GNS - does one preclude another?

[BenBrown]

Yeah, that's right. But you're also right that for normal gamers this stuff probably is not worth discussing.

The ins and outs of the module are not worth discussing, but the reason all of this theory was developed in the first place--people not having as much fun with the games as they feel they should--is probably worth thinking about.

Quite why the Forge exists to chit chat about essentially nothing and gamers don't discuss the facts/ science is baffling. It's like 100,000 posts about the vital importance of delivering napkins to people with no food to eat.

I wouldn't say it's quite that. It's more like explaining the nuances of French cooking to a crowded Chinese restaurant. It's not that it's something they couldn't or don't ever want to experience, but it's definitely not why they're there, and when people start declaiming the superiority of French cooking in the Chinese restaurant, they shouldn't be surprised at the dirty looks they get.

Many of the forge articles that form the foundation of GNS theory have more than a little taste of "my game is better than yours" to them, so I find it hard to take them seriously. The old GDS is much more impartial.

Probably because it was hashed out over a fair amount of time by multiple people, rather than by one guy, and the people who posted the defining posts were willing to take criticism.

The GDS model isn't all it could be, but it's a better place to start.

 

[Hussar]

Without any starting point, every conversation winds up getting bogged down in semantics as each side tries to understand the viewpoint of the other side and ultimately failing because they don't share enough common understanding. While GNS may not be the greatest thing in the world, it at least provides a common starting point.

The problem comes when people start bludgeoning each other with the theory in an attempt to "prove" that one point of the triangle is better than another, or that Game X is bad because it doesn't fit nicely into the model.

It's a model. Like any genre model, it's imprecise and porous as all heck. But, if you look at it as just a starting point, then it works reasonably well.

 

[BenBrown]

Without any starting point, every conversation winds up getting bogged down in semantics as each side tries to understand the viewpoint of the other side and ultimately failing because they don't share enough common understanding. While GNS may not be the greatest thing in the world, it at least provides a common starting point.

The problem comes when people start bludgeoning each other with the theory in an attempt to "prove" that one point of the triangle is better than another, or that Game X is bad because it doesn't fit nicely into the model.

It's a model. Like any genre model, it's imprecise and porous as all heck. But, if you look at it as just a starting point, then it works reasonably well.

RGFA threefold (GDS) provides a better starting point, IMO, because 1) there are fewer long essays and endless threads that people can link to rather than discussing the matter at hand, and 2) the definitions in the existing documents are looser and more common-sense.

 

[Hussar]

RGFA threefold (GDS) provides a better starting point, IMO, because 1) there are fewer long essays and endless threads that people can link to rather than discussing the matter at hand, and 2) the definitions in the existing documents are looser and more common-sense.

Heh. Now that's hard to argue against.

 

[pemerton]

Gamism and Narrativism: Mutually Exclusive

Here is a thread I liked on the Forge about gamist play.

LostSoul, thanks for the links.

 

[pemerton]

For "loose and common-sense" definitions of G, N and S as "creative agendas" (ie "success criteria" for the activity of roleplaying), see the 3rd entry on this page.

 

[1Mac]

I'm only skimming, so it's possible someone has already said this.

But to the OP, yes, you can have a game or player that is both Gamist and Narrativist, or Narrativist and Simulationist, or even all three. Crucially, it doesn't even contradict GNS theory to say so, and the belief that it does is the cause of a lot of misplaced heat surrounding discussion of GNS issues.

From the horse's mouth:

Much torment has arisen from people perceiving GNS as a labelling device. Used properly, the terms apply only to decisions, not to whole persons nor to whole games. To be absolutely clear, to say that a person is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This person tends to make role-playing decisions in line with Gamist goals." Similarly, to say that an RPG is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This RPG's content facilitates Gamist concerns and decision-making." For better or for worse, both of these forms of shorthand are common.

So all those folks who are saying they don't like GNS because it assumes a player or game is of one aspect or goal to the exclusion of others; those folks are not accurately describing GNS theory.

Someone upthread already quoted the next paragraph in the linked essay.

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. The actual time or activity of an "instance" is necessarily left ambiguous.

This might suggest that it really is all of one or the other, but I don't see it that way. If you read "instance" as "decision," as the term is used in the first block quote above, it is clearer what Edwards means*. So if you can identify an individual decision as Gamist, or Narrativist, or Simulationist, it is possible for the other goals to be subsumed into the main goal, without compromising the main goal.

It's like when you order at a restaurant. Do you pick the best tasting food? The best value? The best food for your health? Obviously these goals can be combined ("I'm ordering the best steak under $30."), but your final decision will depend on which decision you prize most.

Although now that I put it that way, it seems perfectly possible to say, "I'm going to do everything I can to come out on top, within the conventions of the world I'm roleplaying in," which doesn't obviously favor either Gamist or Simulationist decision-making.

Regardless, it's clear that Ron Edwards means to cast both games and players as a series of decisions, and that while he imagines that any one decision has one dominant goal, any game or player may shift between goals when he makes different decisions. See the next paragraph of the essay.

Over a greater period of time, across many instances of play, some people tend to cluster their decisions and interests around one of the three goals. Other people vary across the goals, but even they admit that they stay focused, or prioritize, for a given instance.

*I an happy to criticize Ron Edwards for sometimes speaking in riddles.

 

[nedjer]

I'm only skimming, so it's possible someone has already said this.

But to the OP, yes, you can have a game or player that is both Gamist and Narrativist, or Narrativist and Simulationist, or even all three. Crucially, it doesn't even contradict GNS theory to say so, and the belief that it does is the cause of a lot of misplaced heat surrounding discussion of GNS issues.

From the horse's mouth:



So all those folks who are saying they don't like GNS because it assumes a player or game is of one aspect or goal to the exclusion of others; those folks are not accurately describing GNS theory.

Someone upthread already quoted the next paragraph in the linked essay.



This might suggest that it really is all of one or the other, but I don't see it that way. If you read "instance" as "decision," as the term is used in the first block quote above, it is clearer what Edwards means*. So if you can identify an individual decision as Gamist, or Narrativist, or Simulationist, it is possible for the other goals to be subsumed into the main goal, without compromising the main goal.

It's like when you order at a restaurant. Do you pick the best tasting food? The best value? The best food for your health? Obviously these goals can be combined ("I'm ordering the best steak under $30."), but your final decision will depend on which decision you prize most.

Although now that I put it that way, it seems perfectly possible to say, "I'm going to do everything I can to come out on top, within the conventions of the world I'm roleplaying in," which doesn't obviously favor either Gamist or Simulationist decision-making.

Regardless, it's clear that Ron Edwards means to cast both games and players as a series of decisions, and that while he imagines that any one decision has one dominant goal, any game or player may shift between goals when he makes different decisions. See the next paragraph of the essay.



*I an happy to criticize Ron Edwards for sometimes speaking in riddles.

There's no such thing as Gamist or Simulationist decision making. There's just brain decision making.

 

[nedjer]

Interesting. Why do you say that? Do you question their data taking techniques, or the integrity of their reporting, or something?

They admit themselves that its not a 'psionic mind scan' or whatever term they used. There are questions about the size of samples, the categories, the interpretation, . . . so yeah I question their data taking techniques and analysis at the methodological and philosophical levels. Fortunately, they do too

 

[Hussar]

They admit themselves that its not a 'psionic mind scan' or whatever term they used. There are questions about the size of samples, the categories, the interpretation, . . . so yeah I question their data taking techniques and analysis at the methodological and philosophical levels. Fortunately, they do too

If you read a bit further down, they also claim that this is an accurate representation of the population at large.

In other words, it won't answer each and every question, but it will answer the questions asked.