GNS - does one preclude another?

[Wik]

It's become kind of an instant fight or argument to mention the whole gaming "GNS" deal, and a lot of people look at it as a stupid way to describe an RPG... but I've always thought there was a bit of truth in the whole definition. It is, at the very least, a good shorthand for analyzing how games (particularly RPGs, but also video games and even many board games) play out.

For those that don't know, it stands for Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist, and describes how a game plays out and its end goals. A Gamist game is one where the mechanics themselves are a central point of the game, a primary area of focus (Tetris, for example, is heavily Gamist); A Narrativist game is one that is heavy on story-telling, and uses the rules to tell a story of one sort or another (the Final Fantasy series have become more and more Narrativist as time goes on); Simulationist is a game that tries to "realistically" or intelligently portray a specific situation (for example, any sports video game).

What I am wondering is this: are these terms exclusive? Sure, a game can be heavily Gamist, but can it also be Heavily narrativist as well? Or can it rank highly in all three? Does a game that is, say, heavily narratist preclude a game that is also very "gamist" in nature as well as being a damn fine simulation? (the example here would be something like "Can you build a sandbox using 4e that also has a strong plot?").

Also, are there any good examples of narrativist/simulationist games out there? I can't think of many that would be both (they seem sort of antagonistic).

 

[jdrakeh]

FWIW, the "S" in GNS does not pertain only to the simulation of real world physics (that's just how people here define the term for some reason). It actually means "Commitment to the imagined events of play, specifically their in-game causes and pre-established thematic elements." Such pre-established thematic elements and in-game causes can, of course, be heavily tied to recreating real world physics, but do not have to be. Keeping this in mind. . .

Dogs in the Vineyard is heavy on simulation (specifically in its pursuit of simulating Mormon culture) and narrativism (it introduced "say yes or roll the dice" and several other big narrative concepts since incorporated into other games).

Spirit of the Century is also heavy on simulation (in its pursuit of simulating Pulp Adventure stories) and narrativism (with regard to its various methods of allowing players to produce, heigten and resolve Premise duing play). It also has, IMO, some gamist leanings with regard to how it achieves the narrative control that it affords players.

 

[ST]

Short answer: No, not really, elements that could individually be labeled G or N or S or whatever can be found together in a game. You can in fact expect to see that kind of thing happening.

Long answer: Ron Edwards talks about GNS to attempt to describe a game's intended overall creative agenda, what kinds of play the game mechanics as a whole encourage, over multiple sessions.

But most people don't have much interest in what Ron has to say, which is cool and all, but I agree with him that it's worth making a distinction between individual mechanics or reward systems or whatnot, versus what the game is "trying" to do when viewed as a whole.

 

[S'mon]

In GNS theory they're exclusive.

However in reality they can be mutually supporting. Eg in the 'Gygaxian Naturalist' approach a sturdy immersive simulation can provide the objective bedrock to support gamist challenge.

 

[S'mon]

BTW the Forge GNS model was based on the older usenet Gamist-Dramatist-Simulationist model, which unlike GNS actually makes sense. GDS distinguishes between the primary play goals (1) Game - challenge players; (2) Simulation of setting/environment, and (3) Drama - creation of a compelling story. GNS pushes Drama into Sim and blows up a particular narrow kind of play based on exploration of Premise, which they call Narrativism, into a favoured one of the Big Three.

GDS, unlike GNS, can be applies to a broad range of RPGs. Using GDS it's not hard to see that the design of eg Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG is primarily D, that Twilight: 2000 or Runequest are primarily S, and that OD&D is primarily G. Whereas GNS declares that Buffy and Twilight 2000 are both Sim games - one simulating a post-apocalypse environment, the other simulating the TV show.

Edit: Note that when it comes to fictional-universe games, they can be either Dramatic or Simulationist in approach. You can have a game set in Star Trek's postulated Federation where the likes of Kirk and co are the rare, one-in-a-million outliers they appear to be from the show. The Stormbringer game pretty much works that way. Or you can have a Dramatist game where the player characters are Captain Kirk, or Kirk-like analogues, who experience (and survive) adventures very much like those of the Enterprise crew. Buffy TVS game works like that.

