GNS - which are you?

[John Morrow]

Laws definitions are nice, but unlike GNS or GDS they seem entirely player-centric, which makes them less useful for seeing what I as GM want out of a game.

This might help:

Blacow => Dancey/WotC => GDS (NOT GNS)
Power Gaming => Power Gamer => N/A*
Role-Playing => Character Actor => Simulationist
Wargaming => Thinker => Gamist

Story Telling => Storyteller => Dramatist

* The Power Gamer always seems to get put into the ghetto category in a three-way model.

(EDIT: GNS -> GDS as intended)

 

[Ourph]

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.

I guess we just have completely different understandings of what the GNS model is trying to say. It appears to me that the Laws model takes a number of very different aspects of the roleplaying experience (gamer personality, play style, play purpose, commitment to the game, etc.) and tries to describe the individual player in terms of how all of these parts interact. At the opposite end of the spectrum, I see the GNS model as dissecting two of those things out of the mix (play style and play purpose), examining them independently and refusing to define the individual player based on the entire spectrum of their play, except on the level of being able to say that individuals may have a preference for a particular style or purpose. To me, that clearly says the two models are describing different things as well as examining their subjects at very different "magnifications".

If a model groups highly incompatible styles together in the same category, I tend to consider it a poor model.

If the GNS model offered no further criteria for division than G, N and S I'd wholeheartedly agree with you. The fact that Ron thoroughly describes criteria that divide each of the three main branches of the model into more specific categories, IMO, addresses the issue of the three main categories being too broad.

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.

Excellent point. You improved greatly on my analogy. My rejoinder would be, which is the more accurate way of describing a pizza? I would submit that both methods are equally accurate. I would also submit that both methods are not universally useful. If you're tweaking a recipe to improve the taste, you examine the ingredients. If you're breaking down the nutrition information, you examine the chemical components. Simply stating that pizza contains eggs, flour, butter, cheese, tomatoes and pepperoni isn't very useful if you're trying to determine how much Sodium it contains.

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.

I think here you're talking more about human psychology than the actual validity of the models. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that a model that allows the vast majority of gamers to exclude "problem" players from the particular group they identify themselves with is generally better than one which lumps many other "good" players in with the "problem" players. While it may make such a model more popular, I don't think it necessarily makes it more accurate. The GNS model does segregate Gamism (for example) into sub-groups based on other criteria, like Crunch vs. Gamble preferences. It also clearly defines the Hardcore Gamism phenomenon (strongly related to The Power Gamer group in Laws model) and makes it clear that it's merely a minor sub-category of Gamism.

The two main problems I have with the Laws model are that 1) it does nothing to describe how the player groupings are interrelated; and 2) it lumps personality, style and purpose all under one heading and assumes that the limited definitions it gives are adequate to describe the behavior of all gamers (i.e. it's a one dimensional model). For example, let's say I've got a player who always speaks in character, always creates characters with deep and interesting personal backgrounds and always plays Fighters or Barbarians dedicated to stamping out evil, who seek every opportunity to kick butt on the teeming chaotic hordes in the nearest dungeon (but give long sylliloques on the righteousness of their cause both before and after the battle). It seems like he would fit both the Method Actor and the Butt Kicker profile. Where do you put him in the Laws model? If you plug him into either one, you're ignoring many aspects of his play style and personality. If you simply say he's some mix of both (50/50 or 60/40 or whatever) then the Laws "model" doesn't really define anything concrete, it just offers some colorful descriptions that may or may not apply to any real world archetypes.

The reason I really prefer GNS or GDS over Laws is that both exclude player personality as a factor in their broad definitions, recognizing that things such as preference for "screen time", "stance" and level of player control over the play environment ("GM fullness") vary over all the major divisions and aren't tied to a particular one.

 

[der_kluge]

If I learned anything from this thread, it's that I'm greatly naive when it comes to these definitions.

Maybe ENWorld could create a new set of definitions, since there seems to be such a disagreement over the existing ones?

 

[Mark Causey]

. . . I think it did help collapse my campaign – one of my ex players had an epiphany and decided she was a Narrativist, so she abandoned D&D entirely.

Almost happened with me and mine, as well. But until this thread came up, hell, still I started talking to die_kluge about it, all I could resolve was this:

I'm Sim. I'm in a room of Gamists. Change the system or never be able to resolve our issues.

