The Gaming Den

Do all RPGs neatly divide into those categories?

If it's not super 100% always applicable, does it cover a vague idea well? Or is that bullshit too?

Well, what do you think of it?

in b4 shitstorm:

The search bar can go into more details. Like just type in GNS Theory and hit a search and pick around.

Short answer: No. GNS theory means nothing and does nothing.

Long answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GNS theory is meaningless bullshit that -sounds- initially plausible, like it could really do something. But it doesn't hold up to the examination, not least because 1) Everyone has their own definition of the three terms, 2) Ron Edwards writes long, in-depth amounts of completely vapid pseudo-intellectual bullshit which does nothing to help you understand players or games in a more thorough and practical way. And this bullshit hits people who are largely in the dark on nuts and bolts of how to even begin approaching writing a game system which does what you want to do. And as we all know, Dark + Bullshit = Mushrooms. And these mushrooms are powerful hallucinogenic mushrooms indeed, so strong they can make people think Ronnie-boy's onto something great and GNS theory rocks even when confronted with evidence or outright proof otherwise.

Maxus, your long answer is was missing several exclamation points.

The most salient point from prior discussions is that something so basic and common to across systems as "making an attack roll" cannot be neatly classified into any of the three categories - a case can be made for each, or for any combination of each. Thus GNS means what the reader thinks it means - and that works right up until two or more different readers try to have a discussion about it.

Thanks, Josh.

Fixed that...

To the original question: No.
Your begging the question -- no RGP fits neatly in to any one category.

By Ron's own account, GNS Theory by itself is outdated -- it's been folded in to The Big Model.
GNS isn't meant for simple compartmentalization and be done with it. It's more of a prioritization, as all RPGs have all 3 elements.

Josh_Kablack wrote:Thus GNS means what the reader thinks it means - and that works right up until two or more different readers try to have a discussion about it.

Yet there is a whole community that seems to be on basically the same page about it.
I'm just sayin'.

I think that problems come in to play when people expect it to do things it wasn't meant to do.

What's The Big Model?

and what are some good general theories of game design around?

I had to double check the date on the original post. The Forge? Really? This ranks right up there with 'buggy whip sales are off from last quarter'.

GNS doesn't do anything because it makes no value judgements, sets forth no design guidelines, and doesn't even define anything in strict terms.

It's buzzwords pretending to be useful technical jargon, and you can't make that do something it doesn't do, because it does nothing at all.

GNS does do some things.

It wastes time, creates arguments and prevents ambitious noob game designers from learning or thinking about practical games design for real people.

Every Forge discussion on mechanics ALWAYS rapidly degraded into a GNS debate along the lines of.

Designer: I have an goal and this is a (probably non-functional) mechanic I thought of for it, what do you think?

GNS Fan: I think you are my favourite flavor of G N or S. And your goal is wholesome and good. You should use this (probably dysfunctional) mechanic to further your G N or S flavor that you were to stupid to know you preferred until you were enlightened!

Designer: I don't think I like your mechanical idea it seems sorta dysfunctional.

GNS Fan: Well then YOUR original mechanical idea and goal must have been dysfunctional to fool me about your GNS affiliation! And you must be of the GNS flavor that I do NOT prefer. You probably need to use this filthy unwashed (and probably dysfunctional) mechanic that your kind uses.

Designer: Er. I don't like that one either.

GNS Fan: Well! You must then belong to the THIRD GNS flavor, my least favourite scum the like of which I have no comprehension of. You should mix among your own ilk and ask THEM for advice in meeting your, urgh, "goals". I SAID GOOD DAY SIR!

...and that's if no one dared disagree with initial GNS Fans assessment of categories in which case the entire thread degraded into part of the same amorphous mass of endless raw semantics debate about what even means what in GNS.

And if you want to ask GNS itself the answer it gives is readily boiled down to this.

1) There are three categories of gamer.
2) The definitions of these categories are totally insane, meaningless and indistinct from each other.
3) They fucking hate each other.
4) You CANNOT satisfy more than one category at once.
5) So a good rules system aims to only satisfy one, utterly undefined and undefinable, category of gamer at a time.

The "Big Model" is exactly the same only with more words and extra nonsense.

As such it is a perfect model for totally incompetent games designers. Because they can always dismiss all criticism of anything they ever produce by using meaningless semantics to define the GNS affiliation of their critics as being opposed to their design intent. ALWAYS.

They can also explain their choice of ANY dysfunctional mechanic and your failure to understand why they think it is a good idea in any way shape or form in the same manner.

As such GNS fans think it is a fucking awesome theory.

Mind you that's if they even follow it. Most of them just have their own private little fantasy in their head and call THAT "GNS" and oddly enough they really like their private little fantasy and totally "get it" and how awesome it is. And oddly enough it too justifies their every decision and error.

I can't wait for M&M to start discussing GNS theory in their design goals for 5E.

But yes, you could just as easily replace GNS with "Gentle, Neon and Sour" and not actually lose any value. Pick three random things and apply them to it. Done.

Koumei wrote:I can't wait for M&M to start discussing GNS theory in their design goals for 5E.

You indeed Don't Have To!

