Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
4e: Death of the Bildungsroman
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="PrecociousApprentice" data-source="post: 4223952" data-attributes="member: 61449"><p>This brings up an interesting point for current GNS theory. It may be possible to have no tension between any of the legs of the triangle, as long as each leg deals with a separate area of the game, or lives on a different scale of the game. In the area of public health this strange tension is readily acceptable, and medicine is practiced differently for one person than for a population of people. Maybe a game could work out the perfect ballance to get the small scale gamist but large scale sim or nar play.</p><p></p><p>On a slight tangent, this is what I am talking about when I say that Orthodox GNS theory seems incomplete. The dichotomy between narrative play and other play seems hinge the ability of the <em>participants</em> to choose how they create the story. Gamist and simulationist systems seem to both place the power in the rules, even if the power is given to the rules for different reasons. Since I don't see a lot of difference between the GM and the players in most instances when referring to participants, to me illusionism could easily fit the narrativist playstyle, as long as there is no tension between the players and the GM about what the story should entail. Tension on that level would seem to relate more to player/participant style than system style, and so should be the purview of Robin Laws. As long as the system spreads out the narrative power between the participants, and fully empowers the participants' storytelling ability, then narrative play is achieved.</p><p></p><p>I guess this may be my issue entirely. There needs to be three theories. One to explain participants, one to explain systems, and one to explain motivations. The playstyle one would explain how participants like to interact, the system one would outline the allocation of power, and the motivation one would cover the reason that people play. </p><p></p><p>So to get this straight, GNS postulates tension between various elements</p><p></p><p>tension between "ideals" and "fun" ->sim vs others</p><p>tension between "storytelling" and "rules" -> nar vs others</p><p>tension between "winning" and "playing" -> gam vs others</p><p></p><p>The GM is assumed to be the agent of the rules in all cases, and hense they are at odds with the players on all accounts. For sim the GM is "Enforcer of the Ideal", in gam the GM is "Arbiter of the rules" and "Opponent" all roled into one. Even in nar the GM is assumed to be at odds with the players, because the nar games and mechanics are the ones that take power from both the rules and the GM and allocate it to the players. I am just not seeing why the GM and players have to be at odds. Why can't we have a "participant" category, with no tension between GM and players. That could give us a game that is tactically fun, has a coherent narrative with a ballance of power that facilitates creation of a narrative, with each of the participants having access to mechanics that facilitate the role that they are in, and allowing a collective "ideal" to emerge organically without being enforced by the rules or a draconian GM.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PrecociousApprentice, post: 4223952, member: 61449"] This brings up an interesting point for current GNS theory. It may be possible to have no tension between any of the legs of the triangle, as long as each leg deals with a separate area of the game, or lives on a different scale of the game. In the area of public health this strange tension is readily acceptable, and medicine is practiced differently for one person than for a population of people. Maybe a game could work out the perfect ballance to get the small scale gamist but large scale sim or nar play. On a slight tangent, this is what I am talking about when I say that Orthodox GNS theory seems incomplete. The dichotomy between narrative play and other play seems hinge the ability of the [I]participants[/I] to choose how they create the story. Gamist and simulationist systems seem to both place the power in the rules, even if the power is given to the rules for different reasons. Since I don't see a lot of difference between the GM and the players in most instances when referring to participants, to me illusionism could easily fit the narrativist playstyle, as long as there is no tension between the players and the GM about what the story should entail. Tension on that level would seem to relate more to player/participant style than system style, and so should be the purview of Robin Laws. As long as the system spreads out the narrative power between the participants, and fully empowers the participants' storytelling ability, then narrative play is achieved. I guess this may be my issue entirely. There needs to be three theories. One to explain participants, one to explain systems, and one to explain motivations. The playstyle one would explain how participants like to interact, the system one would outline the allocation of power, and the motivation one would cover the reason that people play. So to get this straight, GNS postulates tension between various elements tension between "ideals" and "fun" ->sim vs others tension between "storytelling" and "rules" -> nar vs others tension between "winning" and "playing" -> gam vs others The GM is assumed to be the agent of the rules in all cases, and hense they are at odds with the players on all accounts. For sim the GM is "Enforcer of the Ideal", in gam the GM is "Arbiter of the rules" and "Opponent" all roled into one. Even in nar the GM is assumed to be at odds with the players, because the nar games and mechanics are the ones that take power from both the rules and the GM and allocate it to the players. I am just not seeing why the GM and players have to be at odds. Why can't we have a "participant" category, with no tension between GM and players. That could give us a game that is tactically fun, has a coherent narrative with a ballance of power that facilitates creation of a narrative, with each of the participants having access to mechanics that facilitate the role that they are in, and allowing a collective "ideal" to emerge organically without being enforced by the rules or a draconian GM. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
4e: Death of the Bildungsroman
Top