Well-trod ground: Game/Narrative/Simulation

[Whimper]

This GNS stuff has come up with a yawn in another thread, but I'm wondering how people feel about RPGs that lean to one of these three qualities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory

Basically, every game falls on a continuum of:

1. Gamist. How gamey it is. Everyone at the table is focused on character and kit builds, strategy, and winning. I'd also argue that Gamist RPGs will provide a gameplay mechanic that is inherently fun to do over and over- you don't feel like you're playing if you take away that mechanic. The rules can be altered to make way for cooler rules.

2. Narrativist. Focused on character's individual and group stories and character arcs, focused on engaging plot and group storytelling. Players make choices for the good of the story, not just their own PC. The rules can be changed/fudged to allow for more natural or interesting scenes to take place, or removed entirely if they get in the way.

3. Simulationist. The purpose of the game is to provide rules that describe how everything in that world works, with or without player involvement. A player wants to accomplish something, and she and the GM decide how the rules allow or describe it. Simulationist games trust their participants to manage the storytelling (if they want it) or the challenge of combat and conflict (if they want it) and focus on providing a set of manageable gameplay mechanics that work and feel appropriate to the genre. The rules can be altered if they can provide a more accurate simulation.

IK under D20 was somewhere between Gamist and Simulationist. The d20 rules provide for a meaty simulation of a world's gears all turning, and the character and combat rules encourage "builds" and strategy and winning. Story is left up to the GM to worry about, and when you ran into situations where the story demanded hand-waving of the rules, it stank to high heaven.

"Whatever happens, Alexia gets the sword and Oberen gets away" feels like an insult to Gamists who did everything right to "win" and to Simulationists who know that this upset breaks the rules.

IK MK2 seems to lean further towards Gamist (based on the simplification of many rules seen so far, and the focus on 'cool character builds' in pre-release materials) with possibly a dash of Narrativist (points awarded for good roleplaying?). Is everybody cool with that?

[Waxahachie]

I'm very cool with the fact that the game's creators are designing a proprietary system that can fit their vision more closely, rather than sticking with the "one size fits all generic system" approach that so many publishers go with these days.

I'm not sure I really buy into the GNS model of looking at games, but insofar as we're discussing it in those terms, I'm glad for a break away from the simulationist approach, as while I value it my appreciation for it is the least of the three approaches.

[PG_The Captain]

So far (in about 20 years) we haven't found a game system that could prevent a narrative playstyle. Heck, we play pretty narratively in the d20 IKRPG and regular D&D3.5 all the time.

In that regard I'm not worried about how the system is "intended" to be played. Most role-playing game systems consist of two main parts: character creation and combat rules. It makes sense, because these two elements need the most details so as to work - character creation so as to enable interesting, personal characters, and combat rules so said characters have the knowledge required to survive a potentially dangerous conflict.

Everything else can be handled on the run. Of course it's nicer if the game includes rules for overland movement, social interactions, getting drunk (Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay had excellent rules for this), exploration and detective-work, etc, but all that needs considerably less number-crunching than combat. Of course, combat can be abstracted greatly, but that tends to lead into either unrealistic or overly lethal combat systems.

I'm a narrative-style player and GM. I appreciate the gamist approach, just not in role-playing games. For me, a role-playing game is more about role-playing and less about game - however, I also like a solid set of rules, because knowing how the game world works also makes it easier for the characters to adapt to different kinds of situations without overstressing the GM. If a player just wants to play a game, well, I've got HeroQuest and a ton of board games. And Warmachine.

[themocaw]

I really dislike the GNS model because of all the baggage it has picked up over the years, including this high-minded elitism that somehow thinks that "Narrativism" is somehow superior to and more mature than the other two aspects. I enjoy a game of Dogs in the Vineyard as much as I do hack-and-slashing through a five-room dungeon, and the emphasis there should be placed on "AS MUCH AS".

Another aspect I dislike is that GNS theory constantly focuses on the game's ruleset, which, in my experience, is only on aspect of what makes an RPG work. I prefer to think of an RPG in terms of story (setting, characters, and plot), rules (gamism, narrativism, and simulationism all fall under here), and socialization (interaction between players). A well-rounded game emphasizes and facilitates all three.

Finally. . . I can't find anyone who can really agree on what the terms mean. Let's take, for instance, rules for fallling damage. Is it simulationist because you're trying to simulate what happens when someone falls from a great height? Is it gamist when a player mentally calculates out whether they can survive falling damage from certain heights but not others? Dogs in the Vineyard is described as a "narrativist" game, but I spend as much time trying to out-game my opponent through canny dice bidding as I do going through the mindset of my cowboy inquisitor.

[Killj0y]

I think that while many games tend towards a given attitude there are always elements of any perspective in every system. Some systems are good a some things and poor at others.

Storyteller system games tend to fall apart when working in complicated combat systems but get the attitude and setting pretty down pat. Deadlands was always pretty good at the storytelling and gaming but the simulation of real world events was on the weak side.

universal systems like gurps or savage worlds (at least in my experience) lean very heavily on getting the simulation worked out for their given value of simulation but when it comes to gaming elements like playing cards or poker chips for setting advancement they fall by the wayside of streamlined rules.

I've also generally been of the experience that your own history with a game and the complexity level of your group plays a big factor in how much of any one you follow. Starting groups go either whole hog on the book as written or tend to wing it until they get the hang of the rules.

The longer you've been in a system the less static the ruleset, allowing for a fluidity and flexability in play where players and GM all agree that some things are best left alone because they mess with the enjoyment of the game.

From my own personal experience I usually ignore stun checks for anything but major falls or electric damage. My groups tend to refuse to run D20 systems at anything below 5th level and there are systems we actively avoid because they don't allow for enough flexability once the game gets rolling or they exhaust their payload of metaplot within a matter of seconds.

