What does GNS mean?

[Akrasia]

... but people tend to take these categories and run with them to the exclusion of all else, and it's silly to do so - as huge social-pigeonhole of a mistake. But in proper context, as mere reasons why people play it's not bad, rather than SOLE reasons why one particular person plays (which would be WRONG).

Sure, they are 'ideal types' that are only approximated in reality. Most people will be some mix of all three. Still, they can serve a heuristic value. E.g. if someone were to tell me that they did not care for 'narrativist' approaches at all, then I'd know that gaming with her would not be my bag.

 

[Psion]

I'm not sure how this is incompatible with what I stated. :\
To quote: "...or would work, in the appropriate science fiction or fantasy reality."
Is it just because I mentioned that such games tend to be 'gritty'? That's just because GURPS is considered the 'biggest' example of a simulationist game.

I think a lot of people play D&D simulationist-like. I could only hazard a guess at what proportion and split hairs about definitions, but as a whole, D&D is enough bigger than GURPS that I imagine that more simulationist play occurs in D&D.

 

[tonym]

GNS and Robert's hooey are things i place in a box and discard.

they are just ways to try and categorize gamers. i don't particularly care for them.

I had a GM I was argueing with get irritated at me and call me a gamist, to insult me.

So I'm not particularly fond of them, either.


Tony M

 

[Vaxalon]

"I don't understand it, so I don't like it."

"I don't understand it, so I don't like it."

 

[diaglo]

"I don't understand it, so I don't like it."

i understand stereotyping... so i don't like it.

 

[WayneLigon]

Oh, I've heard of this before but I had no idea some guy claims to have 'come up' with it. So when did he come up with it? Because I've seen articles about this kind of division - using slightly different terminology but discussing the same inherent ideas - for several, several years. The earliest I remember is a discussion of the 'Five-Fold Way' in early Different Worlds issues, which would be something like 1980-1983. I'll dig 'em out and see what the exact division was.

 

[Scribble]

Gamist? Narativist? Simulationist?

Geez back in the day all we had were vampire(Goth) headz, Dorks, and fat people that smelled weird...

 

[Psion]

Oh, I've heard of this before but I had no idea some guy claims to have 'come up' with it. So when did he come up with it? Because I've seen articles about this kind of division - using slightly different terminology but discussing the same inherent ideas - for several, several years. The earliest I remember is a discussion of the 'Five-Fold Way' in early Different Worlds issues, which would be something like 1980-1983. I'll dig 'em out and see what the exact division was.

I'm sure it's just one way of looking at things, and it arose directly from people's discussion and observations on a usenet newsgroup. I'm sure nobody really invented anything; it's more a backwards glance at what people are doing. The taxonomy came later.

Really, what set of labels you use and who came up with them is largely irrelevant. The important part of the theory, IMO, is the recognition that people are after different things in games.

 

[Henry]

...E.g. if someone were to tell me that they did not care for 'narrativist' approaches at all, then I'd know that gaming with her would not be my bag.

And it could very well be a HUGE mistake. I've gamed with regular White Wolf Storyteller system players before, some even from these forums, and I dislike White Wolf's Storyteller approach to gaming. Yet, I have had an absolute blast gaming with these people in other games. You don't get much more "Narrativist" than Storyteller System (excepting Amber or Nobilis, perhaps), yet it's the person, not the game or the gaming approach that I'm interested in. This is what I consider the danger on relying on such a system - one can easily isolate themselves into a convenient trap of not associating with people they'd otherwise enjoy playing.

 

[Akrasia]

... yet it's the person, not the game or the gaming approach that I'm interested in. This is what I consider the danger on relying on such a system - one can easily isolate themselves into a convenient trap of not associating with people they'd otherwise enjoy playing.

Yeah, that's a very good point.
But if someone tells you that they really dislike the style of game you like, it could be a decisive tie-breaker.
Deciding who you might want to game with involves many variables -- preferences concerning a 'game style' is just one.