GNS Theory: Good, Bad, or Ugly

[Shoggoth]

Has it not been described that the general consensus that GNS works as...
* Narrativist - Magic Tea Party
* Gamist - Munchkinism
* Simulationist - Rules Bloat

Yeah, those are some of the dysfunctional elements. Those are things that happen when people take those agendas too far and fuck up the game.

But it doesn't define those terms.

[Username17]

A) Narrativism isn't telling a story, it's exploring themes within a story. There is always a story, no matter what kind of game you play. Calling Narrativism "telling a story" renders the term meaningless.

We've already been over this. Ron Edwards' personal definition of the word "theme" is not consistent with your definition, it's not consistent with the natural English definition of the term, and it's not even internally consistent. The word, thus, is meaningless. If you insist that Narratavism is "exploring a WARRRGARBL" where WARRRGARBL is a word that does not have an agreed upon meaning in this context, you've just insisted that it means... nothing at all.

The entire point is the Ron Edwards' tirades parse down to contradictions. They are so long because he's trying to make it an all inclusive model, so he has to encompass what are essentially opposing viewpoints. Unfortunately once you do that, you no longer have a thesis statement, a consistent worldview, or even definitions for your words.

Words like Narratavism only make any sense, only convey any meaning when you take them away from Ron Edwards' pseudo-intellectual bullshit terminology and return them to the natural English that people assume the theory is talking about before they read into his actual works and get disappointed. That's the entire point of discussing "NEO-gns." And for that purpose, Narratavism is the portion of the game dedicated to storytelling. And yes, it's not particularly desirable to separate Narratavist elements from Gamist or Simulationist elements except in extremely obscure magical teaparty circumstances (see Munchhausen).

If the whole thins is a framework for...

Blow me.

Seriously. It's a game. It's not a framework for anything. While people like the game elements and the role playing elements to occupy different positions of importance and different volumes in their Role Playing Games, claiming that the game somehow is a framework for only one of those is crazy talk.

You can have an interesting conversation about what people want the game to do or provide for their experience. Some people want it to resolve itself quickly so that they can move the story forward, other people want it to be challenging, or be itself entertaining, or time consuming, or very simple, or very random, or very predictable, or whatever. But the whole Ron Edwards concept that the Gamist Elements are somehow only something that a third of the people care about is fucking retarded.

His own "system matters" tirade actually shows how his concept that Gamism is not part of everyone's creative agenda is bullshit. The game is part of everyone's desired experience. Otherwise they would do something else with their free time - possibly write, or watch a movie, or just hang out with friends in a cafe. People who want something different out of the game than you do aren't "non gamist in their creative agenda" - they just have a different ideal of what they want the game to be providing.

Not all games are hard, not all games are opposed. Not all games are simple, not all games are hard. But all games are games. And just as Monopoly and Arkham Horror are very different board games, RPGs can be very different. Not by having some be gamist games and others not be - but by having the game elements of some games be sufficiently different as to satisfy people in different ways.

-Username17

[Crissa]

I think you got off on a tangent on the 'Gamist' definition, Frank, when I think you were better served by focusing on the Narrativist. Certainly there is a place for defining game 'mechanics that can be used for advantage,' as some games have more and some have less.

Some people want these mechanics to be obvious, and others want to ignore that there is a reason to want to run out the clock so your opponent gets bored or tired or just quits while you're ahead but losing slowly.

That could be fascinating to study, and it'd need its own language created to describe it.

-Crissa

[Shoggoth]

A) Narrativism isn't telling a story, it's exploring themes within a story. There is always a story, no matter what kind of game you play. Calling Narrativism "telling a story" renders the term meaningless.

We've already been over this. Ron Edwards' personal definition of the word "theme" is not consistent with your definition, it's not consistent with the natural English definition of the term, and it's not even internally consistent. The word, thus, is meaningless. If you insist that Narratavism is "exploring a WARRRGARBL" where WARRRGARBL is a word that does not have an agreed upon meaning in this context, you've just insisted that it means... nothing at all.

