G/N/S epiphany

[hong]

"Now see here, guy! You're not dealing with any dumb two-bit trigger-pumping morons with low hairlines, little piggy eyes and no conversation, we're a couple of intelligent caring guys that you'd probably quite like if you met socially! I don't go around gratuitously shooting people and then bragging about it afterwards in seedy space-rangers bars, like some cops I could mention! I go around shooting people gratuitously and then I agonize about it afterwards for hours to my girlfriend!"

"And I write novels! Though I haven't had any of them published yet, so I better warn you, I'm in a _meeeeeean_ mood!"

-- The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

That's the clearest exposition I've seen yet of the difference between a gamist, a narrativist and a simulationist.


Hong "so, a gamist, a narrativist and a simulationist walk into a bar..." Ooi

[semprebon]

Using GNS Theory to analyze roleplaying is a lot like using physics to analyze playing tennis: it may help you in designing a better raquet, but its not going to help you to play a better tennis game.

[Jackob]

I'm a funist.

[Wiseblood]

Originally posted by Jackob
I'm a funist.

Game Nazi!

Don't foist your fun on us!

[Lord Minx]

Originally posted by semprebon
Using GNS Theory to analyze roleplaying is a lot like using physics to analyze playing tennis: it may help you in designing a better raquet, but its not going to help you to play a better tennis game.

Actually I´m not so sure about that. The current incarnation of "The Big Modell" which is used at the Forge (and includes much more than just GNS) is IMO a very good help in becoming aware of possible problems in the group, of personal preferences and stuff. Also some things, like the Lumpley Principle have helped me in forming my way of running games.

So it´s not that bad.

M

[TKurtBond]

Originally posted by semprebon
Using GNS Theory to analyze roleplaying is a lot like using physics to analyze playing tennis: it may help you in designing a better raquet, but its not going to help you to play a better tennis game.

Maybe. But being able to use the vocabulary that they have developed and written down to talk about roleplaying makes it a lot easier to analyze roleplaying in a way that lets you play a better roleplaying game.

[maddman75]

My problem with the GNS theory is that it seems to tend toward jargon and overcomplex definitions, as if we're dicussing mathematical proofs instead of ways of playing RPGs. However, once I stumbled upon a reasonably clear definitions it rather helped my understandings of the problems in my game group.

G - How the character interacts with the rules
N - How the character interacts with other characters
S - How the character interacts with the setting or genre

And people may quibble about these definitions, and insist on mumbling about 'exploring the premise', which makes no sense to me at all. But the idea is there and can let you see that if you are sitting with a group of six, three want to play game A and three want to play game B but you all think you're playing the same game there are going to be issues.

G - How the character interacts with the rules
N - How the character interacts with other characters
S - How the character interacts with the setting or genre

The problem I see with this model is that if someone isn't having fun by the time they've created their character, you're already off to a bad start. Now, they could draw their enjoyment from either G or S. G/N/S posits an emphasis. I think most gamers are motivated by suck aversion.

"Hero involves too many factions... that sucks!"
"Vampires are whiny. Vampires suck!"
"D&D is all about kicking in doors and killing things. That sucks!"

[Andy K]

Originally posted by semprebon
it may help you in designing a better raquet, but its not going to help you to play a better tennis game.

The fuck it doesn't.

I'm not a total GNS whore. I barely concede to the definitions. I am NOT familiar with the dialogue that is being used, and thus don't use it myself. I'm a Forge regular, but I only check the RPG Theory thread once every few weeks, and the GNS Discussion forum only once every few months, if that.

But the concepts that this dialogue has spawned: Scene framing. Bangs. Kickers. Character First. Making rules that help the game play as you want it to be played, have helped out my games immensely.

Fact is, I would have given up on roleplaying entirely 3 years ago if I hadn't stumbled onto these play tools.

So feel free to try to understand, give up and reject, or simply ignore all that talk if you wish. But the ideas that this talk spawns (usually stuck into games) are gold, if you're the kind of person who is looking for a better roleplaying experience than "Everquest, but with dice and on a table".

And again, to just sit there and debate these ideas is meaningless, without putting them to use to making your own games better (or if you're a designer looking to write a new game). You'll notice that most discussion of these topics actually leads somewhere, and not just in circles forever.

If you want to see meaningless debate that never goes anywhere, that doesn't either lead to better gaming sessions with your buddies or to the development of new games, feel free to check out the various RPG and Game Design groups at Yahoogroups: They won't bore you with GNS, but they will have 60+ post flamewars on whether it's correct to "shoot an arrow" or "fire an arrow".

-Andy

[The Eye]

Originally posted by maddman75

G - How the character interacts with the rules
N - How the character interacts with other characters
S - How the character interacts with the setting or genre

And people may quibble about these definitions, and insist on mumbling about 'exploring the premise', which makes no sense to me at all.

those aren't the definitions posited by the Forge in the creative agenda model, but if it works for you, go nuts.

personally, i agree with andy. the tools that i've found at the Forge are useful for both designing AND playing. at least, for me.