I think you're really misreading the GNS model if you think that NWPs and character backgrounds are clear indicators of a Narrativist agenda. Those things are, I believe, agenda-neutral and fall under the heading of exploration of system and character respectively (aspects which can be part and parcel of any creative agenda).
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
GNS - does one preclude another?
- Thread starter Wik
- Start date
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
The trifecta! Retro circles trump pretentious triangles because there's stupid room for more lasers!I dunno. There is plenty of stupid pretension in retro circles.
(§)=••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••¤
/_\
I find GNS considerably less useful than the original GDS theory which Ron Edwards derived it from.
Basically, Edwards had a very specific preference for a very specific kind of Dramatist play. He labeled this Narrativist, but then he found himself with a whole bunch of other Dramatist playstyles that didn't fit into the N box of his new GNS. So he took all of those playstyles and kind of shoved them into Simulationist play, which he had never understood all that well in the first place.
Basically, GDS has a very specific and useful definition of its three axes. And it largely constrained itself to the description of the rationale used for any individual decision point. In terms of each decision point, one is forced to make a trade-off when it comes to the rationale used. Overall playstyles are described as an aggregate of decision points.
Edwards did put important emphasis on the impact of rule system on playstyle. Although his purity-driven style of system design results, by its very nature, in games of specifically narrow appeal. Edwards may not like the "incoherence" of classic D&D, for example, but it is specifically its broad mechanical flexibility that made the game appeal successfully to many different gamers.
Both theories tend to overvalue purity of theory at the expense of practical compromise at the gaming table. Although, IME, the GDS theory is an immensely useful terminology for discussing and reaching those compromises.
Basically, Edwards had a very specific preference for a very specific kind of Dramatist play. He labeled this Narrativist, but then he found himself with a whole bunch of other Dramatist playstyles that didn't fit into the N box of his new GNS. So he took all of those playstyles and kind of shoved them into Simulationist play, which he had never understood all that well in the first place.
Basically, GDS has a very specific and useful definition of its three axes. And it largely constrained itself to the description of the rationale used for any individual decision point. In terms of each decision point, one is forced to make a trade-off when it comes to the rationale used. Overall playstyles are described as an aggregate of decision points.
Edwards did put important emphasis on the impact of rule system on playstyle. Although his purity-driven style of system design results, by its very nature, in games of specifically narrow appeal. Edwards may not like the "incoherence" of classic D&D, for example, but it is specifically its broad mechanical flexibility that made the game appeal successfully to many different gamers.
Both theories tend to overvalue purity of theory at the expense of practical compromise at the gaming table. Although, IME, the GDS theory is an immensely useful terminology for discussing and reaching those compromises.
Just ignore the theory if you don't like it, is my argument. The actual articles are on the Web, in any case. I don't think anyone means any harm by it, I know, and Lord knows the theory's been told and retold by so many people that it might as well be meaningless.
Unless you're an English or lit major, Narrativism probably literally has no meaning at all to you, since "dramatic premise" is very specifically a literary thing as opposed to a "What happened in the story" kind of thing. I imagine that a lot of people think Narr is bogus or whatnot because they don't buy into the idea of a literary premise, period. And that's totally cool, I mean, if you aren't interested in literary premise, and aren't interested in how it could apply to roleplaying games... what bloody reason is there for you to even care about Narr, unless it's to get mad about it? I just don't get it.
I mean, seriously, think about whether or not you have a strong preference about whether and how books, TV, and movies deal with, in lit terms, problems of the human condition. Some people think that's absolutely vital for a creative work, and other people think it's pretentious as all getout. If this is something that sounds boring to you, then obviously it's not gonna do it for you in a game. I don't want to sound like a jerk, I'm just like, I'd rather hear people label Narr as "Some dumb thing nobody cares about" than describe it as something it isn't.
Safest thing is to ust stick to the old GDS theory and go with that. Since those terms were never defined, you can go nuts with it.
I have no idea what Dramatism is, neither does anybody else as far as I can tell, so it's certainly an open topic for debate!
Unless you're an English or lit major, Narrativism probably literally has no meaning at all to you, since "dramatic premise" is very specifically a literary thing as opposed to a "What happened in the story" kind of thing. I imagine that a lot of people think Narr is bogus or whatnot because they don't buy into the idea of a literary premise, period. And that's totally cool, I mean, if you aren't interested in literary premise, and aren't interested in how it could apply to roleplaying games... what bloody reason is there for you to even care about Narr, unless it's to get mad about it? I just don't get it.