The entire point is the Ron Edwards' tirades parse down to contradictions. They are so long because he's trying to make it an all inclusive model, so he has to encompass what are essentially opposing viewpoints. Unfortunately once you do that, you no longer have a thesis statement, a consistent worldview, or even definitions for your words.

Words like Narratavism only make any sense, only convey any meaning when you take them away from Ron Edwards' pseudo-intellectual bullshit terminology and return them to the natural English that people assume the theory is talking about before they read into his actual works and get disappointed. That's the entire point of discussing "NEO-gns." And for that purpose, Narratavism is the portion of the game dedicated to storytelling. And yes, it's not particularly desirable to separate Narratavist elements from Gamist or Simulationist elements except in extremely obscure magical teaparty circumstances (see Munchhausen).

If the whole thins is a framework for...

Blow me.

Seriously. It's a game. It's not a framework for anything. While people like the game elements and the role playing elements to occupy different positions of importance and different volumes in their Role Playing Games, claiming that the game somehow is a framework for only one of those is crazy talk.

You can have an interesting conversation about what people want the game to do or provide for their experience. Some people want it to resolve itself quickly so that they can move the story forward, other people want it to be challenging, or be itself entertaining, or time consuming, or very simple, or very random, or very predictable, or whatever. But the whole Ron Edwards concept that the Gamist Elements are somehow only something that a third of the people care about is fucking retarded.

His own "system matters" tirade actually shows how his concept that Gamism is not part of everyone's creative agenda is bullshit. The game is part of everyone's desired experience. Otherwise they would do something else with their free time - possibly write, or watch a movie, or just hang out with friends in a cafe. People who want something different out of the game than you do aren't "non gamist in their creative agenda" - they just have a different ideal of what they want the game to be providing.

Not all games are hard, not all games are opposed. Not all games are simple, not all games are hard. But all games are games. And just as Monopoly and Arkham Horror are very different board games, RPGs can be very different. Not by having some be gamist games and others not be - but by having the game elements of some games be sufficiently different as to satisfy people in different ways.

-Username17

Every time you redefine a term in GNS to suit what you think the word is supposed to mean, you derail the conversation.

For example, Gamist play is specifically gaming with a focus on competition. It's not "gaming to game". And there are a number of role playing games out there that do not include any competitive elements in the rule set. So those games aren't Gamist. If you continue to redefine the term Gamist for your own amusement, then of COURSE I'm wrong, and Ron Edwards is wrong, because you've changed all of the underlying assumptions to suit your whims.

The only thing you've proven to me is that rather than try to understand what Edwards is trying to say (and yes, he can be confusing), you've just decided that the terms he uses have whatever definition seems good to you. I wonder if this would be easier if rather than terms like Gamist and Narrativist, he'd made up words like Ludoistic and. Then you'd at least have to go back to the Latin root to fuck it up.

[Username17]

Every time you redefine a term in GNS to suit what you think the word is supposed to mean, you derail the conversation.

No. The "conversation" is derailed already. We've been over this. Ron Edwards doesn't have a consistent or defensible thesis statement. That bridge is burned to ash and scattered in the winds. You yourself were forced to admit that the quotes from the actual article were inconsistent. You said that you were going to go over it again and try to come up with some hare brained scheme to make it all work in tandem - but then you never fucking did that because you fucking can't.

You lost. Ron Edwards is a tool. As long as you try to use Ron Edwards' "actual" theory the conversation is simply dead in the water. It's you making some pronouncement and then everyone rolling their eyes and shuffling their feet. The theory is garbage because it can't even fucking keep a consistent set of definitions for its key words and concepts.

GNS as conceived is just trash. The question was raised about using "NEO-GNS" based on defining the words and dialogue to actually fucking mean something that was coherent and useful. Meh. It's possible, but the big problem is that asshats like you will keep popping up to felate Ron Edwards by claiming that using words in concordance with some natural English definition is badwrongfun. Really, you're better off not using the words Gamist, Narratavist, or Simulationist at all because the well has been so thoroughly shat in by Ron Edwards and his incoherent meme.

---

No.