[Sosthenes]

Add me in with the ones who despise this sad excuse for a "theory". The three axes of G, N and S are quite arbitrary, I fail to see a proper continuum formed by them (exclusiveness etc.) and the big issue is that placing a game on it results in one huge geometric FAIL, i.e. that a whole game can't (and shouldn't) be reduced to a one-dimensional point. (Never mind the manner of discussion by RE and his "story game" henchmen, which makes it really hard for me to avoid ad hominems)

But now that I've got this preface out of my system, I don't mind the terms used in a loose, colloquial manner. Calling some elements "gamist" is a usable shorthand in international RPG discussions, where it's hard to come up with a good terminology and it usually suffices to get your general opinion across. And as we aren't social scientists, there's very little need for more.


Getting back on the IK track, we really don't know a lot about the current ruleset to make assumptions. Sure, there's a somewhat warmachine-like core, but depending on whether you spackle on more or less of the "right" kind of rules, this neither encourages nor hinders gamism and simulationism. Debating about "GNS-theoretical" differences about IKRPG 2.0 and D20 seems a bit futile at the moment. Never mind that this would probably result again in the horrible baseline argument about where to place D20 itself – the mere thought of it makes me experience violent flashbacks. Oh, Usenet… (I for one would disagree with Whimper's "world-turning simulation", but again, let's not get into that too much)

What do I wish for in GNS terms? Beats me. Is a unified core mechanism S or G, or inherently contrary to one of them? Are "feat points" G or N? Who knows, considering how little we know about them. Will Alexia finally bare it all? Tune in next week…

[jdripley]

Yeah, honestly I think all of this has more to do with the players and their approach to the rules. Little kids with dolls and action figures can roleplay just fine without rules. We adults pick up a roleplaying rule book, find out there's no rules for social interactions, and toss the thing because "it sacrifices story for combat."

What I'd like is a system that has enough crunch to satisfy the powergamers in my group. I'd also like enough rules about social interactions to satisfy the story people in my group. And I'd like all of that to be simple enough that I can wrap my head around it and run some fun games without having to get my PhD in Iron Kingdoms Roleplaying Game MkII.

[Lachlan the Mad]

So far (in about 20 years) we haven't found a game system that could prevent a narrative playstyle.

Paranoia can if you have the right DM

[Sosthenes]

Paranoia can if you have the right DM

Then it's not the system that's preventing the playstyle. And at its core, Paranoia basically is the narrative RPG par excellance, way before any of those new-fangled story game.

Sure, the narrative is you all dying many horrible deaths (per person), but hey, at least it's an ethos.

[Lachlan the Mad]

Then it's not the system that's preventing the playstyle. And at its core, Paranoia basically is the narrative RPG par excellance, way before any of those new-fangled story game.

Sure, the narrative is you all dying many horrible deaths (per person), but hey, at least it's an ethos.

Depends on how you define "narrative" I guess. When I play Paranoia, I have a very adversarial (yet awesome) DM who plays fast and loose with the rules and encourages MASSIVE amounts of backstabbing. We almost never finish a mission, and generally at least one party member (frequently me) turns out to be the worst kind of mutant commie traitor imaginable and gets executed three times at the debriefing. We roll up new characters every week, since most of us wind up running out of clones, so there's really no "ongoing" narrative (which IMO the definition in the OP implied was part of the Narrative style of game). But the running narrative in each individual session is very strong.

...yeah, I'm with you on the whole game/narrative/simulation trinity being totally out of whack

[Whimper]

Okay, so wow. People really hate this stuff, while I have no history with it at all. Perhaps colloquial and casual discussion of these axes is all I'm qualified for.

But seriously, you don't think that you can establish a spectrum of how much a game is built around winning builds and strategies, then place various games along that scale?

Or the same with how much a game system encourages and supports narrative collaboration?

Or the same with what lengths games go to recreate a working world and describe the occurrences within it?

I don't see these as polar opposites, or as different extremes. But I think it is fair to say that games have various levels of these qualities, and that players who prefer one type might not love the other two.

[Sosthenes]

Depends on how you define "narrative" I guess.

Defining words is a job for the computer, citizen. It's interesting that you think that this is a choice left to each participant. Or do you think we need a consensus for that? Do you know which other word starts with the letters C-O?

But seriously, you don't think that you can establish a spectrum of how much a game is built around winning builds and strategies, then place various games along that scale?

Oh, where should I start. First of all, what "spectrum"? Are we talking about a ternary continuum where moving towards narrativism moves you away from other corners? Or simply an absolute axis of "gamism"? What's the zero point of that? What's the unit? How do you quantify this? We can talk about games having "gamist" element, given that we first agree on a proper definition of that term. But do you then add up the "values" of those elements to come to a total sum of systematic gamism?

"Winning builds and strategies" as a definition? So chess is pretty non-gamist, as I don't have "builds" there?

Like I said above, taking parts of that "theory" (blech), and talking about how those terms apply to game elements can be interesting, but squeezing whole games through the leaky raster of this poorly thought out pseudo-social construct isn't worth a lot, in this poster's opinion. Its end results are often poor mixtures of statistical bean counting and French deconstructionist polysyllabic orgies (the worst kind of orgies).

Discussing bits is usually not as bad. Judging a whole game system usually is, and comparisons fall into the same trap. You'll get a whole bunch of "not the way I play it", especially given the amount of optional rules, "obvious" house rules and the fact that almost every game apart from World of Synnibar explicitly states that you can ignore the rules as much as you like.

And in the end: What for? So IKRPG2.0 has 2.7 Rons of narrativism, whereas D20 has 2.2 (core RAW). The Princess Bride has a 8.1 IMDB rating, The Godfather has 9.2.

