GNS Theory: Good, Bad, or Ugly

[zeruslord]

Double post. My browser tried to save me, as it has many times before.

[RandomCasualty2]

The Tomes are full of digressions and giant tangents on just how cool the sahuagin are. Frank's tangents are just a hell of a lot better written.

The main difference is that we know what the hell Frank is talking about. We may not always agree with him, but at least he gets some kind of point across so that at the end of it we can say "Here's what Frank believes."

The GNS guy just uses a bunch of weird words and jumbled concepts to try to confuse the reader, and make you think that he's making some deep enlightened conclusion, when in reality, most of the time he's just wasting time typing nonsense.

[rapa-nui]

I know internet threats are very 1996, but one day I'm going to decapitate PhoneLobster and fuck his neckhole. I honestly don't know why I waste time here.

[PhoneLobster]

Your counter argument for the usefulness of GNS is persuasive, but has not changed my mind.

[Judging__Eagle]

I know internet threats are very 1996, but one day I'm going to decapitate PhoneLobster and fuck his neckhole. I honestly don't know why I waste time here.

I find trying to leave my ego at the door works better.


Really, the big problem that I've always had with undersanding Phonelobster is what the goal of his material and posts are meant to accomplish, likewise with Randomcasualty. They post, and well, but they don't awlays state the overarching goal of their intent.

With Frank, it's usually about 1) making the rules reflect the world (or vice versa) and 2) try to keep the game so that one character isn't off of the powerspectrum with regards to an other character of equal level. There are a few others, but those two seem to be the two main ones that I've noticed.

The problem with GNS is that Frank, by that description is equally in all 3 categories, and the GNS community doesn't seem to be able to accept the fact that trying to pidgeonhole people is as foolish as it is pseudo-elitist.

[shau]

Another big difference between the Tomes and that thing is that the forge article is only talking about a single concept. If Frank wrote fifty pages on the idea that everyone should be on the same level I would think he is crazy too.

[Bigode]

http://dagda-mor.blogspot.com/2008/06/o ... heory.html

[PhoneLobster]

So shorter Dagda fella...

"GNS Theory, I don't want to talk about it, but you made me! It's stupid, I hate it, but I might use it a bit to refer to stuff, BUT if YOU ever use it on me I will kill you!"

[Bigode]

I read it as way more of "I don't like it, and I'm gonna say why, as I'm going to write more about design on this blog and I foresee people asking."

[Username17]

People think the terms mean useful things, which is why people keep insisting that the terms be used. The actual theory, and thus "official" meaning of the terms is less than useless. So I might be guilty of using the word "simulationist" - but wouldn't be doing so in reference to The Big Model except to make fun of it. So I would be naturally annoyed if people attempted to analyze my works in terms of GNS theory.

So I totally sympathize with the guy.

-Username17

[JonSetanta]

What the hell.. Dagda of /tg/.. small world.

[Caedrus]

What the hell.. Dagda of /tg/.. small world.

Yeah, Bigode met him through me.

Anyways, I pretty much agree with that stance on GNS theory. Hate.

[Shoggoth]

Hey all! I found this board through a link on the Brilliant Gameologists boards, and it looks like fun.

That said, I think I may be the only person on the planet who thinks that GNS has value as a system. I'll try to explain my reasoning, then you can all beat on me mercilessly.


First off, GNS is not some grand theory which purports to explain every aspect of gaming, nor is it some kind of Meyers-Briggs test of what kind of gamer you are (I'm an INTP who is also a Narrativist with Simulationist tendencies!!). That kind of statement is part of why GNS gets a bad rap.

In my view, GNS is good for 2 things -

1) Analyzing the sort of play styles for which a game is well suited mechanically

2) Diagnosing interpersonal issues at the gaming table

First off, everyone misidentifies what the three types actually mean.

Gamism is NOT "playing the game" or "loving system". It refers specifically to competitive play, in which the players are in competition either with the GM or each other, in character or out of character.