The words as defined by Ron Edwards are less than useless.

The idea that the three concepts most important to gaming (whatever the fuck you think they are) are in any meaningful fashion incompatible is retarded. And since that's the core concept of GNS as originally formulated, that entire line of investigation is fruitless.

-Username17

[Shoggoth]

Every time you redefine a term in GNS to suit what you think the word is supposed to mean, you derail the conversation.

No. The "conversation" is derailed already. We've been over this. Ron Edwards doesn't have a consistent or defensible thesis statement. That bridge is burned to ash and scattered in the winds. You yourself were forced to admit that the quotes from the actual article were inconsistent. You said that you were going to go over it again and try to come up with some hare brained scheme to make it all work in tandem - but then you never fucking did that because you fucking can't.

You lost. Ron Edwards is a tool. As long as you try to use Ron Edwards' "actual" theory the conversation is simply dead in the water. It's you making some pronouncement and then everyone rolling their eyes and shuffling their feet. The theory is garbage because it can't even fucking keep a consistent set of definitions for its key words and concepts.

GNS as conceived is just trash. The question was raised about using "NEO-GNS" based on defining the words and dialogue to actually fucking mean something that was coherent and useful. Meh. It's possible, but the big problem is that asshats like you will keep popping up to felate Ron Edwards by claiming that using words in concordance with some natural English definition is badwrongfun. Really, you're better off not using the words Gamist, Narratavist, or Simulationist at all because the well has been so thoroughly shat in by Ron Edwards and his incoherent meme.

---

No.

The words as defined by Ron Edwards are less than useless.

The idea that the three concepts most important to gaming (whatever the fuck you think they are) are in any meaningful fashion incompatible is retarded. And since that's the core concept of GNS as originally formulated, that entire line of investigation is fruitless.

-Username17

From Dictionary.com:

theme
  Pronunciation [theem]
noun, adjective, verb, themed, them⋅ing.
–noun
1. a subject of discourse, discussion, meditation, or composition; topic: The need for world peace was the theme of the meeting.
2. a unifying or dominant idea, motif, etc., as in a work of art.
3. a short, informal essay, esp. a school composition.
4. Music.
a. a principal melodic subject in a musical composition.
b. a short melodic subject from which variations are developed.
5. Grammar. the element common to all or most of the forms of an inflectional paradigm, often consisting of a root with certain formative elements or modifications. Compare stem 1 (def. 16).
6. Linguistics. topic (def. 4).
7. Also, thema. an administrative division of the Byzantine Empire.
–adjective
8. having a unifying theme: a theme restaurant decorated like a spaceship.
–verb (used with object)
9. to provide with a theme.

So when you talk about the common English definition of theme, are you picking one in particular? You'll notice that there are 7 definitions of theme there, a number of which are modifications of the base definition to specifically address a discipline like music, grammar, or linguistics.

Ron Edwards definition of theme, from GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory:

Theme is defined as a value-judgment or point that may be inferred from the in-game events.

So in his definition, the subject of discussion or composition of the game is the value-judgement or point. It's a definition specific to the unique experience of shared creation that is roleplaying, but still relevant to the dictionary definition.

But you know what, this isn't going to actually help anyone, is it? You've already declared yourself the winner.

[Username17]

I would say that Edwards is mistaken in his first statement. If you look at some of the "Narrativist" games that are out there, such as MLWM, the principle themes are built into the game ahead of time, so there is a pre-defined theme. That's inconsistent.

Remove that and everything gels just fine I believe.

Put up or shut up!

Did you find a magic way to reconcile your world view with Ron Edwards statement that:

There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s).

...or are you just blowing smoke up our ass?

-Username17

[Shoggoth]

I would say that Edwards is mistaken in his first statement. If you look at some of the "Narrativist" games that are out there, such as MLWM, the principle themes are built into the game ahead of time, so there is a pre-defined theme. That's inconsistent.

Remove that and everything gels just fine I believe.

Put up or shut up!

Did you find a magic way to reconcile your world view with Ron Edwards statement that:

There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s).

...or are you just blowing smoke up our ass?