[themocaw]

Paranoia can if you have the right DM

Paranoia has a very strong narrative element. It's just that the narrative in question is a black comedy of errors.

But seriously, you don't think that you can establish a spectrum of how much a game is built around winning builds and strategies, then place various games along that scale?

You can try, but you run into a problem: the rules don't matter. At least, not compared to the REAL power around the gaming table: the GM.

Example: let's take D&D 4e. 4e generally gets placed under the "gamist" category. However, I've seen 4e D&D run VERY story-based by player groups who appreciate the balanced combat, but like that the game steps aside entirely when it comes to things like social interaction. Vampire: The Masquerade generally gets lumped under "narrativist" because of its emphasis on story and character, but my first thought when I think of Vampire is the incredibly twinked-out combat-monster group that was my first Vampire coterie - pure gamism.

Besides, how do you measure if a game is more "X" than another? Let's take two examples of "narrative" model games: "Dogs in the Vineyard" and "3:16 - Carnage among the Stars." Does the fact that "Dogs" offers more up-front character customization than 3:16 make it more gamist? What about the fact that 3:16's gameplay includes a competitive element where party members try to screw each other over for kills - does that make it more gamist than Dogs? Does it make it more gamist than D&D, where competition between players is de-emphasized in favor of cooperation against a common foe? Compare them both to "Don't Rest Your Head," where gameplay is based around carefully balancing your Madness against your Exhaustion and Discipline.

Compare them ALL to Mekton Zeta, a game with insanely in-depth rules for mecha creation, but extremely simple rules for creating player characters. Is that simulationist? Gamist? Japanese mecha anime in the Real Robot genre tends to spend a lot of time working out stats and specs for their giant robots, but define characters in terms of broad strokes and personality traits. Where does that fall in the GNS spectrum?

Hell, I could even argue it's narrativist: Mekton Zeta includes a "Veteran/Rookie" divide where certain characters begin the campaign with more skills and experience but progress slower, meaning that they'll be outstripped by the younger, faster party members by the end of the game. In fact, they're encouraged to die dramatically at an appropriate moment to inspire their allies.

Sounds like "making choices for the good of the story, not just their own PC," to me.

Finally, consider this: have you ever noticed that no one who subscribes to GNS theory ever seems to claim that they're trying to make the most "simulationist" game possible? The emphasis is always on the vague and nebulous "narrativism," with a nod to "gamism" as a secondary aspect. This says to me that the real audience for GNS theory is as a backlash against the "tables and rules" design of older RPGs.

Which, to reach my long-winded conclusion, is the REAL reason why people like me don't like GNS theory: because in my mind, it's associated with the kind of snobby artiste type roleplayers who don't like a game unless it's printed in a trade paperback format and sneer at anything that uses a d20 as "hack-and-slash gamism."

In the end all the games I play are narrativist anyway. It's just that sometimes the narrative is "Thrag the Barbarian cleaving his way through orcs for fame, fortune, and glory," and the focus of the narrative is on exactly how well his magic longsword clove through that orc's skull.

[profparm]

The Princess Bride has a 8.1 IMDB rating, The Godfather has 9.2.

Wait, what? Anyone rated EITHER of these movies less than a 10?!?! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

As for the actual topic of conversation, I prefer games that would normally be lumped in to "gamist" (like dnd 4e) for the fact that their developers tried to BALANCE the classes, so that when we get to our one combat every 2-4 sessions or so, one player doesn't just run in, kill the boss, and win the fight by himself. (This has still happened with me with 4e, but only for someone who looked up a combo online, and now I just inform players that if they ever design a character like that, the character will die to GM forces out of their control.) When you run a narrative game like Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World but one of the players is a power gamer and not as much of a roleplayer, he's going to make a character that has the power to kill near-indiscriminately and that the other players don't have any ability to deal with themselves. Because, by focusing more on the "narrative" or "simulative" sides of the game, they don't bother balancing the "gamist" sides. Don't get me wrong, that one power gamer will still have the best fighty character in a 4e game, but being closer to balanced, when it happens that once every 2-4 sessions, he won't horribly outshine every other player, just be the mvp of the fight, which is usually good enough to keep both him and the rest of the group happy.

I have to side with everyone else as well that points out the fairly obvious point that the rules are irrelevant. As GMs, we do what we ****ing like, and not the game designers, not the elitist roleplayers, and CERTAINLY not our puny PCs can ever stop us! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Waxahachie]

Rules are still important. As much promise as the argument regarding the GM doing whatever the GM wants regardless of the rules has, it is nevertheless premised upon the idea that some rules are being followed, enforced, ignored, deleted, added, modified, or manipulated. Certainly if a group is truly determined, they can take any system and make it into whatever they want based upon their intentions, and that's great. For a given group, they should be playing what all of them want to play - and that's why most systems are explicitly permissive in that regard.

But no one is really putting forward the argument that just because a set of rules falls into one category or another, that the system in question is entirely within that category and beyond the ability of a GM and players to modify. That's a straw man argument that a few people here have set up and knocked down.

I would agree that some systems on the whole are more conducive to certain types of gameplay than others. Labeling one system as "narrative" does not mean that no other system can be used for narrative capacity, nor does it mean that the system in question has no other capacity other than a narrative one. Instead, it means that the system in question has certain aspects that explicitly encourage narrative gameplay or are supportive of it.

I suppose it's a matter of preference. Some people might like to take a system that is relatively unsupportive of the type of gameplay they desire and house rule the everloving **** out of it until they come to an acceptable result. Personally, I'd rather take a system with a vision and mechanics that support my own aspiration for the style of game I plan to run and use just that.

