GNS - does one preclude another?

[Henry]

One of the things that irks me about 4E is what I view as an excessive focus on the game qua game, to the detriment of simulation; yet the quality of the game aspect is also one of 4E's great strengths for me. I want it nudged a bit toward simulation and drama, not yanked way across the room.

If I understand GNS right, 4E would be heavily "simulationist" as it uses the term; its design goal is to simulate cinematic combat and (through its skill challenge system) cinematic dramatic situations (though it is still a bit underdeveloped on the last point just yet). "Gamism" as GNS uses it is about actually balancing players against each other so that they can be challenged in game. Magic the Gathering strikes me as more of an example (though not an RPG) of this.

 

[Rechan]

What I'm impressed with is how no one can even agree on what the GNS words "mean".

 

[Dausuul]

What I'm impressed with is how no one can even agree on what the GNS words "mean".

Yeah, that's one of the many problems with the whole theory. On the whole I'm more inclined to believe the results of WotC's 1999 market survey from Umbran's link, since that involved developing a theory based on statistical evidence, scientific-like, instead of building castles in the sky.

Reading that piece, it appears that that a) even though different gamers focus on different aspects of the game, actually eliminating an aspect of the game will make everyone unhappy; and b) people with different preferences make for a stronger gaming group.

 

[booboo]

Short answer: Ron Edwards is a hack

 

[Rechan]

b) people with different preferences make for a stronger gaming group.

How do you figure?

If everyone likes the same thing, that means that they do what they want with no problem.

An entire group of tacticians get to play a tactics game that focuses on tactics and they're all happy.

 

[Dausuul]

How do you figure?

If everyone likes the same thing, that means that they do what they want with no problem.

An entire group of tacticians get to play a tactics game that focuses on tactics and they're all happy.

I don't figure anything. I'm quoting WotC's research results. You may explain them as you like.

"We also have data that suggests that most groups are made up of people who segment differently (that is, monolithic segmentation within a gaming group is rare), and in fact, having different kinds of players tends to make the RPG experience work better over the long haul."

I do find, anecdotally, that while the really extreme types don't play well together and indeed seldom play well at all, a reasonable balance among reasonably different players is a good thing. I like having a diversity of viewpoints in the group. Keeps things from getting stale.

A related possibility is that the diverse player types each keep their "segment" of the game alive and vital. As WotC discovered, even the Power Gamers (tactical/combat) are seldom interested in a game that's nothing but a series of rooms with monsters in them; they do want a good story driving the battles. Likewise, even the Storytellers (strategic/story) enjoy an explosive finale.

If your group is all Power Gamers, you might find the story aspect becoming flat and perfunctory because there's nobody with a real interest in story to engage the DM. If you're all Storytellers, the game might go off into the weeds of ever-more-intricate plots without ever coming to a decisive resolution.

 

[maddman75]

If a group of RPGs just wanted tactics, why are they playing RPGs instead of Warhammer Fantasy Battles or something?

I believe its because even if its the tactical games part that they primarily enjoy, the other aspects are fun too. Imagining the events as a story and playing out their characters is fun too, even if that isn't the focus or very deep.

My primary criticism/disagreement with GNS is that focusing solely on one aspect of play is the holy grail of game design. IMO, the fun from RPGs isn't focusing on one aspect alone, but from how they interact. We have the setting, the rules, the story - how do these things come together? I enjoy stuff like my warrior getting a bonus to hit because the six fingered man killed my father, or getting a penalty to solve a riddle because my culture is illiterate. The interaction of the mechanical rules and the imaginative space is what makes RPG so unique and interesting. And most of us I would wager would agree you need both. If you don't have any narrative or imagined space, you're playing a board game. If you don't have any rules, you're doing collaborative storytelling. All the different systems are just changing the amounts of each.

 

[ST]

Yep, that's what I was trying to get at earlier in the thread. GNS doesn't make sense if it's used to try to describe just one element of a game. The original article and followups go into this at great detail.

It's really just not a useful theory to try to use these days; it doesn't provide much utility without some other theory to go along with it, and mostly just stirs up controversy when it's mentioned.

I mean, I think it makes a lot of sense to discuss preferences and how various games can work with those preferences, but "So and so game is Gamist" or whatever, as a frame of reference, is pretty much just discredited.

 

[LostSoul]

My primary criticism/disagreement with GNS is that focusing solely on one aspect of play is the holy grail of game design. IMO, the fun from RPGs isn't focusing on one aspect alone, but from how they interact.

You might find this thread interesting: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20679.0

 

[Dausuul]

You might find this thread interesting: Frostfolk and GNS aggravation.

Just a general note: If you can't read this link in Firefox, try IE.

...Glancing through it, I find Ron Edwards's position reminds me of nothing so much as standard-issue pseudoscience. (Avoiding real-world politics, I won't name a specific pseudoscience here; there are plenty of examples across the political spectrum and they all work pretty much the same way.) Evidence contradicting the theory is answered, not by modifying or abandoning the theory, but by defining away the evidence:

For a given instance of play, the three modes are exclusive in application. When someone tells me that their role-playing is "all three," what I see from them is this: features of (say) two of the goals appear in concert with, or in service to, the main one, but two or more fully-prioritized goals are not present at the same time. So in the course of Narrativist or Simulationist play, moments or aspects of competition that contribute to the main goal are not Gamism. In the course of Gamist or Simulationist play, moments of thematic commentary that contribute to the main goal are not Narrativism. In the course of Narrativist or Gamist play, moments of attention to plausibility that contribute to the main goal are not Simulationism. The primary and not to be compromised goal is what it is for a given instance of play.

In other words, we have decided that groups always have only one of G, N, or S as their creative agenda. Any time a group exhibits a desire for two or three of G, N, and S at the same time, we will arbitrarily deem all but one of those elements to be "not fully-prioritized" and therefore irrelevant.

Or, to sum up: No true Scotsman mixes his creative agendas.