. Calling Narrativism "telling a story" renders the term meaningless.

B) You do all those things every time. You always tell a story. You always play the game. You always simulate SOMETHING to some degree.

The idea of GNS is not that those things happen, it's the focus you take when you do it. What RE calls Agenda. What I'd probably call just "agenda", or intent.

You can have a story where the trio of adventurers go save a princess in a medieval setting from a dragon, and that tells you nothing about the GNS elements. They all arise from play.

If the whole thing is a framework for the players to "beat" the encounters, then you're competing and it's Gamist.

If the whole thins is a framework for exploring what it's like to run around in the setting and encounter dragons, then it's Sim.

If the whole thing is a framework for exploring some theme like "Is the life of this princess worth the cost in lives it cost to get her back" and the decisions you take in game are about that specifically, then it's Narr.

Of course you can mix them together. It can be done well. But if I sabotage my character in the fight with the dragon because I want to sacrifice myself to save the princess cause that's whatmy "noble" knight would do based on his backstory (sim), and you get pissed at me for fucking up the encounter that you're trying to beat (gamist), then we got a problem.

That's one aspect of it, anyway.