[Sosthenes]

I'm not saying that all games are created equal, but the impact of the group's tastes and the GM's judgment is often paramount to that. This is especially true for the much-argued about "narrativism" axis. And I would argue that often one simple rule (house or not) is an insanely huge influence on that. Something like "action points" that you are able to use to do "script editing, i.e. minor or major plot addition and rewrites would change a game immensely. And said rules could be grated onto almost anything, as they're pretty orthogonal to the rest of the system, whether it's Rolemaster or GURPS. Never mind that some groups might have a less codified version of this as a general gaming style instead of pinned down rules, but I'll stick to "proper" rules for the sake of the argument (As a group style, I like to call this the "Everbody's the DM's girlfriend" scenario).

This is where the "ternary plot" advocats usually come in and say that it's not about having big narrativist game elements, it's about having fewer G/S elements, as those somehow subtract from the N experience. Which always seems like a "It's not enough that I win, everybody else has to lose" deal. Don't think we'll get a lot of that in here, though, we're not the types.

But to belabor my point, it's not just that I think that the whole "theory" ain't one, and the whole divisiveness of the discussions pertaining to it (which might be intrinsic), it's that I don't think it's worth talking about it in most circumstances. And in my opinion, the system update for the IKRPG is one of those. The updates just won't be "extreme" enough to warrant a "core values" dispute. It's like arguing whether tennis, soccer or football is the better game when you're actually comparing Eli Manning and Ben Roethlisberger.



I'd much rather "nitpick" about some lower-level attributes of the system. Like whether it's better to have something closer to the setting or more abstracted above it (especially important for things like character creation and magic). Or whether people prefer a lot of subsystems that are tailored to the specific situations or one general mechanic everything is derived from and built upon (e.g. monster-building in 3E vs 4E, surprise rules in OD&D vs. D20 etc.). As far as I've seen it, the changes will be more alongside these axes than "paradigm-changing" GNS acrobatics.

[themocaw]

I'd much rather "nitpick" about some lower-level attributes of the system. Like whether it's better to have something closer to the setting or more abstracted above it (especially important for things like character creation and magic). Or whether people prefer a lot of subsystems that are tailored to the specific situations or one general mechanic everything is derived from and built upon (e.g. monster-building in 3E vs 4E, surprise rules in OD&D vs. D20 etc.). As far as I've seen it, the changes will be more alongside these axes than "paradigm-changing" GNS acrobatics.

Now we're talking.

I generally fall on the side of "Fast, Furious, Fun." Basically, the less number crunching I have to do, the better.

I prefer a system where a basic attack can be resolved almost as quickly as it is declared and the results are unambiguous: Warmahordes, with it's "Roll to hit, dice minus X damage to the Y" works just fine for me.

I prefer a system where I can do a minimum of book-keeping of moment to moment status changes: anything that affects the battlefield should be easily represented by a single token or template.

Fluff-based rules should be modular and easily swapped out. The problem I had with games like old WOD was that the fluff was inherent to the core mechanic in each book, leading to issues of how to resolve conflict between books when they tried to unify the setting. D&D had the same problem with its schools of magic when they made the transition to 4e. In addition, modular fluff rules extend game engine lifespan by allowing for easier houseruling and application to multiple settings.

Finally, I prefer a unified overall mechanic over tons of subsystems: it matters less to me whether the explosion you make is from a grenade or a magic spell, as long as the end result is "explosion, right there." The resources you use to make the explosion can differ, but making the actual explosion itself should be more similar than different.

[The_Gun_Nut]

<snip>
But to belabor my point, it's not just that I think that the whole "theory" ain't one, and the whole divisiveness of the discussions pertaining to it (which might be intrinsic), it's that I don't think it's worth talking about it in most circumstances.
<snip>

Pardon me a moment, were you saying that GNS theory isn't a theory? I don't disagree with anything else you've posted, but to say that GNS theory isn't a theory is like saying that dappled horse over there isn't a horse because you don't like the pattern of its coat. You may not like the narrow focus that GNS espouses, and it appears that you aren't the only one with that sentiment, but such denials tend to take away from your other, more valuable points. EDIT: Feel free to ignore this section if I simply missed your point.

To keep the post within the bounds of the OT, I'd have to say that Simulating a setting, and its people and environments, creates a much greater sense of versimilitude for me, personally. Narrative and Gamist elements will tend to exist within a game, due to the participants. Some people invent creative and interesting death cries for their war game models to go through upon expiration, while others, like the individual above who refers to playing wtih dice pools in DotV, will focus on the game within the game to maximize their advantages. There's nothing wrong with any of that. It all depends on what you want to get out of your game.

BTW, Paranoia is the only game I've played where everyone died in the briefing room. And everyone loved it.

[Munindk]

Pardon me a moment, were you saying that GNS theory isn't a theory? I don't disagree with anything else you've posted, but to say that GNS theory isn't a theory is like saying that dappled horse over there isn't a horse because you don't like the pattern of its coat. You may not like the narrow focus that GNS espouses, and it appears that you aren't the only one with that sentiment, but such denials tend to take away from your other, more valuable points. EDIT: Feel free to ignore this section if I simply missed your point.

I dont see anything wrong with saying that a so-called theory appears to be so flawed, that you cant really call it a theory. To use your horse example, would you credit a theory that says that dappled horses arent really horses, because proper horses are brown or black?

I'm not sure I understand GNS theory, but I did catch this remark:

Primarily, GNS Theory holds that participants in role-playing games reinforce each other's behaviour towards ends which can be divided into three categories: Gamist, Narrativist and Simulationist.

Which I take to mean that you cant use GNS to define a game as Gamist or Narrativist, but you can say that a game encourages Gamist behavior in players.
If I'm right it means that GNS is really more about how a game makes players behave, which leaves me wanting a theory explaining the different types of gamers... but that could be a chicken and egg thing.

