GNS Theory; What Are Your Thoughts?

[Keklas Rekobah]

What are your opinions of the "GNS Theory" of role-playing games?

The GNS Theory, as originally developed by Ron Edwards, is a relatively amorphous body of work attempting to create a theory of how role-playing games work. 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. Strictly, GNS theory is concerned with players' social interactions, but it has been extrapolated to direct game design...

Gamist refers to decisions based on what will most effectively solve the problem posed.

Narrativist refers to decisions based on what would best further a dramatic story or address a central theme.

Simulationist refers to decisions based on what would be most realistic or plausible within the game's setting, or to a game where the rules try to simulate the way that things work in that world, or at least the way that they could be thought of working.

I think it might have applications towards designing Traveller adventures, in that encounters and such could be more "well-rounded" and have wider appeal than your average station-crawl. If there is something for everyone in an adventure, then players are more likely to come back for the next session. But what are your opinions?

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Welll....

Being mostly a Canonista (and not just for Traveller) I tend toward Simulation followed by Narrative. Sometimes though I get all crazy and do Narrative first and Simulation next.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I dunno... it sounds like mumbo-jumbo to me.

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

You're probably right ... reading more on the subject gives me flashbacks to all those psychology classes I took in college. It takes some psychologists 15 pages to describe a behavioral syndrome, when you or I would be satisfied with saying simply "Bat-Hat Crazy".

 

[aramis]

It's a good tool for analyzing why a game does or doesn't work for a particular player or two.

It's not, however, going to enable you to make a module everyone will enjoy. See, if you pick a spot in the middle, the people whose tastes are on the edges will find it mediocre, and those in the corners will simply hate it for being too much of the other two corners.

Really, GNS is about system mechanics, not so much adventures.

And Traveller, in all editions, tends towards Gamist-Simulationist.

Envision a triangle, ∆GNS. People's tastes and systems fall somewhere inside. I'm somewhere near the line NS.

Traveller tends to be a bit towards line GS... tho MGT seems to have moved it more towards the center and away from the G corner...

 

[captainjack]

You're probably right ... reading more on the subject gives me flashbacks to all those psychology classes I took in college. It takes some psychologists 15 pages to describe a behavioral syndrome, when you or I would be satisfied with saying simply "Bat-Hat Crazy".

Some of us are satisfied with that, too.

 

[FreeTrav]

Reading that, I'm getting flashbacks to shortly after the Great rec.games.frp Reorganization of mumble years ago on usenet - the debate that the various aspects of that theory engendered caused the creation of a whole new newsgroup in the hierarchy (rec.games.frp.advocacy), and while it didn't seem to be engendering outright flamewars the last time I looked into the newsgroup, the debate was STILL going on...

 

[Hemdian]

I think it can be a useful tool if not over applied. As Aramis said, Traveller tends towards the GS line ... no doubt because of GDW’s origins as a designer of simulations for use by professors of the University of Illinois and their roots in wargaming in general.

The discussion of GNS theory caused some to re-examine the whole style of RPGs. The emergence of WoW and online gaming, which are primarily gamist in design, sucked a lot of gamist-orientated players out of the hobby ... slewing the average of those remaining. The serendipity of these two events provided the impetus for the design of a number of more narrative-based games: Burning Wheel, Polaris, Prime Time Adventures, etc.

Personally, I would describe myself, like Aramis, near the NS line ... but tending towards S. So, as a Referee, I’m looking at Burning Wheel (or Burning Empires) and Prime Time Adventures for some ideas on technique, but find the actual games themselves too lacking in the simulationist side.

GNS theory can also be a useful for Traveller Referees as a starting point for analysing your players, and provide the game they want to play as opposed to the one you want to run. (Hopefully the two are one and the same.) YMMV.

 

[aramis]

BW and BE are both firmly GN... I, too, enjoy them, but find the low simulation troubling at times.

I've got, however a mix of GN and GS players. And that creates friction. The G players have moved on to MMOs and D&D4.

 

[Shonner]

What are your opinions of the "GNS Theory" of role-playing games?

Sounds like a cakewalk once you get past the "players showing up late to a game" and "players yapping with their friends on cell phones during a game" (or my favorite: "players reading other RPG books they just bought that day instead of paying attention to a game") phase.

 

[cowpercoles]

mumbo jumbo, unjumbo-fied pt 1

I dunno... it sounds like mumbo-jumbo to me.

The descriptions on the Forge website about GNS read like an academic dissertation (Ron Edwards is a Biology professor after all)!

Here's my take on GNS, in layman's terms:

Some important things to keep in mind with GNS Theory:

Creative Agendas: While the players are all sitting down at the gaming table to play a game of "make believe" together, they may have different needs and goals about the kind of game they want to play. The 3 different kinds of RPGs out there are "Gamist" games, "Simulationist" games, and "Narrativist" games. When the players all have the same agenda/goal, they share the same expectations about the game, and get their gaming needs met. When they have different goals, game sessions can break down because some players are getting bored and/or frustrated, especially if none of the players sit down and openly discuss what they want out of the game.

