If you had GNS questions, would you ask?

K · Post by K » Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:41 am

So, it looks like I know Ron Edward's brother and I know him well enough that I could probably get this brother to arrange a phone call.

That being said, I don't think I have anything I'd ask.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 7:53 am

"What were you smoking?" It's been demonstrated time and again that GNS just don't work as fundamentally opposed things. The exact definition of Simulationism v. Gamism remains unclear and every set of definitions I've ever been presented with sound to me like they're both things I'd want to see in a system and they can totally be done simultaneously with only occasional, fringe-case exceptions.

So I guess a good place to start would be "without using any jargon that is not already entrenched in the minds of all TTRPG players, what is the difference between gamism, narrativism, and simulationism?"

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:32 am

"...and why should your normal gamer care?"

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 9:03 am

You could ask "What question could I possibly ask you about GNS that you could possibly provide a productive and coherent answer to?"

"Why did I ask you that question?"

"Why do you think I have brain damage?"

Edit: Mostly though I would want to meet him in person or with some sort of video interface so I could just give him a silent disapproving look and shake my head in a disappointed but patronizing manner.

Swordslinger · Post by **Swordslinger** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:38 am

My biggest question is with narrativism. Supposedly it's about telling a story, but whose story? The DMs, or each player?

Is a system that puts more power in the hands of the DM to fudge or ignore the rules more narrativist (because it gives the DM more control) or less narrativist (because the DM can overrule the PCs ideas more readily)?

What's an example of a strongly narrativist system?

RiotGearEpsilon · Post by **RiotGearEpsilon** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:59 pm

Asking the guy questions just to savage him about his prior mistakes is obnoxious, and it's really only appropriate to be obnoxious to other people who are also on the boards and on board with our culture of dickery. Ask him how he'd revise his GNS model in light of the weaknesses or strengths it's shown over time.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:48 pm

It might be worth asking him

Why do you think your GNS model has gained such traction among RPG enthusiasts and what do you think makes it resonate so well within the community?

That's a legit question, so long as you can ask it without the implied "even though it's incoherent and self-contradictory nonsense with no practical application beyond obfuscation of design problems."

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 5:02 pm

From what I gather, the "official" GNS system is defined in terms of cryptic doublespeak, so I assume all of my questions would be answered by "that's not what GNS is".

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 5:15 pm

Heck, just a basic interview format might be enlightening entertainingly mockable.

Who are you - tell our readers what you've done and why they should care ?

What is GNS theory?

Why is GNS theory useful?

When is GNS theory most helpful? When is it least useful?

Where else besides RPGs would GNS theory have applications?

How would you improve upon GNS theory?

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:10 pm

RiotGearEpsilon wrote:Asking the guy questions just to savage him about his prior mistakes is obnoxious, and it's really only appropriate to be obnoxious to other people who are also on the boards and on board with our culture of dickery. Ask him how he'd revise his GNS model in light of the weaknesses or strengths it's shown over time.

On this note, questions asked should probably be couched in terms of "there's been some debate about things and we'd like to know what GNS really means" instead of "your ideas are terrible and if this were not a phone call I would cut your tongue out and slice your fingers off to prevent you from ever scarring the world with them again."

Hieronymous Rex · Post by **Hieronymous Rex** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:22 pm

Should probably couch the questions in references to the Big Model. Sometime it's spoken of, incorrectly, as a replacement for GNS; it's a subsumption, placing GNS under "Creative Agendas". Not mentioning it might seem like you aren't a well-read Edwards scholar.

Ikeren · Post by **Ikeren** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:52 pm

I tried to read the wiki entry and got bored and played DND with my group instead.

Edit: In case that's too subtle, question A) Why bother? and question B) Why should anyone care?

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:07 pm

how about... why int he fuck is gamist and simulationist any bit different when both deal with and require mechanics as the prime focus of play with number crunching the only difference being gamist want whatever mechanics that work, while simulationists want mechanics that simulate real world equivalents?