[Killj0y]

I think what the GNS theory lacks is any form of functional application. It is all very well to speculate that a system has gamist elements or narrative tendancy but how does that actually help anyone?

A lot of what a game represents is potential. This is why you see odd hybrids like Savage IK. Someone saw enough potential in the Narrative elements and metaplot of the IK world that they ported it into a system with a much more loosely defined simulation and gamist elements. Is it possible to entirely extract all of the meta without rules? My feeling is no, there is a certian amount of baggage associated with any attempt at hybridization but even if you do managed to warp the GNS triangle into a different shape you are going to again see that shape change when applied in actual play.

If we assume that a system has A GNS triangle then the players and GM will also have one based on their tendancy and preferences when operating that system. Overlap on on the other and the two will deform without any clear formula.

Example. Deadlands has often been called the system that turns munchkins into roleplayers. There are several reasons for this but let us assume that it results in a strong bulge along the narrativeist corner of the triagle. There is no predicting how someone with a much more pronounced preference for Gamist and Simulationist elements is going to respond to that and even less chance when you are running a strongly narrative system with a GM who has a stronger gamist bent.

You can use the deadlands system to run 2 groups of players through a grid based tabletop shootout or you can trap them in a haunted house and throw the rulebook out the window so that they have to take turns running each other through their worst nightmares.

Either is possible and having GNS information in advance will not give you any better or worse chance of knowing that when you are going in blind.

If the process were more advanced we could all wear our GNS on our sleeve and with a fairly simple comparison see how compatible new players would be to a given system or group but I think it is a long way from that kind of utility.

Additionally the GNS makes no concessions to quality. Since there are no better or worse systems you cannot make quantitaive judgements about the differences between say Savage worlds and Gurps. And GNS does not tell you how good a system is at even portraying a given element.

Simply because a system has rules for every real world interaction and occurance does not mean that the system is successful in portraying those elements only that it is strongly simulationist without a value judgement as to the flexability or necessity of those rules we cannot use the GNS to say anything meaningful about a game or system.

[Sosthenes]

Pardon me a moment, were you saying that GNS theory isn't a theory?

In a scientific manner? Hardly so. I know, you can call almost anything a "philosophical theory", even general ideas, theorems or principles, but even for those there's usually the requirement of some substantiated treatise on it. And, really, "System does Matter" plus some forum discussions (which the primary proponent and author closed, if I remember correctly)? Even objectivism has more scientific credibility.

Has there actually be any good work done on the primary starting point of this "thoery", the mutual exclusiveness of the three approaches to gaming? This, and the following "suggestion" that one can't cater to all three of those approaches is the core thesis of "GNS theory", not the fact that gamist, narrativist and simulationist elements exist.

It's a brontosaurus theory, not much more. But hey, that's just, like, my opinion, man. I'm not a social scientist, and I haven't followed the discussion in recent years. "GNS theory" discussions rank about on the same level to me as "D&D class tier" ones…

[Lachlan the Mad]

Defining words is a job for the computer, citizen. It's interesting that you think that this is a choice left to each participant. Or do you think we need a consensus for that? Do you know which other word starts with the letters C-O?

...In my group, you would be executed for saying that, actually:

STEVE: (in response to someone else) Yes, comrade!
LACHLAN: Computer! Computer! Steve just used the word "comrade"! And "comrade" is a communist word! Which is why they both start with "com"!
STEVE: ...are you saying that com-puter is a com-munist?
LACHLAN: Crap. I execute myself.

[The_Gun_Nut]

In a scientific manner? Hardly so. I know, you can call almost anything a "philosophical theory", even general ideas, theorems or principles, but even for those there's usually the requirement of some substantiated treatise on it. And, really, "System does Matter" plus some forum discussions (which the primary proponent and author closed, if I remember correctly)? Even objectivism has more scientific credibility.

Has there actually be any good work done on the primary starting point of this "thoery", the mutual exclusiveness of the three approaches to gaming? This, and the following "suggestion" that one can't cater to all three of those approaches is the core thesis of "GNS theory", not the fact that gamist, narrativist and simulationist elements exist.

It's a brontosaurus theory, not much more. But hey, that's just, like, my opinion, man. I'm not a social scientist, and I haven't followed the discussion in recent years. "GNS theory" discussions rank about on the same level to me as "D&D class tier" ones?

Well, here's the thing. GNS is about player behavior, correct? While thoughts, feelings, and intentions can't be readily quantified, and thus fall into the "philosophical" end, behavior is external, visible, and quantifiable. Intentions producing the behavior are difficult to judge or predict, but human behavior does follow a (highly complex) form of "if-then" causal relationship (this is not the right word, but my grey-matter thesaurus is crapping out on me).

GNS could be used to predict certain types of behavior coming from the interaction of players with a given game system. Data could then be used to push a specific system toward one or more of the axes. Refine the system, test again, gather data. It is possible to use GNS in a scientific manner, but I don't believe that this has been done before. Until it is rigorously tested, you are correct, the proper word for it is hypothesis.

[Whimper]

Admission of ignorance:

I had no idea people felt so strongly about this. Sosthenes, did you basically just say that 'nobody ever brings up GNS unless they are some narrativist elitist jackanape who wants to lord pretentious blah blah blah over everyone'? I am completely astounded to have seen such bitter and hostile replies regarding the GNS "omg-not-a-theory". Not only is this reaction bizarre, I think it is misguided. I only just heard of this way of categorizing games a week or two ago at most. I looked at it, said "Oh how about that, here's something that shows why I prefer 3.5e to 4e or freeform. I guess I like simulation more than poker or improv night."

I don't think an axis has to have some scientifically measurable unit in order to compare things. I think that's an unrealistic standard that you only apply to this scenario because you hate GNS so much. I used the word 'spectrum' because I don't think we're dealing in measurable units but perceivable differences of a qualitative nature.

