GNS - does one preclude another?

[Nagol]

Here is where we hit one of those logical potholes in GNS. What if I am simulating a genre in which PCs do not die trivially, ever? GI Joe (80s cartoon) the RPG, for instance.

Then pick an engine that simulates that genre. Teenagers from Outer Space for example, does not offer a death mechanic (but don't date the vice principal's daughter -- that's really close!).

 

[resistor]

Well, presumably you'd want to alter your mechanic to reflect that, rather than have to frequently alter die rolls to achieve it.

Or you draw the definitions differently. This is one of the reasons why I buy into GDS much more than GNS. Here's my opinion on how things work in GDS terms:

Gamist - Something that is enjoyed by the act of overcoming some challenge. In-game balance (as in, all the characters having equal ability to contribute to success) is important in this paradigm.

Dramatist - Something that is enjoyable by the act of creating an interesting story. Narrative balance (as in, all the players having equal ability to contribute to the story) is important in this paradigm.

Simulationist - Something that is enjoyable by the act of emulating an imagined setting. Verisimilitude (as in, maintaining a degree of "realism" to the setting) is important in this paradigm.

In contrast to GNS definitions, I would tend to put most genre-emulation techniques under dramatism rather than simulationism. I view genre emulation as being part of "making a good action/horror/whatever story," rather than as part of "simulating an action/horror/whatever world."

------

It's also worth noting that sometimes the concepts of in-game and narrative balance get conflated. To illustrate the difference, I'll pull examples from FATE 2.0:

In FATE, every character has "aspects," which are sort of free-form ability scores. Examples could range from Hercules having "Strength of the Gods" to Indiana Jones having "Whip & Fedora."

The two primary mechanics in FATE 2.0 are:

1) Spending a FATE point to invoking a positive aspect to help you on some challenge. Hercules spends a FATE point to invoke "Strength of the Gods" to break down the iron-bound door.

2) Earning a FATE point by accepting a compel to act in compliance with a negative aspect. Indiana Jones is compelled to risk himself to grab his fedora as the stone door closes on it. He can either spend a FATE point to resist, or earn a FATE point for accepting the compel.

In FATE, an "optimized" character with lots of broad, positive aspects isn't actually very powerful, because the game mechanics encourage balance at a narrative level: a character with all-positive aspects will run out of FATE points, while a character with all-negative aspects will have lots of FATE points and nothing to spend them on. Players, then, are motivated to create characters with a balance of positive and negative aspects (or even aspects that can be either positive or negative).

This then ensures that all the players have balance degrees of narrative input, as they are all required to spend some time acquiescing to the narrative influences of others (accepting compels to gain points) in order to fund the instances where they want to take control of the narrative (by spending those points to fuel aspects).

 

[Umbran]

Or you draw the definitions differently.

I don't see the "or" here. Drawing the definition differently doesn't change the utility of ensconcing the genre in the mechanic.

Drawing the definitions differently will change whether you say that mechanic serves Drama, Narrative, or Simulation - but the mechanic ought to be there regardless.

 

[nedjer]

That depends how you come by them. If you take survey data and do a segmentation analysis, there's some science involved. If you just come up with them off the top of your head, there's much less science involved.



Remember, "apple" is a generalization. But we can usefully talk about them and gain understanding about apples.

Generalizations offer some understanding - and the process of chatting even moreso. What we have to remember is that the "we" is in the very broad and general sense, not in the specific "we" (like "we here at EN World" or "when shall we three meet again?")

And how does the article define the segments in the WotC research, in the form of patronising cardboard cutout stereotypes. If you used such generalisations to categorise other subcultures there'd be outrage. Such and such a percentage of you most enjoy imagined brutal violence over other forms of roleplaying is so not science.

 

[ST]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the guy that wrote GNS has stated many, many times that just trying to label one thing in a game as "G,N,or S" isn't in any way what he's talking about. Basically, that the definitions he's proposing only make any sense if we're talking about a multi-session game with a particular group, and even then it only is relevant to their particular play.

Really, it's not intended to be a way to label games. It's about talking about different ways people play games and how the mechanics (as written, and as used in play) affect that.