 

[steenan]

They are, maybe not strictly, but nearly exclusive, when applied, as the Big Model theory does, to players' agendas, not to the game system. When people play with different agendas, conflicts often arise, as what one seeks detracts from the fun of another. For example, narrative-minded player may willingly complicate the situation in game by his failures to make it more interesting and irritate the gamist as it lowers the chance of success. Gamist may ruin simulationist's fun by doing what is tactically optimal, but stylistically inappropriate or psychologically nonsensical.
Of course, when I characterize someone as "gamist" or "simulationist" here what I mean is particular player's approach to the particular game. It is perfectly possible - and I think that's what most people do - to play with different agendas, depending on game system and GM.

When seen as traits of a system, gamism, narrativism and simulationism may easily coexist. Many traditional RPGs support all three. Strong focus on one style of play is quite new, with many indie games aiming for narrativism and new editions of D&D aiming for gamism.

Finaly, I'd like to correct two statements in the OP that I perceive as misinterpretations - or maybe just unclear wording - of creative agenda definitions.
Narrativism focusing on addressing a premise through character choices; asking questions and answering them by in-game actions. Freedom of choice - and willingness to accept the consequences - is crucial here. It is as far as it goes from storytelling (storytelling as in "the GM has a predefined plot for PCs to participate in; he tells a story").
Gamism does not focus on game mechanics. It focuses on achieving goals and defeating challenges, on "winning" in a wide sense of the word. It is perfectly possible to play with gamist agenda and no mechanics at all (for example, with a setting like Agata Christie detective stories, that are solved by attention to details and a good feel of human psychology - player skills).

 

[Rechan]

I sort of have conceptualized GNS as a triangle. And so you can have it be two of the three, but not all 3.

Because I can see Gamist and Narrativist working together.

Although I have trouble seeing the other combos working.

 

[LostSoul]

Gamism and Narrativism: Mutually Exclusive

 

[Umbran]

I don't believe they are exclusive, in theory. In practice, serving three masters is difficult, but not impossible.

Now, I will admit to blurring the lines a bit between GNS (the name more gamers know) and GDS (which states some things more clearly) - and my observation is that outside the Forge, many people blur things as I do...

They are, maybe not strictly, but nearly exclusive, when applied, as the Big Model theory does, to players' agendas, not to the game system. When people play with different agendas, conflicts often arise, as what one seeks detracts from the fun of another.

Conflicts can arise, sure. But you also get conflicts when two people of the same agenda pursuing their goals without regard to the other guy. I think these have more to do with how much concern you have for your fellow players than what agenda you hold.

The WotC market research from back in 1999 revealed something interesting - they found empirical data grouped not three ways (as GNS/GDS), but four - which they dubbed "Thinkers", "Character Actors", "Powergamers" and "Storytellers". They also found a fifth data grouping, that appeared to be a moderate mixture of the four.

If one person can have multiple agendas and not go stark raving mad, I expect two people with different agendas can work things out so they all have a good time.

 

[Dausuul]

They are, maybe not strictly, but nearly exclusive, when applied, as the Big Model theory does, to players' agendas, not to the game system.

I don't believe this at all. I enjoy all three aspects of the game and get annoyed when a game focuses on one to the detriment of the other two. 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.

I think it would be more accurate to say that each player has a preferred position in the gamist/dramatist/simulationist triangle, and players whose positions are too far apart will come into conflict.

Gamism and Narrativism: Mutually Exclusive

After reading the first post in that thread, I have to say that the original poster is not someone I would ever want in a game I was running or playing in. Perhaps s/he's just too used to playing Forge-style "narrative" games, but IMC a player who takes the attitude that "I have great ideas, the DM ought to be using them!" will be invited to take over the DMing hat, and if they don't want to do that, accept that I'm not going to use every "great idea" I hear.

I'm happy to listen to player ideas, and work them in if they fit with the campaign I want to run; but I've found that nothing kills my enthusiasm for DMing quite so fast as trying to work in stuff I don't really like. (Every so often I allow a player to convince me that "No, really, this will work fine in your campaign." I always end up regretting it later. If I don't see an idea and go "Hey, yeah, that's a great idea! I'm doing that!" right away, then I'm better off not using it.)