What does GNS mean?

[Henry]

Maybe i'm reading this wrong (in fact, someone will likely come by and DEFINITELY say I am), but Based on his definition of Narrativism, (reading his essay "Narrativism:Story Now") It's pretty much whatever he says it is. System does matter, yet people play in a playstyle regardless of system - ?

Ah well: I'm guessing I agree with Jesse's take more than Ron's.

 

[GMSkarka]

When I first heard the theory, I thought it was a harmless bit of navel-gazing. Unfortunately, it has now grown to be taken as Near-Hubbard Writ by a crowd of people who seem to actually think that it's a critical component of game design, and whose belief in the theory borders on actual Faith, with a degree of uniformity that would make Limbaugh's fans jealous.

...but maybe I'm just bitter 'cause I was told that I wasn't "Indie" enough. Who knows?

 

[Nisarg]

GNS is the principle sacred dogma and scripture of the Cult of Ron Edwards, also known as the forge.

It is a thuroughly flawed theory (some of the reasons for which have been explained here by various people, and others of which have been covered in my "academic plague" threat) and serves no real purpose other than to secretly imply that narrativists are "more sophisticated" gamers than the rest, narrativists who "understand" and subscribe to GNS theory are the most sophisticated of all, and only games designed by the forge are worth playing.

As I said many times before, according to their own theory, the games the forge produces (which have none of the "errors" that just about every other game out here has, according to them) should be the bestselling most popular RPGs on the planet.
They aren't.
Theory is .

Goodnight.

Nisarg

EDIT by Henry: see below.

 

[Umbran]

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)...

And, let us not forget that White Wolf, for all it's supposedly "Narrativist" leanings, attracts it's own large "gamist" players. Even the live action bunch (and perhaps most especially them) are very big on playing the rules for best effect. Don't let labels fool you, about the game or the gamer.

If you really must try categorizing gamers, you might want a system that is based on actual data, rather than theory. After doing their market research in 1999, some WotC folk came up with the following:

A breakdown of RPG players

Read it carefully and completely before applying it though. There is a very important bit in there:

"All of the people who indicated a strong interest in RPGs identified eight "core values" that they look for in the RPG experience. These 8 core values are more important than the segments; that is, if these 8 things aren't present in the play experience it won't matter if the game generally supports a given segment's interests - the players will find the experience dissatisfying. These 8 core values are:

Strong Characters and Exciting Story
Role Playing
Complexity Increases over Time
Requires Strategic Thinking
Competitive
Add on sets/New versions available
Uses imagination
Mentally challenging

In other words, even the players who enjoy a "Tactical Focus" still want to be challenged to use Strategic Thinking; likewise, even the Combat Focus player wants a Strong Character and Exciting Story. A person who segments into a "Tactical Focus" segment, when compared to the population as a whole is likely to be perceived as someone who enjoys Strategy; only when compared to the population of people who enjoy RPGs is the difference visible between the hard-core strategic players and the slightly less hard-core tactical players."

 

[deltadave]

The GNS model is a way of describing the creative agenda of players and designing games that meet that agenda. Creative agenda is a fancy way of saying 'the satisfying aspect of playing roleplaying games'. Whether you consider one aspect of the model to be more sophisiticated and desireable or not is a personal opinion, the purpose of the model is to allow designers to design games that meet the needs of players.

The RPGA for example plays an almost exclusively gamist version of D&D since there are no rewards for roleplay and the only xp given is for overcoming challenges. Most local games of D&D that I've been part of are a mix of sim and gamist.

 

[Henry]

ADMIN'S NOTE:
OK, As much as I've been enjoying the multitude of opinions and the generally non-hostile back-and-forth going on, the increasing hostility and name-calling is getting too much. Let's all please take a step back here, and refrain from personal insults, OK? This goes for all the GNS/Gaming Dying threads going at the moment.

Thanks.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Most local games of D&D that I've been part of are a mix of sim and gamist.

Virtually nothing is narrativist, by Ron Edwards definition, which is what makes the term pretty useless. I bet a lot of your local D&D games were at least a little dramatist though.

 

[Sejs]

I just don't see the point in trying to fragment the gaming community like this.

We're all gamers. The last thing we need is something that'll turn into slurs based on some arbitrary delineation based on play style.

I mean honestly, moral elitism between gamers? We're all nerds, people. No one's manner of nerdery is superior to anyone else's. There is no hierarchy, and there are no categories. We all just need to get over ourselves and go back to what our hobby is supposed to be about - having fun.

 

[Jack Spencer Jr]

ADMIN'S NOTE:
OK, As much as I've been enjoying the multitude of opinions and the generally non-hostile back-and-forth going on, the increasing hostility and name-calling is getting too much. Let's all please take a step back here, and refrain from personal insults, OK? This goes for all the GNS/Gaming Dying threads going at the moment.

Thanks.

Good thing you said this, because I was about to reply and I have nothing good to say about GNS or the Forge.

One and only bit of advice: don't waste your time, folks.

Take care.

 

[Umbran]

We're all gamers. The last thing we need is something that'll turn into slurs based on some arbitrary delineation based on play style.

I mean honestly, moral elitism between gamers? We're all nerds, people. No one's manner of nerdery is superior to anyone else's.

And, if WotC's analysis is correct, the division is pretty subtle. As a broad generalization, take any two gamers, no matter their classification, and you'll find they have more similarities than differences.

Classifying gamers can perhaps be a useful tool for new GMs who haven't seen many playstyles yet. It can make them aware of what the players might want to see, so that they can cater to individual tastes.

In the real world, I personally have seen more gamist use of White Wolf games than I have seen Narrativist or Dramatist use. Which suggests to me that well-crafted rule sets are toolkits. A given tool kit may be a bit better for one job than another, but any decent tool kit has broad scope, and can be used for many things.

So, I sometimes wonder when people who say, "I didn't like that system, it was too X". Were the rules too X, or were they put to too X of a use for your tastes? Couldn't it be that in other hands, or even in the same hands with different choice of emphasis, the system might be just fine?