The Game System you're playing Matters: RPGs are designed to support just one of these 3 agendas well (it's too hard to shift gears and satisfy all the players for enough of the play session). If the rules don't support the right creative agenda, the GM typically has to "mess with" the rules to make them support the goals the players have. It's better to just play a game designed specifically to meet your gaming needs. Put another way, if you want to play traveller, play traveller; don't try to make your players play traveller by using the Bunnies and Burrows rulebook.

 

[cowpercoles]

Gamism

Here's a breakdown of the 3 types of GNS rpgs:

Gamist: the GM designs a scenario/set of challenges for the players (typically working together as a team) to "beat". The players spend game currency (like hit points, money, magic points, potions of healing) and maneuver their characters strategically to play the game well, "beat the game", and then get rewarded with more currency. They spend this to level up/power up their characters and then face a new set of challenges. This is how you "win" a gamist game. If you play poorly, your character gets penalized or even killed, which is how you "lose".
Typical examples: Dungeons and Dragons, World of Warcraft
Gamist quote: "Remember that time we were in the Tomb of Doom, and thought we were all going to die, but then Jerry used his potion of awesomeness, and we killed the Dragon and got the treasure. That was cool."

 

[aramis]

The descriptions on the Forge website about GNS read like an academic dissertation (Ron Edwards is a Biology professor after all)!

Specializing in bats...

His propensity to analysis may be unrelated to his being a professor. Mine certainly is not from being an educator; the opposite in fact...

The Game System you're playing Matters: RPGs are designed to support just one of these 3 agendas well

This is the single most important error of the Edwards School.... That a game supports one and only one of the agendas; it's a logical fallacy that undermines just about everything Edwards was initially trying for... and anyone insisting that people fall into just three categories needs to review a statistics class.

It is far better to think of it as a triangular space, with people preferring something close to where their preferences fall, since few people are truly aligned to any one, and most games support 2 of the agendas to some degree; to a great extent, Traveller succeeds by aiming squarely for the middle, missing a bit each time, and drawing a slightly different crowd each try.

The middle is NOT, despite Edwards' claims otherwise, always rules mush. Sometimes it's elegant compromise (which still leaves people around the edges of the graph unsatisfied, but those near the middle tend to be most satsified)... not often, but sometimes. And some of the worst rules mush comes from pure simulationist games... Web of Stars, TriTac, C&S 1E...

Heck, I know people who are pretty firmly in the middle of the graph. They have equal disdain for excesses of story as for excesses of rules for the sake of rules, victory for the sake of victory, or simulation when it slows things down...

 

[cowpercoles]

Specializing in bats...

His propensity to analysis may be unrelated to his being a professor. Mine certainly is not from being an educator; the opposite in fact...



This is the single most important error of the Edwards School.... That a game supports one and only one of the agendas; it's a logical fallacy that undermines just about everything Edwards was initially trying for... and anyone insisting that people fall into just three categories needs to review a statistics class.

It is far better to think of it as a triangular space, with people preferring something close to where their preferences fall, since few people are truly aligned to any one, and most games support 2 of the agendas to some degree; to a great extent, Traveller succeeds by aiming squarely for the middle, missing a bit each time, and drawing a slightly different crowd each try.

The middle is NOT, despite Edwards' claims otherwise, always rules mush. Sometimes it's elegant compromise (which still leaves people around the edges of the graph unsatisfied, but those near the middle tend to be most satsified)... not often, but sometimes. And some of the worst rules mush comes from pure simulationist games... Web of Stars, TriTac, C&S 1E...

Heck, I know people who are pretty firmly in the middle of the graph. They have equal disdain for excesses of story as for excesses of rules for the sake of rules, victory for the sake of victory, or simulation when it slows things down...

I agree with you that we shouldn't pidgeon-hole people into arbritrary categories about what their gaming needs, likes and dislikes are. I like to play all three types of games, and fall kind of in the middle of the triangle as well. I don't think edwards is saying that players like only one style of play. I also don't think edwards thinks that games have to support only one agenda.

What he's saying is that RPGs are most satisfying, when the game is designed with mechanics that support one style of play, over the others. Also, if players know what the creative agendas are, they can meet before you start a game, and openly discuss what kind of game they want to play, saving time and hassle. You get the most "bang for your buck", making sure most players get their needs met for the majority of gameplay if you do this.

That's not to say you can't make a game that tries to support all 3 agendas. My experience has been that when you move from one agenda to another, you have the "shift gears", from one set of game mechanics to another.

Since i'm in the middle of the triangle, I can shift gears pretty well and am easy to satisfy. I think most people are not like us, and fall on the ends of the triangle, and they're not going to be as satisfied as you or I when the game mechanics don't let them play around in the "shared imagined space" in the way they were expecting when they sat down at the gaming table.

For example, the focus of D&D is about learning the rules, and playing the game well strategically with your buddies to beat the game. If the RPG system you're using is "Primetime Adventures", there are no rules systems in the design, that let you explore a dungeon, kill stuff, score points and level up. Players who come to the table with mostly that agenda aren't going to play the game they want to, and will get bored.