Narrativism is NOT "telling a story". It's gaming with a deliberate focus on theme, usually with mechanics that have direct application to those concerns. Every game tells a story, Narrativist play tells a story where the themes are the chief concern.

Simulationism is play with focus on accurately representing a genre or milieu. Typically there is crunch that has to do with modeling things well, but it can also be playing to a genre carefully so as to avoid breaking immersion.

If you look at those definitions, they are NOT the same.

Now to the utility of GNS.

For analyzing systems, it's helpful to keep in mind when looking at a system to see what sort of play it is encouraging, and it's helpful when designing a system. If you are trying to write a game about, say, running missions against all powerful corporations in a dystopian cyberfuture (with magic!) then you want to think about what kind of play you are trying to encourage. If you want to emphasize the action of fighting guards and slinging spells, then you want the mechanics to reflect that. If you want to closely model what it would be like to be a "runner" in that future setting, then you want to include crunch with enough granularity to do it well. If you want to emphasize themes of control and personal freedom in a future run by faceless corporations, then you need to expressly include mechanics that address that.

For diagnosing group dynamic issues, if the GM is trying to tell his privately written fantasy novel on a set of rails, but Bob keeps hijacking it to make every conflict into a dicefest with his uber-tweaked combat monster, then you can use the terminology to discuss the issue, and you can do it with language that isn't "Bob is an a-hole, and the GM needs to go write a damned book already". If you have the GNS concepts in mind, you can often see the issues clearly enough to get beyond the name calling and hatred, and just talk about the problems as they stand.


Don't get me wrong. GNS is NOT a grand model of everything, and it's not trying to tell you how to play. It's an attempt to create language to discuss elements of play that don't often have good descriptions.

[Username17]

Welcome.

First off, GNS is not some grand theory which purports to explain every aspect of gaming

You're wrong. You may have some kind of understanding of the words "Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist" that have some meaning to you, but the actual theory is coined and described by a single dude. And he is a pretentious ass.

The actual theory has this to say about itself:

The Big Model attempts to contextualize the many different aspects of the role-playing game hobby in a set of meaningful, hierarchical relationships by organising these phenomena into four nested 'boxes'. The contents of each inner box are considered to be within the aegis of the outer box. A "skewer" that thrusts through the set of boxes identifies creative agenda.

It literally is supposed to explain (and "contextualize!") every aspect of gaming. It doesn't actually do that of course, but the actual theory made by an actual guy whose actual name is Ron Edwards really is as vapid as its detractors are saying.

Now, no one can really easily explain what the fucking hell the terms "Gamism" and "Narrativism" and shit mean, because the originator of this theory is an ass hole. A pretentious ass hole who likes to hear himself talk and can't be bothered to say something short and punchy for people to agree with or not. I feel that it is important at this point to draw a line in the sand. Ron Edwards' definition of the term "Simulationism" is fourteen thousand, one hundred and seventeen fucking words long! Absolutely nobody can tell you what the fucking hell the word "simulationism" really means in the context of GNS theory, because that word alone qualifies as a short story.

Seriously. That one word's definition is longer than the Spirits chapter I wrote for Street Magic. One word. And this is its actual opening statement for its "conclusion" (because it's so fucking over-long as a definition that it has a fucking conclusion. It should probably have a materials and methods section as well):

For play really to be Simulationist, it can't lose the daydream quality: the pleasure in imagination as such, without agenda. For game design to promote this goal, it must be openly valued and its virtues articulated, not assumed (as it often is) to be "good role-playing" by anyone's standards and hence left unstated.

That's a sentence. It's a sentence in the definition of a fucking word. Don't tell me you know what GNS theory "really is" because no one does. It's a vaporware smoke screen made of long winded oratory with no actual methodology or hard suggestions.

Your mechanics have to sustain a daydream quality apparently. What the fucking fuck?

-Username17

[Shoggoth]

Welcome.

