What does GNS mean?

[Acid_crash]

I am just wondering...what the hell does G/N/S stand for, and what is the forge? I see this spewing all over the place lately, on here and on rpg.net, and I want to know what this so called theory means by the great minds of ENWorld.

 

[glass]

I am just wondering...what the hell does G/N/S stand for, and what is the forge? I see this spewing all over the place lately, on here and on rpg.net, and I want to know what this so called theory means by the great minds of ENWorld.

GNS stands for Gamist Naratavist Simulationist, and is a way of categorising gamers preferences, with the aim of finding a group with similar preferences. Gamist players prefer overcoming challenges, Naratavism players enjoy telling stories, and Simulationist players enjoy following characters & situations to their logical conclusion.

Of course, most real players are somewhere in the middle.


glass.

 

[the Jester]

I've heard a lot about the Forge lately too, but I have no idea what that is.

Anyone? Bueller?

 

[Bulak]

You can find it here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/

From here:

About the Forge
This site is dedicated to the promotion, creation, and review of independent role-playing games. What is an independent role-playing game? Our main criterion is that the game is owned by its author, or creator-owned. We don't care what its physical format is - it can be:

- a book in the game store
- a PDF or HTML download from the Internet
- a direct mail-order only
- or anything else that is readily available

The Forge is not only a place for role-playing game authors, though. It's here for anyone interested in discovering new games, having better role-playing experiences, or discussing role-playing game theory.

 

[Akrasia]

... Gamist players prefer overcoming challenges, Naratavism players enjoy telling stories, and Simulationist players enjoy following characters & situations to their logical conclusion.
...

I don't think this is entirely accurate. As I understand the idea, 'gamist' players enjoy 'overcoming challenges' primarily through 'mastering' the game mechanics and deploying this information to the advantage of the player in question. For 'gamist' players, the focus is all on 'crunch'. 3E D&D -- especially if accompanied with lots of extra feats, splatbooks, etc. -- is commonly cited as a good example of a "gamists' game".

'Narrativist' players also enjoy 'overcoming challenges', but prefer to focus on character and story development in their campaigns. A 'narrativist' player will choose a suboptimal item or ability for her character simply because it 'makes sense' given her 'character concept' (background story, plot, etc.). 'Winning' or 'losing' is not really at stake -- telling a good story is more important. The Dying Earth RPG and Eden's 'Cinematic Unisystem' games (Buffy, Angel) are good examples of 'narrativist' games.

'Simulationist' players like game systems that endeavour to closely 'simulate' the way things really work (or would work, in the appropriate science fiction or fantasy reality). Such game systems tend to be rather 'gritty' and 'low-powered' in nature. GURPS is often cited as a good example of a 'simulationist' game. D&D in any of its incarnations is far away from being remotely 'simulationist'.

 

[diaglo]

GNS and Robert's hooey are things i place in a box and discard.

they are just ways to try and categorize gamers. i don't particularly care for them.

 

[CRGreathouse]

'Simulationist' players like game systems that endeavour to closely 'simulate' the way things really work (or would work, in the appropriate science fiction or fantasy reality). Such game systems tend to be rather 'gritty' and 'low-powered' in nature. GURPS is often cited as a good example of a 'simulationist' game. D&D in any of its incarnations is far away from being remotely 'simulationist'.

You can be a simulationist in a high-magic world, too. Simulationists are interested in modeling how things should work given initial conditions, and magical/fantastic worlds are every bit as valid for them as others.

I'm almost a pure simulationist, and my world's only a touch less magical than the default (high-magic) D&D world.

 

[Psion]

'Simulationist' players like game systems that endeavour to closely 'simulate' the way things really work (or would work, in the appropriate science fiction or fantasy reality). Such game systems tend to be rather 'gritty' and 'low-powered' in nature.

Not necessarily. Not at all.

Players who pay a lot of concern to things like how a highly magical society would actually operate (a discussion I have seen around here a fair few times) would be simulationist as well.

It should be noted that while Ron Edwards GNS is well known, the so-called "threefold model" orinated on the rec.games.frp.advocacy newsgroup, and spoke a Gamism/Dramatist/Simulationist split. I feel this state of the theory is more functional, as Ron's observations seem more esoteric and abstract, and Ron beleived that for a game to "work well" it must emulate one of the three isms, and mixing them was courting trouble. I don't think that's true, but I do think keeping in mind that different people game for different reasons is an important thing to keep in mind, whether or not you agree with the particular definitions put forth in GNS, GDS, or whatever other theory you are splitting hairs over.

 

[Henry]

As I've said before, interesting theory, but I don't like the further fragmentation its discussion seems to engender among gamers. I have not yet met a tabletop game group in the past five years that played so differently from me that I couldn't say we were playing the same game - and I've met quite a few gamers over the past five years. Some roleplay a bit more, some roleplay less, some are "stat-masters" who know exact percentages and probabilities - these are all things that GNS tries to address; but people tend to take these categories and run with them to the exclusion of all else, and it's silly to do so - as huge social-pigeonhole of a mistake. But in proper context, as mere reasons why people play it's not bad, rather than SOLE reasons why one particular person plays (which would be WRONG).

 

[Akrasia]

Not necessarily. Not at all.

Players who pay a lot of concern to things like how a highly magical society would actually operate (a discussion I have seen around here a fair few times) would be simulationist as well.
....

I'm not sure how this is incompatible with what I stated. :\
To quote: "...or would work, in the appropriate science fiction or fantasy reality."
Is it just because I mentioned that such games tend to be 'gritty'? That's just because GURPS is considered the 'biggest' example of a simulationist game.