I once played a traveller game where we really wanted to be on a free trader and really got into simulating a firefly type story. We used all the sim-style game systems that are part of the Traveller design (rolling for cargos, rolling for misjump, the low berth lotto, paying berthing fees, scheduling personal time in jump space, etc.). A new guy joined the group who had only played D&D. The first session, during a key trade negotiation scene, he got bored, fried the plot-specific NPC with his prized plasma gun (we joked it was a +2 PGMP, +10 vs. droyne), and then asked the GM how much treasure and experience he could get before he could level-up his shooting skills. (i kid you not)

Our GM compromised and re-worked our game to be a hybrid of both styles of play, but while D&D got his hack n slash fun, most of our sci-fi fans were mainly there to have the OTU merchant prince experience. Eventually they got bored waiting for the game to shift gears (i.e.: for their "turn" to play). Then Mr. D&D would get ants in his pants, waiting to kill stuff during "all the talking".

I guess my point is, that I think the 3 creative agendas are useful insofar as they help gaming groups discuss what they want--and that it's much easier for us "middle triangle" guys to play lots of different GNS-focused games, than to try and design the "ultimate RPG" that satisfies all of the people, all of the time.

 

[leo knight]

For myself, GNS worked out to be a dead end. It was through Mr. Edwards' game Sorcerer that I discovered the gaming community on the Internet, over at The Forge site. At first I thought, "That's me he's writing about!", and tried to apply the principles in my games. What I found was the theory added another layer of remove from the game itself. It was too abstract to help me. Instead of thinking, "How will the cult leader respond to the PCs attack?" or "How many guards would there be?" or even, "Will this hold my players attention?", I was filtering everything yet another step. It bogged me down, instead of helping me.

I prefer the approach in Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering. His categories are just things people like to habitually do in a game: Butt Kicker, Tactician, Roleplayer, etc. Figure out what each player in your group likes to do, and allow at least one opportunity for this in each game session. If I know that Ben likes to kill things, and Dan likes to make intricate plans, and Janey likes to do whimsical things like buy one of every animal in the Player's Handbook, and I allow room for them to do so, they are more likely to enjoy the session.

So, in cowpercoles example above, I would avoid, "Is this player a Gamist?", or, "Are you now, or have you ever been a Gamist?" Instead, the explanation given, i.e. "He's used to playing D&D, he likes to kill things, take their stuff, and level up", would be more useful to me. It helps me to deal with the specific likes and dislikes of the specific human beings in my game group, instead of an abstract concept.

 

[aramis]

So, in cowpercoles example above, I would avoid, "Is this player a Gamist?", or, "Are you now, or have you ever been a Gamist?" Instead, the explanation given, i.e. "He's used to playing D&D, he likes to kill things, take their stuff, and level up", would be more useful to me. It helps me to deal with the specific likes and dislikes of the specific human beings in my game group, instead of an abstract concept.

The buttkicker is Edwards' Gamist.

 

[leo knight]

The buttkicker is Edwards' Gamist.

Understood. I guess I wasn't clear. That happens when I'm trying to reason something out for myself as I'm typing.

In my example above:

a. Ben likes to kick butt...
b. is a Butt Kicker...
c. is a Gamist.

I personally find it easier to deal with the specific player and his desires, a. rather than the general concept, c. at a remove of two steps. But to each his own.

 

[Shonner]

d. brings the soda on Friday nights.

 

[saundby]

I've not used GNS, but I've found this applicable to face to face gaming as well as online:
http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

A more complex 8-way version is here:
http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/VWWPP.pdf

For myself, I start out with a story arc then throw in the right things to motivate or tweak my individual players as well, rather than building for types--or choosing rulesets that way.

Different people get different things out of the game, and at that none of them are consistent enough to get pigeonholed. New players tend to lean in one direction or another, IME, as they discover some part of the game that particularly appeals to them. But I find more experienced gamers often like to shift around or "change seats" pretty often, so I have to be ready to throw the stick-jock a meaty mental puzzle every so often.

I like Trav since it's so flexible. It's not points and equipment centric but it can be played that way. You can play a "pacifist" character and not worry about XP. But you can also amass credits, equipment (last one to get a nuke is a glowing crater!), play "evil" in a "good" group, and so on without structural problems for the game. There's lots of stuff for gearheads without it becoming a rules lawyer's playground. And so on.

 

[the angle]

Perfect timing on this discussion. At work, I'm involved right now in an initiative to figure out how some of these considerations can be used to improve published adventures.

Here's a pertinent question -- Assuming that you buy and run published adventures, would you rather have one that devotes different portions to different types of gamers and addresses all more-or-less equally, or one that focuses more space and effort on one type to give those players the best possible experience and assumes that other types will get their due in different adventures?

The discussion of GNS theory caused some to re-examine the whole style of RPGs. The emergence of WoW and online gaming, which are primarily gamist in design, sucked a lot of gamist-orientated players out of the hobby ... slewing the average of those remaining. The serendipity of these two events provided the impetus for the design of a number of more narrative-based games.

That's an astute observation, Hemdian. Food for thought, there.

Steve