[PPS_Simon]

Just to shed a little light for you Whimper; GNS was the subject of some extremely lengthy and vicious forums arguments in RPG communities several years ago. Without getting into the merits of the "GNS philosophy" I'll just point out that it is a very divisive subject for some people, though less than it was a few years back. It's sort of like bringing up gun control among certain segments of the US.

[StJason]

Has there actually be any good work done on the primary starting point of this "thoery", the mutual exclusiveness of the three approaches to gaming? This, and the following "suggestion" that one can't cater to all three of those approaches is the core thesis of "GNS theory", not the fact that gamist, narrativist and simulationist elements exist.

This. I have a GM who is great at this. Right now we are running Shadowrun, and we've spent a good couple of sessions just doing detective work and science research to find out who/what has been releasing a new drug onto the streets. We've found out and now are going to head out for a slaughterfest at the Juggalo/cult out in the desert who is distributing things. Of course, there will be a twist when we get there...
Point is, we've barely touched the dice for the last few sessions (narrativist), next session will be very heavily about fighting, strategy, and combat (gamist), and all the while the various groups that we are in the middle of will be pushing their agenda (simulationist). So what? Are we dead in the middle?
The game shifts between the three spectrums as different aspects are needed. In this, the theory falls onto a abstract framework rather then a pragmatic modeling.... heh. The theory itself is more gamist then simulationist.

[Whimper]

Thanks Simon. I knew that people had discussed it before, since every once in awhile someone busts out the old, "Roleplay, not roll play," adage. But I didn't realize it was such a divisive issue, or that people would get so worked up about it.

Can we talk about these things without using GNS language? Maybe if we remove the "-ists" from the ends of things, and just few qualities of games as descriptive, not prescriptive or laced with value-judgments.

[jdripley]

It's sort of like bringing up gun control among certain segments of the US.

Well now that you bring up gun control, let me say this about that!!!!!!

No, I'm just joking Actually I really like your analogy - some topics just get people fired up because they really care about them one way or another. It is interesting how people always assume their preferred way to enjoy a roleplaying game is the best and most superior way, and that all other ways are deficient or defective in some way. As in "I'm in it for the story, and you combat people must all be 13 year olds with crushes on girls you'll never kiss." Or "I'm in it for the combat baby! And all of you story people must be theater major dropouts who are living your burnout careers by proxy of an imaginary friend who hangs out with a pixie talking about art that never existed!"

All I want is a game that throws a bone to all (I'd settle for most! Honestly I would!) of the common ways to enjoy a roleplaying game.

[profparm]

It is interesting how people always assume their preferred way to enjoy a roleplaying game is the best and most superior way, and that all other ways are deficient or defective in some way.

I find this really interesting as well. I can't say I haven't thought this way in the past; but then I went from GMing/playing in a roleplaying heavy group to GMing/playing in a second group that I thought was more combat-focused. The truth is, they're really more group focused, investigating and roleplaying on plot points the GM sets out for the group, whereas the other group is just more individually-focused, with each person oftentimes striving only to improve their own goals. (I act the two different ways in each of the groups as well, heh.) Since setting up combats for less than the whole group is usually time-consuming, especially for one person when a group splits in to individuals, that seems to be the main reason why there's less combat in one than the other, and I've begun to actually enjoy the group-focused game a lot more at times. But I know players who don't think that's fun, or who would still be only focused on their own goals in a game like that, and that's fine.

To use the words that people hate in this thread, it always seems to me like "narrativist" games devolve in to each player getting 1/nth of the GM's time, where n is the number of players, as everyone does their own thing with maybe the occasional team-up. On the contrary, "simulationist" or "gamist" games tend to have more of a group-focus, because in those situations a group-focus is usually more necessary to survival. While that 1/nth of the time can be REALLY enjoyable, as well as when you do actually get to meet up with other players and either help out on their **** or they help out on your **** (or you two oppose each other), I've ended up liking the group-focus a lot more.

(Of course, this is all opinion based on my experiences with roleplaying games over the years, and I'm sure plenty of other people have noticed different or even opposing trends.)

[themocaw]

I think it's a fallacy to think that a system can encompass a certain gaming style simply on the merits of its rules.

A friend of mine comes to mind: "K" hates min-maxing, and he's honestly kinda bad at it. When he roleplays, he's less concerned with the rules and more concerned with doing something interesting and fun and telling a cool story about his character. Under GNS theory, you might think that, "Ah, he must be a narrativist player. Certainly he would be interested in playing a narrative RPG where story is first and foremost, and your characters are defined by their role in the story, and not in their physical characteristics, right?"

I put a game like that in front of "K", and he'll look at me as if I were insane. How is he supposed to tell a story about his character when he doesn't know what his character can do? How is he supposed to know what his character can do without stats? And he doesn't want to overshadow any other players, so of course he wants to be sure that everyone's stats are balanced so that everyone gets a chance in the limelight. . .

So yeah. "K" needs "gamist" elements in his RPGs in order to support his "narrative" goals of telling a cool story.

My hopes for IKRPG are that it follows the same "Page 5" design goals as Warmahordes. For instance, I don't want to spend lots of time working out to the penny how much it costs to make a spellstorm pistol, just like I don't want to spend lots of time kitting out individual soldiers. Just like I can say, "Legionnaires, Max, Farilor, 9 points, go," I want to be able to say, "Spellstorm Pistol, Accuracy bonus, X days, Y gcs, Z difficulty skill check, go."

I want IKRPG to encourage my players to take risks and be creative, work together. I want them to feel like they can try to take on that rampaging helljack by leading it into an abandoned warehouse and knocking out the support pillars to bring the roof down on its head. I want the big guy with a Caspian battleblade running around knocking in mechanithrall heads like a bawss, only to be snuck up on by a Brute Thrall. . . and then be saved by his buddy with the scoped rifle who was on overwatch.

