GNS - which are you?

[Mark Causey]

And that's the point that I never seem to remember when describing this to other people, i.e., that it defines instances of play, not people. That said, everyone should at this point, I think, treat the poll/question as a preferred or most often encountered mode when playing D&D. If one wants to state other gaming systems, then that should be mentioned in the post.

 

[Khayman]

10% Gamist, 50% Narrativist, 40% Simulationist.

As a player, I'm more interested in a character's decision making, as viewed in context.
As a DM, I have some control over that context and I like to see the decisions that my players make.

I'm also a big believer in 'method gaming' --- food, music, and story details that create a sense of versimilitude.

 

[DonTadow]

I think that is what makes D and D the most unique game out there. It's a good combination of all three of these and it allows for the person to pick and choose the scale of each one. I believe that it should be an equal balance, but again, you create each game for the players (this includes the dm) in the game.

 

[John Morrow]

I advise using great caution when applying Edwards' definitions, because I believe that part of their function is to establish a straw man which he can then knock down, thereby making his conclusions seem inevitable.

That's what it looks like to me, too. I think you can find ample support for your theory here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?topic=24&forum=3

Why are Ron's comments from 2001 important? Because they reflect the level of understanding he had of various play styles when he defined the categories in the GNS.

 

[John Morrow]

Otherwise, Robin's Laws does a much better job defining my group.

I recomment the Laws' model (based on Glenn Blacow's model from 1980) over either the GDS or the GNS. Most people who are not well versed in Forge terminology use GNS terminology to describe the GDS model. If you are interested in the GDS model, look here:

http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/

 

[John Morrow]

I think that is what makes D and D the most unique game out there. It's a good combination of all three of these and it allows for the person to pick and choose the scale of each one. I believe that it should be an equal balance, but again, you create each game for the players (this includes the dm) in the game.

D&D 3e was purposely crafted to cater to multiple styles of role-playing. You can find Ryan Dancey's analysis of role-playing styles (based on WotC surveys and roughly corresponding to the Blacow model) that informed the design decisions for D&D 3e here:

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html

This was part of long series of articles that Ryan Dancey posted to Pyramid about D&D 3e and the OGL idea but the basic point is that WotC did style analysis of role-players and designed D&D 3e to give something for everyone.

 

[S'mon]

I have to say that the idea of D&D 3e as anything but Gamist in orientation seems weird to me.

 

[Ourph]

Otherwise, Robin's Laws does a much better job defining my group.

I recomment the Laws' model (based on Glenn Blacow's model from 1980) over either the GDS or the GNS.

I don't understand this either/or attitude toward the Laws' model and GDS/GNS. They're describing two completely different things, how could one be "better" than the other.

It's like saying, "I recommend flour rather than eggs as an ingredient in pizza dough". It's not an either/or thing, both are essential ingredients of the whole.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I don't believe that GNS encompasses my style of play.

Simulationism comes close - emphasis on character exploration rather than on world exploration - except that I don't identify myself with my characters, so to say I play to "explore what it's like to be a vampire" is false. I don't pretend to be someone else when I play.

 

[Mark Causey]

I don't understand this either/or attitude toward the Laws' model and GDS/GNS. They're describing two completely different things, how could one be "better" than the other.

It's like saying, "I recommend flour rather than eggs as an ingredient in pizza dough". It's not an either/or thing, both are essential ingredients of the whole.

I like Robin's Laws better than GNS for it's terms in defining the problems I have at the game table. Robin's Laws point me towards practical things I can fix. GNS tells me that I'm simply not playing the game that best suits my preferences. I don't have the luxury of playing with a group of people who all have the same preferences towards games that I do; as such, going to the table and telling them to all play some Sim purist game will lead to me not having a game to play. I go to a table, we make the best decision we can to something we'll all play, and I have to find some way to have fun and be a part of everyone else's fun.

Does that make more sense? GNS tells me why I'm upset, Robin's Laws help ameloriate that.