GNS Theorists wanted: Making my 13thAge and Sentinel Comics games better

[Ovinomancer]

" While often simulationist (in combat) and narrativist (elsewhere) to play to the respective strengths and game expectations of each, there are gamist underpinings to just make it work smoothly and in a streamlined way. Take a look at the feature/spell recovery model. " This does not look like any theory to me, just labels as stand-ins for actual meaning. But this statement nears closer to an explanation to what GNS Theory actually means then the many pages written on trying to explain what these labels mean and how they constitute an actual theory. When you speak of simulation you mean combat in the game and narrativist just means everything else you do in the game. Gamist is just a label for "the rules". Not really a theory, more of a color code for what kind of game you prefer. "Is their much combat, I don't like games with a lot of combat?" "Do I have to do all that silly voice acting? I just want to roll some dice." "Are the rules easy to learn? I don't want to learn something new, can't we just play DnD?"

So to answer the OP. Figure out what kind of game you like to play and play that. How to play better? Really just play as much as you can and think about it as much as you can. Roleplaying games are just thought experiments writ large, and thinking about your play, what makes it good, what makes it bad, can be done anytime you want. Action, reflection, action, reflection, rinse and repeat.

 

[Blue]

When you speak of simulation you mean combat in the game and narrativist just means everything else you do in the game. Gamist is just a label for "the rules".

No, not at all. It just happens it this particular case they lined up like that.

D&D and 13th Age both share a combat system that attempts to simulate the battle. A game like Masks does nto attempt to simulate a battle at all, instead it is attempting to tell a story about how what is happening, and perhaps how what just happened made you feel hopeless, and hope your friend is angry and acting reckless because of it. It doesn't attempt to be a simulation of combat, it doesn't care how many tonnes you can lift or how fast you run. It's very narrativist. Your powers aren't even defined with any numbers or number-adjacent adjectives.

And gamist does not just mean "the rules". Look at these two rules.

1. When the character sleeps for eight hours, they regain daily abilities.
2. When the character completes four combats, they regain daily abilities.

They are definitely both rules. The first one is simulating that resting overnight will recharge you. The second one is controlling it in game terms to provide an even amount of attrition and recovery. Both have their strengths, and those strengths lie heavily on what the group is looking to get out of the game.

Sorry, you can completely missed the mark.

 

[niklinna]

" While often simulationist (in combat) and narrativist (elsewhere) to play to the respective strengths and game expectations of each, there are gamist underpinings to just make it work smoothly and in a streamlined way. Take a look at the feature/spell recovery model. " This does not look like any theory to me, just labels as stand-ins for actual meaning. But this statement nears closer to an explanation to what GNS Theory actually means then the many pages written on trying to explain what these labels mean and how they constitute an actual theory. When you speak of simulation you mean combat in the game and narrativist just means everything else you do in the game. Gamist is just a label for "the rules". Not really a theory, more of a color code for what kind of game you prefer. "Is their much combat, I don't like games with a lot of combat?" "Do I have to do all that silly voice acting? I just want to roll some dice." "Are the rules easy to learn? I don't want to learn something new, can't we just play DnD?"

So to answer the OP. Figure out what kind of game you like to play and play that. How to play better? Really just play as much as you can and think about it as much as you can. Roleplaying games are just thought experiments writ large, and thinking about your play, what makes it good, what makes it bad, can be done anytime you want. Action, reflection, action, reflection, rinse and repeat.

Huh?!

 

[Jay Murphy1]

No, not at all. It just happens it this particular case they lined up like that.

D&D and 13th Age both share a combat system that attempts to simulate the battle. A game like Masks does nto attempt to simulate a battle at all, instead it is attempting to tell a story about how what is happening, and perhaps how what just happened made you feel hopeless, and hope your friend is angry and acting reckless because of it. It doesn't attempt to be a simulation of combat, it doesn't care how many tonnes you can lift or how fast you run. It's very narrativist. Your powers aren't even defined with any numbers or number-adjacent adjectives.

And gamist does not just mean "the rules". Look at these two rules.

1. When the character sleeps for eight hours, they regain daily abilities.
2. When the character completes four combats, they regain daily abilities.

They are definitely both rules. The first one is simulating that resting overnight will recharge you. The second one is controlling it in game terms to provide an even amount of attrition and recovery. Both have their strengths, and those strengths lie heavily on what the group is looking to get out of the game.

Sorry, you can completely missed the mark.

Yeah, so narrative means "I don't like combat much, and Simul means I hope the game is like dnd.

 

[Jay Murphy1]

Huh?!

GNS Theory is just another way of stating game preference, like dnd or not like dnd. Dressing it up in jargon and calling it a "theory" is laughable. What is even the theory? There is no means of testing any of the tenets of this so called theory. Theory indicates logic and scientific method. How has this theory been tested? What is the hypothesis to be prove or disproven. This notion of GNS being a theory has been roundly disproven. It is jargon to describe game preference. Narrative means less GM fiat than explicitly stated in every other rpg since the dawn of time. You want to play a better game? Play lots, read lots of fiction in the genre you want to play and self reflect on what you are good at and what you are not.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, so narrative means "I don't like combat much, and Simul means I hope the game is like dnd.

No, not at all close. Are you actually curious, or just trying to dismiss things?

 

[Ovinomancer]

GNS Theory is just another way of stating game preference, like dnd or not like dnd. Dressing it up in jargon and calling it a "theory" is laughable. What is even the theory? There is no means of testing any of the tenets of this so called theory. Theory indicates logic and scientific method. How has this theory been tested? What is the hypothesis to be prove or disproven. This notion of GNS being a theory has been roundly disproven. It is jargon to describe game preference. Narrative means less GM fiat than explicitly stated in every other rpg since the dawn of time.

I... no. This is pretty badly off.

 

[Jay Murphy1]

I... no. This is pretty badly off.

Then explain it.

 

[Jay Murphy1]

No, not at all close. Are you actually curious, or just trying to dismiss things?

I have not heard a logical explanation of what the theory actually is, how it is tested and the conclusions drawn from. As far as theory goes GNS is lacking the basic underpinnings of theory. Hard to call something a theory when no agrees what the terms actually mean.

 

[Jay Murphy1]

And GNS was written by a guy that says playing dnd actually gives you brain damage. So written by a hack.