If a 'jack marshal player asks me if his warjack can rip off an enemy warjack's arm and beat him with it, I want to say, "Yes, and. . ." or "You can try. . ." not "Let me see if the rules allow that. . ."

I guess all I'm trying to say is, if PP brings the G, I'll supply the NS.

[PG_Cloud-Gatherer]

I don't think even that necessarily holds true, profparm. I've been in games that were very narrative-driven (the best was an AD&D game, even), to the point that we'd occasionally go whole sessions without rolling dice, and it was never about each player interacting with the DM individually. In fact, the best sessions were very little work for the DM because the interpersonal stuff among the party itself was good enough to keep us all interested. I'm of the opinion a good group will rise above being a collection of individual heroes who all want to pull the story along according to their personal agendas, and if the characters are more than amorphous sacks of HP and gear bonuses, a certain amount of narrative focus will naturally develop.

So I've still got to go back to the idea that it's more about the group than the game, though I do acknowledge that certain games do nudge players in a particular direction more than others.

[Sosthenes]

I had no idea people felt so strongly about this. Sosthenes, did you basically just say that 'nobody ever brings up GNS unless they are some narrativist elitist jackanape who wants to lord pretentious blah blah blah over everyone'?

Nope, that certainly wasn't my intention, please quote the particularly offensive portions that lead you to interpret it that way, so that I can amend my ways

I merely voiced my general discontent with the "theory". Not saying that those jackanapes don't exist, but as far as I can remember (and read), I didn't even focus on the narrativism-uber-alles crowd – although much of that particular problem is derived from the baseline assumption that the three approaches carry inherent mutual exclusion with them.

I am completely astounded to have seen such bitter and hostile replies regarding the GNS "omg-not-a-theory". Not only is this reaction bizarre, I think it is misguided. I only just heard of this way of categorizing games a week or two ago at most. I looked at it, said "Oh how about that, here's something that shows why I prefer 3.5e to 4e or freeform. I guess I like simulation more than poker or improv night."

You should see me when I get really bitter and hostile, that was more my "not this again"/"facepalm" reaction. I get way more emotional when talking about guns and sorcery here in this forum…

And honestly, I do get the impression that you're confusing the core threefold model with GNS theory a bit. One defines some common term for discussions, the other draws conclusions from this.

[profparm]

I guess all I'm trying to say is, if PP brings the G, I'll supply the NS.

I concur, doctor!

[Munindk]

Can we talk about these things without using GNS language? Maybe if we remove the "-ists" from the ends of things, and just few qualities of games as descriptive, not prescriptive or laced with value-judgments.

I tend to categorize games as either rules light or rules heavy, where heavy is probably a poorly chosen word, rigid or complex rules might be a better term. In the light end I put things like storyteller and savage worlds, in the middle I've got things like the old Deadlands and a lot of different independent games, the heavy end is GURPS and 3.x including Pathfinder.

I like RPGs where I dont feel that the rules work against me, either as a player or GM. In 3.x I often feel I end up doing too much bookkeeping and that managing the rules cuts into my storytelling time. In Deadlands I find that the rules compliment my storytelling and actually helps it along with. With Storyteller I tend to do a lot of storytelling and the rules are just there for when I need to determine something randomly and to give the characters a overview of what their characters can do.

I much prefer systems that are light on rules, as I think it gives both players and GMs a lot of freedom when defining their characters and the actions of the characters. But I've found that some players need or prefer a very rigid rules system to help them define their characters, this doesnt necessarily make them gamist or min/maxers, they just want a very clear definition of what their characters can and cant do.

[The_Gun_Nut]

And nothing says that a game can't encompass all aspects of the GNS hypothesis (thereyago), but stress one aspect over the other two, or vice versa.

For me, rules heavy or rules light don't matter as much as how well the rules convey the reality (or plausibility, if you prefer) of the game setting. Earthdawn, for example, is extra-crunchy with a side of chips, but the rules within convey a sense of how magic, and the adepts who weild it, interacts with the world and how the world reacts to the adept's actions. It uses a single mechanic to do so (the Step System), yet is very "rules heavy" for most people. Savage Worlds is considered fairly "rules light," by comparison, but it also uses a single mechanic (as I recall). There are tons of extra books out for SW (including Earthdawn now, btw) but is still "light."

[Whimper]

Nope, that certainly wasn't my intention, please quote the particularly offensive portions that lead you to interpret it that way, so that I can amend my ways

Ha, you know what, I had your posts mixed up with themocaw's line about narrativists being elitists. And I'm not offended, more just perplexed since I didn't know just how much history this controversial topic has.

The thing is, I feel like I'm pretty good at storytelling, but not very good at coming up with rules or designing games. That's what I really want Privateer to do for me- have a whole lot of really sensible rules for describing the world's motion, and put those into a really fun game. Leave the story and player involvement for me to worry about. If you build it, they will come, and all that.

[cryptomancer]

I always love the Pathfinder stuff that makes a point, when giving you lots and lots of Simulationist stuff, to always mention that it's entirely optional. Do they give you a specific DC to detect whether a given guy secretly harbors dark secrets about his grandfather's whiskey brewing lineage? Sure. But it's really up to the players and DM how rules-ey they want things to be.

I find that Narrativist/Gamist games work best, but that may be because I tend to play in groups with either A) a bunch of players who are new to the game, and thus don't want to get bogged down by a ton of rules to learn, or B) people who know the rules but would rather immerse themselves in the story.