Now, I have resources, choices.

More accurately, I think he may have provided some useful insights about Narrativism and Gamism ...

I agree. I feel that their forum could be and sometimes is very helpful in terms of that. I tend to forget, though, of the main focus of the website, which is fully indicated in its URL (indie RPGs).

 

[Ourph]

I'm Sim. I'm in a room of Gamists. Change the system or never be able to resolve our issues.

In the end, the GNS model, the Laws model, whatever model is only useful in helping to describe what's going on at your table. The models themselves can't fix anything (usually switching systems can't do so either). IME, all conflicts are ultimately resolved through modifying the Social Contract or not at all.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb here.

I find Robin's Laws a profoundly depressing book. I read it as "Here are ways you can dance to entertain your players." I don't see any theory at all -- he's describing how you can manipulate people of given personality types so that they feel satisfied, without them knowing that you've manipulated them.

I personally think the GM advice Aaron Aalston put in Strike Force and various editions of Champions is a lot more useful than Robin's Laws.

And as for the "bias" of GNS, well, 90% of all play talked about on ENWorld probably falls under Sim, with some Gamism there. That doesn't mean that it's bad play -- Narrativism is so specifically narrow that I wouldn't expect it to be common -- and if you don't find the theory helpful, just ignore it.

Finally, if you want to want to read some interesting discussions about roleplaying theory that *don't* use heavy terminology, I suggest you check out http://www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley/opine.html . A lot of the same discussion, but not so much getting hung up on labels.

 

[John Morrow]

To me, that clearly says the two models are describing different things as well as examining their subjects at very different "magnifications".

Are you talking about core GNS or the whole Forge family of models? This thread is asking about "G", "N", and "S".

As for Laws model looking at different aspects of the experience and then creating categories, can you name some categories (at the same level of abstraction as Laws' other categories) that you can represent in the GNS but not Laws' model?

If the GNS model offered no further criteria for division than G, N and S I'd wholeheartedly agree with you. The fact that Ron thoroughly describes criteria that divide each of the three main branches of the model into more specific categories, IMO, addresses the issue of the three main categories being too broad.

Again, this thread asks about "G", "N", and "S", to the sub-categories. And the "G", "N", and "S" part of the GNS is about as far as most people who are not Forge regulars get. My concern is whether that top-level division is sensible or not. I don't think it is. I think it's designed to give a very specific form of play (called Narrativist) it's own privileged high-level category.

Excellent point. You improved greatly on my analogy. My rejoinder would be, which is the more accurate way of describing a pizza? I would submit that both methods are equally accurate. I would also submit that both methods are not universally useful. If you're tweaking a recipe to improve the taste, you examine the ingredients. If you're breaking down the nutrition information, you examine the chemical components.

I would argue that most people, if they are looking to improve the taste of their pizza, would find a discussion of supermarket ingredients more useful than a discussion of chemisty. I claim that most people looking at role-playing style models are looking to improve the taste of their role-playing game, not to understand the nutritional breakdown. As such, I think Laws model is more useful for most people.

Further, I think that if we were to divide Pizza up into components, I think that Crust, Sauce, and Cheeze is more useful than compounds that contain Potassium and Compounds that don't contain Potassium.

I think here you're talking more about human psychology than the actual validity of the models. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that a model that allows the vast majority of gamers to exclude "problem" players from the particular group they identify themselves with is generally better than one which lumps many other "good" players in with the "problem" players.

More accurately, I'm saying that enjoyment or problems occur because of style clashes. A model that doesn't distinguish styles that clash from each other isn't terribly useful in diagnosing problems or improving game quality.

While it may make such a model more popular, I don't think it necessarily makes it more accurate. The GNS model does segregate Gamism (for example) into sub-groups based on other criteria, like Crunch vs. Gamble preferences. It also clearly defines the Hardcore Gamism phenomenon (strongly related to The Power Gamer group in Laws model) and makes it clear that it's merely a minor sub-category of Gamism.

Which still goes back to the point that just the "G", "N", and "S" don't tell you very much if you need to rely on sub-categories to make the important distinctions. And if the GNS thinks that all power-gamers are Gamists, I think it may be making an even more fundamentalist mistake, though the tendency to never attribute a negative style of play to the Narrativist camp makes that unsurprising.