Thank you.

First off, GNS is not some grand theory which purports to explain every aspect of gaming

You're wrong. You may have some kind of understanding of the words "Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist" that have some meaning to you, but the actual theory is coined and described by a single dude. And he is a pretentious ass.

The actual theory has this to say about itself:

The Big Model attempts to contextualize the many different aspects of the role-playing game hobby in a set of meaningful, hierarchical relationships by organising these phenomena into four nested 'boxes'. The contents of each inner box are considered to be within the aegis of the outer box. A "skewer" that thrusts through the set of boxes identifies creative agenda.

It literally is supposed to explain (and "contextualize!") every aspect of gaming. It doesn't actually do that of course, but the actual theory made by an actual guy whose actual name is Ron Edwards really is as vapid as its detractors are saying.

First off, I'm not talking about The Big Model, I'm talking about GNS. GNS is one part of TBM, and referring to them interchangeably is not helpful. The Big Model does in fact purport to be about the whole enchilada, but I'm not willing to agree with that statement. I don't think the theory is complete, but I do think it has merit.

Now, no one can really easily explain what the fucking hell the terms "Gamism" and "Narrativism" and shit mean, because the originator of this theory is an ass hole. A pretentious ass hole who likes to hear himself talk and can't be bothered to say something short and punchy for people to agree with or not.

I easily explained what Gamism and Narrativism are in very few words, using the information imparted in the core GNS document. Also, whether or not Ron Edwards is an asshole has zero relevance on the quality of his work. You sound like one more person who reads his very wordy academic writing and pronounces it as elitist bullshit.

I feel that it is important at this point to draw a line in the sand. Ron Edwards' definition of the term "Simulationism" is fourteen thousand, one hundred and seventeen fucking words long! Absolutely nobody can tell you what the fucking hell the word "simulationism" really means in the context of GNS theory, because that word alone qualifies as a short story.

Seriously. That one word's definition is longer than the Spirits chapter I wrote for Street Magic. One word. And this is its actual opening statement for its "conclusion" (because it's so fucking over-long as a definition that it has a fucking conclusion. It should probably have a materials and methods section as well):

For play really to be Simulationist, it can't lose the daydream quality: the pleasure in imagination as such, without agenda. For game design to promote this goal, it must be openly valued and its virtues articulated, not assumed (as it often is) to be "good role-playing" by anyone's standards and hence left unstated.

That's a sentence. It's a sentence in the definition of a fucking word. Don't tell me you know what GNS theory "really is" because no one does. It's a vaporware smoke screen made of long winded oratory with no actual methodology or hard suggestions.

Your mechanics have to sustain a daydream quality apparently. What the fucking fuck?

-Username17

Where does he say your mechanics have to sustain a dreamlike quality? All he's saying in that sentence is that explorative play should be explicitly addressed in the mechanics if that is part of your intended design goal, that designing a cool setting but then having the rule set punish imaginative play is a bad idea.

[shau]

Where does he say your mechanics have to sustain a dreamlike quality?

For play really to be Simulationist, it can't lose the daydream quality

[Koumei]

I easily explained what Gamism and Narrativism are in very few words, using the information imparted in the core GNS document.

The problem is that most other people who like GNS theory have different definitions. And this means you can't even talk to each other with a common language. It's like wandering into a market and asking for ten dollars worth of something when you use American dollars, they use Australian dollars and the other guy over there who asked you to buy it in the first place uses Zimbabwe dollars*.

Also, whether or not Ron Edwards is an asshole has zero relevance on the quality of his work.

That'd be a good point, except it sort of does have relevance: because RE is an asshole, he makes a huge tl;dr article (which, loving the sound of his own voice, he expects everyone to read) that still fails to address anything. And, having written a short story-length definition of one word, he still leaves you thinking "He hasn't written anything useful there. How can you write that many words without actually saying anything?"

Whereas someone who is less of a pretentious ass might be able to create a short article that gets to the point. Except there doesn't seem to be a point to get to.