I mean, seriously, think about whether or not you have a strong preference about whether and how books, TV, and movies deal with, in lit terms, problems of the human condition. Some people think that's absolutely vital for a creative work, and other people think it's pretentious as all getout. If this is something that sounds boring to you, then obviously it's not gonna do it for you in a game. I don't want to sound like a jerk, I'm just like, I'd rather hear people label Narr as "Some dumb thing nobody cares about" than describe it as something it isn't.
Safest thing is to ust stick to the old GDS theory and go with that. Since those terms were never defined, you can go nuts with it.
I have no idea what Dramatism is, neither does anybody else as far as I can tell, so it's certainly an open topic for debate!
Last edited:
Personally, I would rate any version of D&D a 1 on the Narrativist scale. Pages of fluff talking about how the game 'should' be played are irrelevent. What do the rules say? What theme is being addressed in play? What motivates my character? What choices will he have to make? The rules say absolutely nothing about any of these, with more attention being paid to what a character can do rather than who a character is.
LostSoul
Adventurer
I wouldn't call it a narrow focus. If you look at Sorcerer, the suggested/default focus is on empathy. "Empathy" isn't a narrow theme.
D&D isn't too hard to play Narrativist with. One PC is playing a Cleric of a Undead-hating God. They go to a border town that's preparing for an assault from an horde of raiders just over the hills. They've raised the dead from their graveyard to build a wall in short order. Of course you'll want to add some more NPCs and subtlety to the scenario, but it's not hard.
pawsplay
Hero
Even talking about GNS is fighting the last generation's war. The last time I checked, The Big Model was all the rage over at the Forge. As far as GNS specifically goes:
- The definition of gamism is wrong. I don't think most players, even competitive players, are interested in demonstrating their abilities, primarily. RPGs concern imaginary struggles with imaginary stakes. Even "winning" in some sense is an act of imagination, which takes us back to exploring the imaginary world or the real world social situation. In order to "win" an imaginary battle first requires that you accept the imaginary premise, which describes the Right to Dream.
- Simulationism as the Right to Dream makes no sense. The experience itself of delving into an imaginary world is the definitely of an RPG, any RPG. It doesn't matter whether you are playing at a surface level talking about "my dude" or engaged in deep first-person narration, whether you are trying to gain levels or avenge your lost loved ones, you are imagining the imaginary world as the thing itself. So either all RPGs are simulation, or none of them are.
- Narrativism is a modernist encapsulation of how drama is explored. This is flawed on several levels, beginning with the, I believe obvious, fact that RPGs are a post-modern entertainment form. RPGs began in the 1970s, well after modernism was on the way out, and the idea of just "doing stuff" fits in neatly with Sontag's approach to textual-surface-as-meaning (at least as well as I understand it, I don't claim to be an expert on Sontag's post-modernism). Furthermore, a modernist theme hinges on a meaningful resolution... in an RPG, no resolution is a foregone conclusion. Even if the GM and players agree to script the ending, the unfolding events may transform the final significance of that outcome.
- The definition of gamism is wrong. I don't think most players, even competitive players, are interested in demonstrating their abilities, primarily. RPGs concern imaginary struggles with imaginary stakes. Even "winning" in some sense is an act of imagination, which takes us back to exploring the imaginary world or the real world social situation. In order to "win" an imaginary battle first requires that you accept the imaginary premise, which describes the Right to Dream.
- Simulationism as the Right to Dream makes no sense. The experience itself of delving into an imaginary world is the definitely of an RPG, any RPG. It doesn't matter whether you are playing at a surface level talking about "my dude" or engaged in deep first-person narration, whether you are trying to gain levels or avenge your lost loved ones, you are imagining the imaginary world as the thing itself. So either all RPGs are simulation, or none of them are.
- Narrativism is a modernist encapsulation of how drama is explored. This is flawed on several levels, beginning with the, I believe obvious, fact that RPGs are a post-modern entertainment form. RPGs began in the 1970s, well after modernism was on the way out, and the idea of just "doing stuff" fits in neatly with Sontag's approach to textual-surface-as-meaning (at least as well as I understand it, I don't claim to be an expert on Sontag's post-modernism). Furthermore, a modernist theme hinges on a meaningful resolution... in an RPG, no resolution is a foregone conclusion. Even if the GM and players agree to script the ending, the unfolding events may transform the final significance of that outcome.
From what I can tell, the Big Model just takes GNS and adds a few more layers of flummery. It's still the same basic concept.
Last edited:
