GNS - which are you?

[Ourph]

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.

You're making a distinction among Stances (you engage in Author or Pawn Stance, rather than Actor Stance during play). Variations in Stance don't affect whether an instance of play falls into a G, N or S category. None of the categories require a particular Stance.

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

Sure, that absolutely makes sense. I would suggest, though, that if you look back on the changes you made (guided by Robin's Laws) you'll probably see that they can be described in terms of some aspect(s) of the GNS model. Modifying the game experience doesn't always mean switching creative agendas or creating a game where one creative agenda is completely predominant. Modifying the focus of Exploration, pairing instances of G,N or S play with specific events in the game, changing the balance of Crunch vs. Gamble in the resolution system or even addressing how much "screen time" certain players get can often be much more important to making people happy than a complete switch of creative agendas IME.

 

[Mark Causey]

Sure, that absolutely makes sense. I would suggest, though, that if you look back on the changes you made (guided by Robin's Laws) you'll probably see that they can be described in terms of some aspect(s) of the GNS model. Modifying the game experience doesn't always mean switching creative agendas or creating a game where one creative agenda is completely predominant. Modifying the focus of Exploration, pairing instances of G,N or S play with specific events in the game, changing the balance of Crunch vs. Gamble in the resolution system or even addressing how much "screen time" certain players get can often be much more important to making people happy than a complete switch of creative agendas IME.

I guess for me, it's the difference between using off the shelf software and coding my own. I could code my own solutions, and have tailor made results, but the off the shelf solutions are more in line with the amount of effort I can put forth in my situation. Thus, I think we concur. They both back each other, and I prefer one to the other in terms of effort on my part.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

Probably 100% Narrativist.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

You're making a distinction among Stances (you engage in Author or Pawn Stance, rather than Actor Stance during play).

I don't think the way I play falls under Author or Pawn, either. At least, not the way I've seen them described. I just don't think we have a classification that encompasses everything yet.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

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.

Laws' work is preferable for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that (as Adamantineangel points out above) it goes beyond describing the problem and begins to offer solutions.

However, the main reason why I prefer Laws' work is that he tries to use words according to their express or intuitive meaning. He doesn't try to rewrite the dictionary for his audience. Edwards, on the other hand, is very careful about choosing what he wants his words to mean and then limiting the range of applications that he permits (plenty of evidence already in this thread from people telling us "You can't describe XYZ in GNS terms" - apparently for no better reason than "Because Edwards says so.")

Edwards' terms "Simulationist", "Narrativist" and "Gamist" bear only a very passing relationship to what most people would understand by the words he uses. Let me see if I can illustrate Edwards' mental sleight-of-hand here by exaggeration and parody.

I'm going to present an argument based on one term, which I define as follows:

Wrong (adj) - Anything written by Ron Edwards

Congratulate me! I've proved that Edwards is wrong! - For a given definition of "wrong".

Likewise Edwards has proved a lot about Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism - but only if you accept his definitions.

 

[S'mon]

I think Edwards' definition of Gamist is fairly intuitive, the big problem lies with "Simulationist" - which often seems like a hold-all for stuff Edwards doesn't like) -vs "Narrativist" - which seems to be given a privileged position and is defined in a very narrow way that bears almost no relation to its inituitive meaning, which I'd say was something like "Focused on Narrative" - ie "About the Story". For Edwards "Story-Telling" = "Illusionism" = "Railroading" (subtle or blatant) = bad. Hence I think the 'threefold model' Gamist/Dramatist/Simulationist is more intuitive, makes more sense - the definitions correspond to ordinary use - and draws more useful distinctions. GNS lumps Dramatist in with Simulationist as Simulationist which I think is a crime against clarity.

 

[Psion]

I think Edwards' definition of Gamist is fairly intuitive, the big problem lies with "Simulationist" - which often seems like a hold-all for stuff Edwards doesn't like) -vs "Narrativist" - which seems to be given a privileged position and is defined in a very narrow way that bears almost no relation to its inituitive meaning, which I'd say was something like "Focused on Narrative" - ie "About the Story". For Edwards "Story-Telling" = "Illusionism" = "Railroading" (subtle or blatant) = bad. Hence I think the 'threefold model' Gamist/Dramatist/Simulationist is more intuitive, makes more sense - the definitions correspond to ordinary use - and draws more useful distinctions. GNS lumps Dramatist in with Simulationist as Simulationist which I think is a crime against clarity.

I've hear some folks on RPGnet that share the analysis that Simulationism is sort of a ghetto for the Forge.

I think part of what distorts GNS -- other than general over-analysis -- is the (IMO flawed) assumptions that the three gaming axes as posited are best when pure and are fundamentally true and orthogonal. Which is a bit silly -- these aren't fundamental cosmic forces like electric and magnetic fields or anything. These are silly human preferences. And the way the definitions of the three isms as defined over on the forge has been influenced by this assumptions, and this has led to a bit of a drift from common usage in order to support the supposition.

I think that the threefold model in any form's greatest point of enlightenment is recognition that there is no one "right way" and different people get different charges out of gaming. But I think that there are many not neatly defininable overlaps between the three and ways to combine the three that are not less satisfying than a "pure game", but more.

 

[S'mon]

Psion - agree 100% w everything you just said.

 

[John Morrow]

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.

Because they ultimately don't describe two different things. I spent years discussing the GDS on rec.games.frp.advocacy and was an active participant there when it was created. It deals with play styles and was designed to describe why players like or don't like certain types of games. The Laws model deals with play styles. The GNS deals with play styles. The Blacow model deals with play styles. The WotC model deals with play styles. And it's not that difficult to map the GDS onto the Blacow or WotC model. It's not a coincidence that they all have three or four categories. And I think the Laws model is an improvement because it makes a few important distinctions that the other models not only don't make but because that lack of distinction in other models is one of the main reasons why they are so divisive and are constantly argued over.

My standard for judgement is how well the tools work for (A) diagnosing problems and suggesting solutions and (B) accurately categorizing styles into groups with substantial similarities and minor differences. If a model groups highly incompatible styles together in the same category, I tend to consider it a poor model.

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.

No. It's like looking at a pizza as a collection of ingredients or a collection of chemicals. It's simply a different way of discribing a pizza.

 

[John Morrow]

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

Out of curiosity, do you mean GDS or GNS?

But, yes, that's one reason why I consider Laws' model superior. The other reason is that Laws was sharp enough to differentiate the Power Gamer and the Butt Kicker and leave room for the Casual Role-Player. One of the reasons why the three-category models are so divisive (i.e., GDS and GNS) is that they force people using those models to try to fit the dreaded Power Gamer (as well as the Munchkin, which I think deserves yet another category) into one of the three syltes. And the way that usually goes is that people wind up dumping everything that they consider "bad role-playing" into one of the three categories that they don't like or understand (in Ron's case, I think that category was "Simulationism"), much to the annoyance of the people who should self-identify with that category but are neither bad role-players nor identify with the bad role-players being forced into a category with them.