On GNS theory...

[Renaissance Man]

A citizen brought up GNS theory in another thread, and I thought there might be some food for thought in a deeper discussion of it.

What I know about GNS I learned from Wikipedia:

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

I'm not a huge fan of GNS theory, though I am happy to see some study and thought go into RPGs as a hobby and an art form.

First, I don't think the three tendencies mentioned are exhaustive, and they seem similar to personality tests or horoscopes in their presumptions.

Second, it seems clear that the theory favours the narrativist approach above the others, since descriptions of gamists and simulationists are generally hypertrophied to absurdity, while the narrativist impulse is presented as virtuous (hey man, I just want to tell a story) and rational (do you really want to spend 3 hours resolving a single combat turn for the sake of "realism"?)

Third, it is clear that the categories are functionally indistinct in the vast majority of cases. For instance, what "gamist" or "simulationist" player isn't looking for some kind of narrative? What narrativist isn't interested in a measure of rational verisimilitude; indeed, what narrative doesn't have some kind of tension between protagonists and antagonists that satisfies a gamist impulse?

The theory is too grand - it makes sweeping categorizations and attempts to subsume a very textured and complex set of creative actions into broad abstract concepts.

But then, that's just after reading the Wiki. There may be more nuance to it than I'm seeing.

 

[Rover]

In my experience GNS theory is really good for sparking arguments over how RPG's "should" be played by people who know "the one true way" and insist everyone should play that way.

I like playing games like D20 D&D and T20 traveller, some people more free form games like Spirit of the Century. I say to each his own, yet I am continually surpised to see how much D20 hate is out there. I don't really understand it, but a lot of the complaints seen to be that the combat rules are too detailed and this somehow leads to poor roleplaying. In essence D20 is too gameist. And RPG's should be narativeist.

Play the games you like I say, and don't worry too much about GNS theory.

 

[casquilho]

I read the Wiki entry and find the whole thing cute. It is a psudo-scientific way to discribe folks we have all seen. The Min-Maxer, the guy who has a fourty page background for his new character, and the guy who is upset because the X & Y weapons just could never have the same damage die because of ....

But I think like all interesting ideas, if you take this one too far it will be useless. But within a reasonable level, it is fun to think about.

Daniel

 

[Jeff M. Hopper]

I've found GNS theory to be a great way for people to feel like they are gaming by talking about gaming instead of actually playing a game.

 

[Jeff M. Hopper]

But then, that's just after reading the Wiki. There may be more nuance to it than I'm seeing.

There aren't any more nuances. GNS theory and the guys who spawned it are the gaming equivalent of Scientology.

 

[RockViper]

Its really only good for creating arguments on the internet.

 

[deniable]

Yeah, but GNS is really good for arguments. Pointing people to The Forge for more information is even better. They speak a whole other language over there. There's not a lot to it once you get past the 'big words for small concepts' that they seem to enjoy.

Fortune in the Middle (FITM) is one of the few concepts I plan to use. This basically boils down to: roll the dice and then describe your actions, rather than rolling at the end and being disappointed.

 

[jfetters]

It sounds to me like someone needed to write a graduate thesis or get published somewhere...

Sheesh - its how you want to play it to have fun.

 

[Renaissance Man]

That's the thing.

There's nothing wrong with picking apart gaming and trying to figure out how it works and how it doesn't, nor with coming up with theories. But all of this comes from playing the game, over and over, with different groups and different variables, in order to really get something useful out of it.

There's more wisdom and theoretical value in "Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads" than there is in GNS, so far as I can tell.

But hell, I take the Jeet Kune Do approach - use what works. If "Fortune In The Middle" gives you good results, than I say have at it. Shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater (even if the baby is tiny and the bathwater is the size of an ocean.)

 

[Merxiless]

I personally abhor and will disparage any attempt to analyze my gaming according to GNS theoretical deconstructivism as pseudo-intellectualism, as we reverse the infrapolarity matrix on the duo-antineutronic shield retrostabilization module.

pffft.

Just roll 2d6, you need a 7+.

And get on with the game.

 

[sablewyvern]

But I think like all interesting ideas, if you take this one too far it will be useless. But within a reasonable level, it is fun to think about.

My main problem with GNS is that any attempt to apply it real world situations is "taking it too far", with respect to most people's gaming. You have to presume that G/N/S actually covers all aspects of actual play, that the divisions between the categories and the definitions of each one are logical, and that they are concepts that exist independantly of each other, before the rest of the theory can be put to any use.

IMO, it fails to meet each and every one of those criteria.

 

[aramis]

I have found it useful from a standpoint of understanding why I like/dislike certain systems.

For example, MT is actually a bit more narrativist-friendly than CT was, and TNE more so, due to increasing control over character development, but all three are, in general, gamist-simulationist in approach, with TNE approaching the center of the triangle diagram, and CT being further out towards the edge.

Me, I'm a bit of a centrist myself. So, for me, I want the balance between all three. As a set of rules, TNE was pretty good (except not being able to Kill with a single shot).

Rules do matter in play. They are one of many tools, and Ron's original essay is a wonderful tool for understanding why some players like/dislike a given game.

His wording for the labels is mired in his own hypernarrativism... and his later discussions are not true to the original article... but in general, the base article on GNS is a valid look at game design and rules approach.

 

[casquilho]

My main problem with GNS is that any attempt to apply it real world situations is "taking it too far", with respect to most people's gaming. You have to presume that G/N/S actually covers all aspects of actual play, that the divisions between the categories and the definitions of each one are logical, and that they are concepts that exist independantly of each other, before the rest of the theory can be put to any use.

IMO, it fails to meet each and every one of those criteria.

Yes, I agree. Keep in mind I said it was fun to think about, not that it was good science or realistic, or even valid. Clearly many folks on this post seem to be having fun discussing why it sucks. They must have spent time thinking about it as well.

Daniel