The two main problems I have with the Laws model are that 1) it does nothing to describe how the player groupings are interrelated;

And what does that tell you? In other words, what would you do with that information if you had it that you can't do with the Laws model?

and 2) it lumps personality, style and purpose all under one heading and assumes that the limited definitions it gives are adequate to describe the behavior of all gamers (i.e. it's a one dimensional model).

For example, let's say I've got a player who always speaks in character, always creates characters with deep and interesting personal backgrounds and always plays Fighters or Barbarians dedicated to stamping out evil, who seek every opportunity to kick butt on the teeming chaotic hordes in the nearest dungeon (but give long sylliloques on the righteousness of their cause both before and after the battle). It seems like he would fit both the Method Actor and the Butt Kicker profile. Where do you put him in the Laws model?

That actualy describes me pretty well. Realizing that Laws' categories are not exclusive or "pick only one", I'd call him a Method Actor and Butt Kicker. In fact, I'd argue that the GDS, GNS, and other models don't work very well as exclusive categories, either. The way the three-way models generally solve the same problem is by defining the categories as a triangular space that a point can be placed within, which is simply another way of saying 50/50 or 60/40.

If you plug him into either one, you're ignoring many aspects of his play style and personality.

Which is exactly why so many people not only reject but resent the GDS and GNS. The styles that they place in opposition are not always in opposition.

If you simply say he's some mix of both (50/50 or 60/40 or whatever) then the Laws "model" doesn't really define anything concrete, it just offers some colorful descriptions that may or may not apply to any real world archetypes.

Of course it defines concrete things. Otherwise, I couldn't say that I am a Method Actor and a Butt Kicker with a Tactician streak but I'm not a Power Gamer, Storyteller, Specialist, or Casual Gamer. And once a GM knows that, they'll have a pretty good idea of what I'm looking for in a game. A model does not have to have exclusive categories to be valid. That's like saying that pie-charts are the only way valid way to represent data, but that limits you to representing things only in terms of values that add up to 100%. Why?

It's that insistence of exclusivity that makes so many people, including well-respected authors of role-playing material, reject the GDS and GNS. Those models leave no place for what Ryan Dancey called the "basic role-player" in the WotC model, the only one backed by actual survey data and research, by the way. The person who likes a little of this and a little of that can't be defined in any exclusive model.

 

[John Morrow]

I'm Sim. I'm in a room of Gamists. Change the system or never be able to resolve our issues.

In GNS or GDS terms? In GDS terms, the two can co-exist quite happily. I'm not even really sure what Gamist means in GNS these days.

 

[John Morrow]

In the end, the GNS model, the Laws model, whatever model is only useful in helping to describe what's going on at your table. The models themselves can't fix anything (usually switching systems can't do so either). IME, all conflicts are ultimately resolved through modifying the Social Contract or not at all.

As the old GI Joe cartoons used to say, "Knowing is half the battle." If the model is good, then the description can lead to an understanding, and an understanding of what is going on will often reveal the solution. Heck, sometimes an understanding, alone, is the solution.

 

[John Morrow]

I personally think the GM advice Aaron Aalston put in Strike Force and various editions of Champions is a lot more useful than Robin's Laws.

Which is?

And as for the "bias" of GNS, well, 90% of all play talked about on ENWorld probably falls under Sim, with some Gamism there. That doesn't mean that it's bad play -- Narrativism is so specifically narrow that I wouldn't expect it to be common -- and if you don't find the theory helpful, just ignore it.

Part of my complaint about the GNS is that Narritivism is so specifically narrow that it has no business being a top-level category with a priviledged position.

Finally, if you want to want to read some interesting discussions about roleplaying theory that *don't* use heavy terminology, I suggest you check out http://www.septemberquestion.org/lumpley/opine.html . A lot of the same discussion, but not so much getting hung up on labels.

The other part of my complaint is that the GNS labels don't fit what they describe. The GNS description on this page does make a lot of sense. Might I suggest replacing GNS with PSB => "Proving, Saying, Being"? Because, yes, the labels are exactly what everyone gets hung up on. Of course those still aren't exclusive categories.