#32: GNS? Oh No, Not Again!

[RPGnet Columns]

http://www.rpg.net/columns/roughquests/roughquests32.phtml

Summary:

Gamist, narrativist, simulationist, dramatist: a new definition of terms

Go to the column (http://www.rpg.net/columns/roughquests/roughquests32.phtml) for more information.

[-E.]

I'm with you in throwing out the model.

I'm not so sure I like keeping the words, though: a lot of people have issues with the somewhat arcane terminology in RPG-theory (GNS, and others).

If there's *any* good reason to have jargon, it's to make discussion of complex ideas more simple and accessible (at least to those who understand the jargon).

Now, I'll grant that GNS pretty much failed at this: most folks can't agree or don't understand (or throw out) most of the formal definition of the terms.

But using the same terms with different definitions only adds to the problems.

We now have

GDS-Sim
GNS-Sim

and SNGD - Sim

All of which mean subtly different things.

Even if you like those terms (and I'll grant they're reasonably good ones: the thought that went into GDS / rgfa theory was fairly well vetted, if nothing else) I encourage you to end the madness! -- Choose new words ;)

Otherwise, interesting article. I look forward to seeing your framework in practice.

Cheers,
-E.

[Levi]

I disagree with you. A lot. (http://the-tall-man.livejournal.com/32097.html#cutid1)

I'll leave it at that.

[smascrns]

-E., I understand your reservations but look at it this way: I'm not trying to frame a new, alternate, theory. I'm just pragmatically picking four words that convey different perspectives on rpg design; and I do this for the limited purpose of designing Rough Quests. I'm using those words in the context of the present series of columns, nothing else. The implicit pressuposition is that the reader read the Rough Quests columns and extrapolates from there at his own risk.

Of course, I may one day go back to all my columns and revise them into something of a general theory of rpg design... Just not now, not yet.

Thanks for the input anyway. If I do attempt a theory of rpg design I'll follow your suggestion and choose another terminology. You're perfectly right, that saves a lot of misunderstandings.

Levi, let's see if I can figure the reason for your disagreement. Humm, (reading "The Manyfold"), humm again, some more humm...

No, I don't know what you are talking about. I mean, I don't see what you are disagreing with. Not from reading The Manyfold. You disagree with my 'theory'? But I don't have a theory. Maybe you read what I wrote as a 'taxonomy'. That's not what I wrote. If you read it that way it's your mistake and misunderstanding.

Other than this I can't figure what you're talking about. For instance, I have nothing against your first 4 points plus point 7. They just have nothing to do with my column. I was not discussing players' wants or playstyles. I just can't figure how a discussion on wants and styles is an indictment of my four perspectives or points of view on roleplaying. Unless you think that looking at playstyles is more important than looking at the behaviours that happen around the table (I see my 4 terms as 4 different aspects of rpg behaviour).

Maybe you're right. The irony is that in order to look in depth at playstyles one needs to define them. You know, one needs a, gasp, taxinomy of playstyles... or one is left with some generic but useless ideas. Like saying that all one needs is to look at what one does and nothing else (what you say in your points 5 and 6). Thanks but one does not need to be told that. If people draw categories of goals and playstyles it is because people want to compare their goals or playstyles to those of other people. It's because people think that they can learn something from that comparision, and because they think they need some terminology to make it easier. Telling them that they don't need to compare because they already have a goal and a style really does not answer their question. On the specific issue of your points 5 and 6 I disagree with you. A lot.

[Levi]

If people draw categories of goals and playstyles it is because people want to compare their goals or playstyles to those of other people. It's because people think that they can learn something from that comparision, and because they think they need some terminology to make it easier. Telling them that they don't need to compare because they already have a goal and a style really does not answer their question. On the specific issue of your points 5 and 6 I disagree with you. A lot.

If you're going to compare your style to those of other people (which has many benefits) why define the styles you believe other people possess in advance?

Why not just ask?

[smascrns]

If you're going to compare your style to those of other people (which has many benefits) why define the styles you believe other people possess in advance?

Why not just ask?
Notice that my issue is not about style, but if I was to discuss styles of roleplaying I would need to relly in correct data on that topic. One way to get that data would be to ask other roleplayers about their style as you rightly suggest. I could also work with my own experience playing with other people or seing them playing. But, in the end, I could still define different styles in my own terms based on my interpretation of that data. Otherwise how could I present my take on styles to other people? If I didn't syntesise and systematize my information, all I had to present was the raw data. Not very useful for other people.

I have to insist, my column was not about styles of roleplaying. I don't care if the GNS model presents itself - or not - as being about gaming styles, that was not my issue, so one cannot read my column from the GNS perspective. (I tried to be clear about this.)
My column was about perspectives on roleplaying that try to identify different components into the rpg experience. From my point of view there's always a bit of simulation, a bit of narration, a bit of gamism and a bit of drama in a rpg experience. They are all there.
Differences in style may mean different combinations of the four, of course. And it may not be very helpful for the roleplayer to place himself in a taxinomy of gaming styles based on those four terms, as you suggest. But I was not looking at concrete gaming (I hope I was clear about this). My problem is different because it is about rpg design, not about actual roleplaying. That's why I think that definitions and concepts are useful, even if only from a pragmatic point of view (I'm not trying to come out with the ultimate theory on roleplaying).