Monte Cook wrote:If in OD&D one DM might say to another, "let me tell you about my dungeon," in the 2E era, a DM might say to another, "let me tell you about my world." As the system developed with many supplements, simulation and game balance took a back seat to story, setting, and interesting characters

Bolding is mine, and not his. But yes, remember the slavish adherence to game balance in AD&D? Me neither, but apparently the era of giving secondary skills and weapon specialization to the fighters so that they could pull their weight in a party with magic users in it represents moving away from game balance and towards "story". Note that in GNS, "Narrativism" is actually "Narrativism: Story Now".

So yes, he is literally and specifically saying that 2e D&D was more N, and less G and S.

Fucking fuck.

-Username17

K wrote:GNS doesn't do anything because it makes no value judgements, sets forth no design guidelines, and doesn't even define anything in strict terms.

It's buzzwords pretending to be useful technical jargon, and you can't make that do something it doesn't do, because it does nothing at all.

That's about the size of it. They're like horoscopes for RPGs.

As I noted elsewhere, the tantalizing part -- ignoring the people who claim that the categories are mutually exclusive (which is clearly stupid) -- is that those three descriptions seem to be vaguely sensible. But as K noted, they're not useful for anything, other than starting arguments like "GURPS is from Mars, Call of Cthulhu is from Venus" "GURPS is Simulationist, Call of Cthulhu is Narrativist" -- "No, you're wrong!!"

2e is more narrative?

I'm almost tempted to argue, but I don't really understand the context. I see the word, I know what it is supposed to mean, but I fail to understand.

Winnah wrote:I'm almost tempted to argue, but I don't really understand the context. I see the word, I know what it is supposed to mean, but I fail to understand.

^This sums up GNS perfectly, except that most people are willing to argue about it anyway.

The terms laid out by GNS clearly have some resonance. Most complaints about an RPG do fall into some variant of: 'unfair,' 'unrealistic,' or 'produces a crappy story.' I think there could be a GNS model to talk about meaningfully. It's just not the one we have, which has kind of poisoned the well.

I thought the complaints generally boil down to:
A. The System is bad (D&D 4E, All Palladium, WHFRP, WoD)
B. The Setting is bad (RaHoWa, Forge, WHFRP, WoD)
C. The Fanbase is bad (D&D 4E, AD&D, Iron Kingdoms, WoD)

Which could be construed as "Rate games on how good the system is just for being playable and fun as a system, how good the setting is for being an enjoyable setting to have games in/good flavour for the PCs, and how tolerable the fans are".

OgreBattle wrote:What's The Big Model?

HERE you go.


My personal experience with GNS is that while it seems completely useless when it comes to actual Games; it, however, has helped shed some light on the dynamics of play groups. After spending some time over at the Forge, various idiosyncrasies, conflicts, and instances of incoherent/dysfunctional play within a given group now make a lot more sense to me.
But I'm willing to accept that this just may be what hogarth was talking about with his horoscope analogy. Who knows?


As for how Forge-ites seem to use GNS to describe games, apparently I have no use for "narrativist" games ... as I generally think that they suck. From what I've gathered, "narrativist game" is code for "the rules aren't the boss of me", and usually involve some serious Mary Sue bullshit.

Koumei wrote:I thought the complaints generally boil down to:
A. The System is bad (D&D 4E, All Palladium, WHFRP, WoD)
B. The Setting is bad (RaHoWa, Forge, WHFRP, WoD)
C. The Fanbase is bad (D&D 4E, AD&D, Iron Kingdoms, WoD)

"Unfair," "unrealistic," and "produces a crappy story" are all system problems, however. And coincidentally, WoD also has all three of these problems.

Whatever wrote:

Winnah wrote:I'm almost tempted to argue, but I don't really understand the context. I see the word, I know what it is supposed to mean, but I fail to understand.

^This sums up GNS perfectly, except that most people are willing to argue about it anyway.

Is it just me, or does GNS seem to behave the same way as the Law-Chaos axis of alignment when being discussed with a group?

It seems like you could have a discussion and reach some sort of conclusion (maybe) given a certain group-dependent context and base assumptions, but as soon as you talk to another group, you realize they're speaking a different language. So, any one group might think they have it all figured out and then wonder how the hell other people can't just see how much sense it makes.

So what's a game design article that has useful information on game design.

OgreBattle wrote:So what's a game design article that has useful information on game design.

Here's One

-Username17

OgreBattle wrote:Do all RPGs neatly divide into those categories?

No, not even the guy who made it up, Ron Edwards, was trying to say that. He really explicitly states that no players or games ever fall entirely and solely into one specific 'camp'.

GNS theory is interesting, it doesn't do anything on its own, it just provides a (not innately helpful, always) way of thinking about things.

I am one of the few people on here who'd come to defense of GNS theory far enough to say that it isn't always completely worthless, all of the time.

Nothing about The Big Model or GNS theory actually teaches you how to make games. It is useful--somewhat--for looking at the components of games that others have made.

GNS theory is like a shitty version of Mark Rosewater's "Timmy, Johnny and Spike". Rosewater's article is good because it explains the different psychographics and has concrete examples of what they like. GNS is a bunch of abstract bullshite.

I prefer this to GNS.

Morzas wrote:GNS theory is like a shitty version of Mark Rosewater's "Timmy, Johnny and Spike". Rosewater's article is good because it explains the different psychographics and has concrete examples of what they like. GNS is a bunch of abstract bullshite.

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.