So, yeah, it's no surprise that people find half a definition to be lacking. I agree wholeheartedly with the multiple people who've been saying they prefer GDS for these kinds of discussions -- since GDS as written actually applies, while GNS just doesn't.

Or to put it slightly less confrontationally, you can look at it as this: The guy who came up with GNS would probably concede a lot of the arguments you're making against it.

 

[Umbran]

If you used such generalisations to categorise other subcultures there'd be outrage.

I dunno. If I walked into a goth club, asked appropriate questions, and then told them that 22% of they enjoyed industrial trance music, and said that for purposes of discussion we were using the term "trancegoths" for those folks, I don't think I'd see much outrage. I expect the DJ would be interested in the findings, and might be interested in seeing if the requests he got mirrored my results.

Such and such a percentage of you most enjoy imagined brutal violence over other forms of roleplaying is so not science.

It is, if they asked properly, and that's what we told them. Are you of the impression that there's anyone around here who is not aware that imagined brutal violence is part of the game? When a significant part of our rulebooks are about combat? Anyone is going to be surprised to learn that some folks like the combat system more than other parts of the game?

 

[pawsplay]

Then pick an engine that simulates that genre. Teenagers from Outer Space for example, does not offer a death mechanic (but don't date the vice principal's daughter -- that's really close!).

That really isn't an answer to a question I posed. Furthermore, a game which has no death mechanic at all would be unsuitable anyway. My point is this: there is no effective way to divide simulating a world which runs according to certain dramatic concerns from simply running a world according to dramatic concerns. Only a world in which dramatic resolution was not assumed, which would be an illusion anyway, would this division be possible. It's like trying to make a distinction between being a superficial person, and pretending to be a superficial person.

Another wobby zone in the theory, as touched on above, is when a game mechanic also simulates reality. If you want to watch GNS die like a slug eating a pretzel, try to analyze Torg. It's a game in which reality is literally influenced by storytelling, and the ability to alter reality is a literal trait of the PCs. In game, a PC could think, "This would be an inspiring action," perform the action, receive a surge of reality energy, and use that energy to inspire others. A player can say, "I would like my PC to think, 'This would be an inspiring action...'" The best you can do is shout, "Ephemera, ephemera, all is ephemera and there is nothing new under the sun," but at that point you have completely distanced yourself from the framework, which is pretty close to saying that theory doesn't do anything at all.

 

[LostSoul]

Another wobby zone in the theory, as touched on above, is when a game mechanic also simulates reality. If you want to watch GNS die like a slug eating a pretzel, try to analyze Torg.

GNS doesn't have anything to say about specific games, not unless Torg gains some form of sentience and decides to start playing itself.

It's a game in which reality is literally influenced by storytelling, and the ability to alter reality is a literal trait of the PCs. In game, a PC could think, "This would be an inspiring action," perform the action, receive a surge of reality energy, and use that energy to inspire others. A player can say, "I would like my PC to think, 'This would be an inspiring action...'" The best you can do is shout, "Ephemera, ephemera, all is ephemera and there is nothing new under the sun," but at that point you have completely distanced yourself from the framework, which is pretty close to saying that theory doesn't do anything at all.

What?

 

[pawsplay]

GNS doesn't have anything to say about specific games, not unless Torg gains some form of sentience and decides to start playing itself.

Mea culpa. "Try analyzing play of Torg."

What?

Mu.

 

[Dausuul]

...which is pretty close to saying that theory doesn't do anything at all.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

I slogged through the threads linked to above--as much of them as I could stomach, anyhow--and the conclusion I came to was that by the time Ron Edwards got done adding caveats and limitations and "Now, this might seem to imply this, but it actually doesn't," he'd basically eliminated any possibility of making a useful prediction based on his theory.

Furthermore, nowhere in any of his posts did I see Ron Edwards lay out a clear definition of just what he means by G, N, and S. The whole thing seems like a giant soapbox erected for the purpose of pontificating on games at great length.

I agree with the other posters who say the GDS framework is much more workable than GNS. It's clearly defined and it makes a prediction: Each gamer has a gaming style which can be defined as some mix of G, D, and S, mechanics can be defined as furthering G, D, or S, and matching gamers to mechanics tends to produce happy gamers.

Whether this prediction is correct or not is another question. But it is a prediction and it is at least somewhat testable.