Overly Gamist/Simulationist campaigns tend, I find, to suffer from Power Gamer Syndrome. There's always That Guy, the one who tweaks everything out and squeezes every exploit they can out of the system, sometimes without even realizing they're doing it. I remember I was talking to a player about their character build. He had complaints. His Gunmage-type guy had fantastic ranged damage, incredible magical ability, and a Toughness score to make him pretty darn hardy. He was complaining about getting bogged by melee enemies after only a round or three of hideously devastating fireball-laden ranged doom. I eventually said, "So, you want to be strong at ranged, strong at magic, strong as a damge soak, and strong in melee, without any mitigating factors whatsoever in any combat scenario? Really?" He paused, then demurred.

-crypto

[Sosthenes]

Ha, you know what, I had your posts mixed up with themocaw's line about narrativists being elitists. And I'm not offended, more just perplexed since I didn't know just how much history this controversial topic has.

You haven't been there, man, you haven't been there.
We often do get these arguments in the RPG scene. I still remember the "storytelling vs hack-and-slay" debates that the White Wolfe adherents brought forth in the wake of Vampire The Masquerade becoming a big thing. (Never mind the fact that V:TM is a pretty classist, fightey-smashey game in itself)
Or, hey, 4E and them copying everything from MMORPGs (allegedly).

I do wonder whether online knitting communities have their own versions of this.

It did result in a lot of narrativist elitism, though. At least we got some games out of that, even if I don't really care too much about Jenga towers, Mormon cowboys and tantric wizards. (And I utterly despise the word "fantasy heartbreaker" that arose out of the same field.)

Personally, I've found a lot of the narrativist discussion to be quite uninteresting, especially once the proponents of Ron Edwards point of view isolated this aspect, i.e. removed most game and simulation aspects. A lot of the resulting, special purpose rule systems where a bit too twee for me, but that's little surprise as even within the "normal" spectrum of games I tend towards genericness (at least on a D20 level, preferably on a SW/GURPS/HERO one). It was like every writer using a special kind of dialect and writing style to emphasize the content and structure of a novel, instead of using "normal" English, every book trying to be A Clockwork Orange.

And as many in this thread seem to concur, I prefer to handle the narrativist bit by, well, narration, outside of the rule system. I actually think most of the people here wouldn't mind a good discussion about game system vs. simulation of the world or individual aspects thereof.

The thing is, I feel like I'm pretty good at storytelling, but not very good at coming up with rules or designing games. That's what I really want Privateer to do for me- have a whole lot of really sensible rules for describing the world's motion, and put those into a really fun game. Leave the story and player involvement for me to worry about. If you build it, they will come, and all that.

That seems a somewhat broad consensus in the RPG world. The biggest success of more narrativist approaches is more in line with FATE and its aspects, which are pretty tame in comparison.

I do tend towards simulation a bit myself, but don't think this is necessarily opposed to game elements, if done the right way. Sure, it's often hard to balance, as the real world often isn't fair. Some weapons are better than others, to use a simple example. But quite often, games with a somewhat simulationist bent boil down a lot of things to some core rules, with a lot of "what's good for the goose" sentiments. Which in turn makes it easier for me as a GM to judge things and create new NPCs, monsters etc. I'm willing to put up with some extra effort for that. Prime example: Creating NPCs/monsters. D&D 3E used the same rules for monsters as for PCs (down to taking levels in "dragon"). Earlier editions basically had hit dice plus ad hoc abilities plus lots of special cases (as did lots of other games that followed). I quite liked that I had the same stats for every creature, made it easier to judge some situations and think about often overlooked parts of monsters (skills, Wisdom etc.). Maybe it also caters to some very specific case of gamer/programmer OCD that I have. (Point-based systems give me a big boost there, in an almost "Neo"-like way.)

D&D 4E went more gamist. Monster stats were inherently balanced (lots of stats based on encounter difficulty), special abilities were somewhat ad hoc. Creating new monsters often resulted into "re-skinning" others, mixing and matching. Basically a lot of a priori work done by "the professionals" at WotC, no "admin access" for you as a DM. You're the DJ remixing the records of others. Granted, this gives you wide range of music to mix, but my personal preference is to see the sheet music and create my own songs. I'm perfectly fine with the fact that this means I'll have to restrict myself to 12 bar blues, instead of getting to rehash everything from classical to electronica (generic system vs. world-/nation-/archetype-specific systems).

Wonder how this will turn out in IKRPG 2. Can't quite believe that we'll get "careers" in the Monsternomicon, although there could be some overlap with templates/quickplates/archetypes. Get some core stats, put the "apex predator" career on it, mix in "big biter"? I won't get my hopes up, though. Probably more a pre-generated list of beasties with some customization options.

And I would be really, really, REALLY surprised to see a "bare metal" approach to spell design. That's quite hard and rare in the RPG industry, so I expect to see D&D-like special cases and per-spell rules.

[profparm]

I do wonder whether online knitting communities have their own versions of this.

It's usually much worse, from what I've seen. I have friends in online crafting groups, and when there's some sort of dispute, it's not settled by a sigh of "Oh here we go again" and a long practiced departure in to the logic of why you disagree. It's settled by the two originators of the dissenting opinions attacking each other's personal lives on facebook, defriending each other, and often one or both starting NEW groups that don't deal with the fascist that disagrees with them. And I thought nerds were unreasonable on the internet....

[Sosthenes]

Oh, I can believe that. But I wondered whether the type of arguments are similar. For a hobby community (albeit one the more cerebral end of the spectrum), we're talking about way too many pseudo-scientific concepts, without any scientific rigor. It's almost as bad as in politics…

The knitting equivalent would have to be something like "You use a polyester blend? How dare you despoil the earth mother!", "Does owing a knitting machine make you a slave of the sartorial-industrial complex?", "Optimum steel alloys for crocheting needles – why titanium is just WRONG!"