GNS all just sounds like a silly way to present the old problems in a more loving light so not to be noticed as the old problems or opposing forces at work...

mechanics v story
rollplaying v roleplaying

where is the proof or corollaries of this theory?

the two main factions may be opposing forces in that mechanics will remove immersion from the story to present the game to the player, but opposing does NOT mean they are not both used together, just that they each have their own time for use.

Guyr Adamantine · Post by **Guyr Adamantine** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:09 pm

Here we go again.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:53 pm

Someone spoke to shadzar on another thread. Now he thinks he has things worth saying. This is bad news.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 5:54 am

I have a better chart:

Lawful <----> Chaotic
Good<------>Evil

we can define games by how they fall under this axis of alignment. Now everything is clear.

K · Post by K » Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:22 am

OgreBattle wrote:I have a better chart:

Lawful <----> Chaotic
Good<------>Evil

we can define games by how they fall under this axis of alignment. Now everything is clear.

What about....?

/\
|
|
<-Neutral------>
|
|
\/

Winnah · Post by **Winnah** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:25 am

I would ask for some history. He obviously put a lot of time into writing GNS, finding out what motivated that effort might be interesting. It may even provide some insight into the type of games he has experience with, possibly even the mentality of the people he played with.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:36 am

Ask him about stylish women's handbags. That seems to be a hot topic on the Den lately.

Guyr Adamantine · Post by **Guyr Adamantine** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 6:41 am

Chamomile wrote:Ask him about stylish women's handbags. That seems to be a hot topic on the Den lately.

This.

GâtFromKI · Post by **GâtFromKI** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 1:46 pm

GNS theory for dummies

Premise: you want a simple classification of players, which seems less retarded than "roleplayers vs rollplayers".

Note: the premise is, err, a premise. You only have to accept it; you shouldn't ask "why would I classify the players?" or anything.

GNS theory: definitions: a "gamist" is a rollplayer; a "narrativist" is a roleplayer; a "simulationnist" is everything else. Since simulationnism is defined as a complementary subset of all player (as opposed to having its own consistent definition), it's very complicated to find anything that all simulationnists have in common. Since the two basic categories, "rollplayers" and "roleplayers", are renamed, and since there's a third category, it seems less retarded, even though it's exactly the same.

----
My questions:

1. Why does Ron Edward write overly complicated articles, while his whole theory can be very quickly summarized?

2. Why the premise? Why would anyone want to categorize players?

3. Why didn't Ron Edward introduce further subdivisions in the complementary of the set "roleplayers U rollplayers"?

4. Does "GNS theory for dummies" miss something?

Archmage · Post by **Archmage** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 2:41 am

GâtFromKI wrote:4. Does "GNS theory for dummies" miss something?

GNS "theory" is supposed to describe rulesets, not players.

I think.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 2:46 am

Archmage wrote:
GâtFromKI wrote:4. Does "GNS theory for dummies" miss something?
GNS "theory" is supposed to describe rulesets, not players.

I think.

Oh, no, there's gamist, simulationist, and narrativist players, and games are ideally tailored for one of the three poles and never should they meet.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 3:47 am

I have found one that works:

WoD players: the ones who don't just occasionally play a game of it, they love this shit, compare other games to it as though it is the holy grail that things should aspire to be, all play incestuous games of it with each other, can't watch any movie* without statting the character up/talking about what Tribe/Clan/Kith/whatever he'd be...

vs

People who enjoy life and games.

*Actual example: Ghost Dog. About a guy who was neither a ghost nor a dog. I think his supernatural type was "A black guy with a gun". I think they decided he was a Bone Gnawer or whatever.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sat Sep 10, 2011 3:49 am

Actually, Narrativism is probably the most clearly defined, much more so than Simulation for instance. It supposedly refers to a very specific way of playing based on certain outdated literary theories and a radically limited MC.

My question would be: Isn't it rue, Mr. Edwards, that GNS theory boils down to "G: Power gamers, N: Me and my friends, S: everyone else"? Isn't that kind of stupid?