Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="1Mac" data-source="post: 5782544" data-attributes="member: 48998">If I'm remembering correctly how GNS works, then not really. As I recall, GNS isn't about full games, or players; it's about choices in a game. In a way it's improper to ask if DnD, or Paranoia, or Fate, are Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist; without first asking how the game handles individual gaming elements. How does the game handle combat? Exploration? Social encounters? Economy? Reputation and fame?If the answer is that 1MacRPG handles most of these choices in a Simulationist fashion, then it is fair to say that 1MacRPG is a Simulationist game. Likewise, if JoBob likes making most game choices with a Gamist mindset, then it is fair to call JoBob a Gamist. But the reason many games seem to be a mix of GNS tendencies is because a particular sort of choice will lean towards a different GNS facet than another sort of choice. A game might handle combat in a very Gamist manner, but treat exploration in a Narrativist way. Likewise, a player might prefer the game's economy to be highly Simulated, but to treat fame in a Narrativist way.The point being, because GNS theory focuses on components of a game, rather than the whole game; therefore GNS theory allows for games (and players) to be Gamist, Narrativist, and/or Simulationist, depending on what part of the game we are looking at. Thus there is no possibility for false choice, at least at the macro-level of an entire game.</blockquote>

Verification