You sound like one more person who reads his very wordy academic writing and pronounces it as elitist bullshit.

That'd be because it IS.

*Not that 10 Zimbabwe dollars could actually buy you anything.

[Orion]

Good academic writing leaves you less, not more confused, then you were beforehand.

I'm in Humanities. none of my professors would accept that abomination.

[Leress]

I think this is the addedum for the GNS and Big Model

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/

Here is what I am getting out of this whole thing:

Gamist=Mechanics
Narrative=Fluff
Simulation=Reproduction of the setting/world feel

Now since (for me) the Narrative describes the world, Gamist describes how to function in the world and also how thing function, and Simulation pretty much binds these two together since it use the Narrative fluff to help influence the mechanics of the world/rpg.

So pretty much it is just describing the three parts of any damn RPG and talks about people or rpgs that focus a little more on one part then another.

[zeruslord]

Every game tells a story, Narrativist play tells a story where the themes are the chief concern.

That's Theme with a capital T that rhymes with P that stands for POOL HALL!

But seriously, Edwards' definition of Theme is idiotic. A Theme is an answer to a Premise, which is a question that play seeks to answer. His examples include gems like "Do love and marriage outweigh one's loyalty to a political cause?"

If his capitalized terms meant anything that anybody might recognize, it would be considerably easier to take his work seriously, but when he wants a Premise to be a fricking question, I am unable to read any sentence where he uses that word without having to think it over. If his word for a question answered by play was something like Question or Query, some of what he wrote would make more sense, but then he would need to replace Theme with something like, oh, I dunno, Answer or Response. Everybody else, in every other context ever, uses premise to mean a statement. The premise of The Matrix is that humanity is trapped in a simulated reality by robots, the premise of Shadowrun is that you are a shadowy mercenary hired by megacorporations to fight deniable and private wars in a dystopian future, and the premise of Beowulf is that Beowulf is hardcore and kills monsters. When Premise suddenly means "Is it better to have loved and lost than never to love at all?," you are twisting the meaning of the English language in a way that not even English has been twisted in before

[Crissa]

That explanation seemed to me to make the whole idea much less clear, hog.

-Crissa

[zeruslord]

Back before I tried to read the original articles, GNS theory made more sense to me, too.

[Shoggoth]

Huh.

I read the core documents and they made sense to me.

Certainly it's not some master theory to answer all questions, but I've gotten plenty of actual use out of it.

I have noticed that everyone and their mother seems to read the explanations differently. Maybe in Edwards' follow up articles he muddies the waters more. I don't know.

I do know that the core set of 4 articles (Overview, Simulationism, Narrativism, Gamism) were coherent and logical, and I've never had any difficulty applying them.

Ah well. I'm not going to get anywhere with this here.

[Username17]

I do know that the core set of 4 articles (Overview, Simulationism, Narrativism, Gamism) were coherent and logical, and I've never had any difficulty applying them.

And yet every single other person who claims that they have no difficulty understanding GNS theory applies it differently. Your explanations don't appear to be the same as Ron Edwards' explanations, nor are they the same as any of Edwards' other supporters who attempts to explain what it is "obvious" that he meant by that theory.

What that tells me is that they are not coherent and logical. They are rambling, contradictory, and vague. Which means that by the time you read the entire document, you'll have created your own daydream like worldspace with which to create a theme directed to confront your premise. And your premise will be "what the fuck do I think GNS ought to mean?"

-Username17

[Ice9]

There's a recent thread here with an alternate model that seems more useful - it's additive, so instead of "this game is X, Y, or Z", it's "this game has X and Z, but not much Y". Also, the terms used are more entertaining.

What's always bugged me is that Narrativist doesn't mean what anyone would think it means, and Simulationist has a bunch of conflicting stuff crammed into one category. For instance, concrete rules vs immersion vs genre simulation. But hey, it's good for starting flamewars.