Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 2209296" data-attributes="member: 463">A couple of years ago I turned to GNS theory, partly because I felt on some level my D&D campaign was dysfunctional and I wanted to know why.  I think now my D&D campaign was dysfunctional because at least two of my players had problem personalities that would be difficult to accommodate in any game (not that I’m perfect either), but also clearly most or all of the players wanted things from the game that I wasn’t providing and in some cases wasn’t interested in providing.  GNS in the end provided susprisingly little help, though 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.   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.    GDS is better than GNS – at least it makes sense – eg I know now as GM I want to provide G & S, and that I like D but I tend not to want to provide it in play, hoping it will emerge naturally.   I think GNS was very harmful, actually, because it says “You can only have ONE play style at any one time”; and it strongly implies that if you feel a lack, it’s because you need Narrativism as a solution to your ills.  It’s kinda cult-like, actually.I’m really enjoying GMing my current Lost City of Barakus campaign; focusing as GM on simulating the environment and providing good challenges.  Drama – story – is developing naturally in play, and it feels good.</blockquote>

Verification