-Username17

I disagree with him on one point. I agree with him on most others.

Why do you keep insisting that the entire theory is wrong if you disagree with one aspect of one element of the theory?

[Username17]

Every time you redefine a term in GNS to suit what you think the word is supposed to mean, you derail the conversation.

I disagree with him on one point.

/Conversation Derailed.

You said that if we had this conversation without using the "official" definitions of GNS words, that the conversation was derailed. You don't use the official definitions, because you've already admitted to at least one portion of the word definition which you reject out of hand.

The conversation is over at that point. I mean, I can seriously fish around in the rest of the 80,000 words in the theory and find more segments that you don't agree with - but it doesn't matter. You already through down the My Way or Highway ultimatum, and simultaneously admitted that you were unwilling to accept the "My Way" answer. That's a stop codon: a nonsense mutation. The reference frame won't go any farther than that, so there's no point in continuing to read.

-Username17

[Shoggoth]

Every time you redefine a term in GNS to suit what you think the word is supposed to mean, you derail the conversation.

I disagree with him on one point.

/Conversation Derailed.

You said that if we had this conversation without using the "official" definitions of GNS words, that the conversation was derailed. You don't use the official definitions, because you've already admitted to at least one portion of the word definition which you reject out of hand.

The conversation is over at that point. I mean, I can seriously fish around in the rest of the 80,000 words in the theory and find more segments that you don't agree with - but it doesn't matter. You already through down the My Way or Highway ultimatum, and simultaneously admitted that you were unwilling to accept the "My Way" answer. That's a stop codon: a nonsense mutation. The reference frame won't go any farther than that, so there's no point in continuing to read.

-Username17

Again, you're confounding "definition" and "essay". He defines Narrativism in the beginning of the essay. He then expounds on a whole bunch of points about Narrativism for 80,000 words (or however long it is).

There are a TON of points he makes in those essays. He defines each of the terms ONCE. I can disagree with a point and still feel that the essay is a good and worthwhile essay.

You can't treat an essay like some kind of mathematical formula.

I never said that GNS is some kind of holy grail that perfectly defines the experience of gaming in total, and that there is nothing wrong with it. That would make me an idiot brainless fanboy.

But I also don't think that GNS is completely worthless crap because I disagree with one or two points in it, or because some of the wording can be ambiguous. That would make me a mindless hater.

There are other options besides black and white.

[Elennsar]

Yes, option #3: The theory's incoherences and inconsistencies get in the way of it presenting a clear and valid set of definitions that apply as often as Edwards thinks they do and tell us something useful.

I personally think you could hammer out something from "Gamist=competitive, narrativist=storytelling, simulationist=world building", but you'd have to ignore the ways that Edwards has two left feet and is trying to dance, so to speak, because it (GNS as written) doesn't work.

If he just said "Gamists like a competitive game. They like being able to 'win'. Narrativists want to tell stories. Simulationists like creating worlds.", you'd still have the issue of his fucked up definition of how its simulationist to have an eunuch sorcerer (or a sorcerer with eunuch henchmen...whichever it was) in wuxia, but it would be a narrativistic thing to introduce that to a Western*.

And it would be gamist to do that because holding up your left testicle (like a cross or some other holy symbol) gives you +20 vs. demons.

The fact that you can use his basic terms and pound out something we can take seriously does not translate into his concept and his muddled definitions adding anything to the hobby.

Either A) his theory is basically sound, B) his theory has holes in it, or C) his theory is painful to read.

I prefer B, because I can't tell how being a "simulationist" meaningfully defines anything about me, the games I want to play, or the rules I want to use for those games.

And I really think calling "competitive" "Gamist" was bizzare. If "bizzare" is a funny way of saying "stupid". It has a trace of the "They're just ROLL players" stuff that tends to be a form of geek elitism.



*: I believe, assuming we assume Edwards is capable of coherent thought, that his point was not that you would do that, but that you would be having the eunuchs not because they were a "staple of the genre", which you wanted to represent (simulate), but because eunuchs are somehow some storytelling thing about how it frees you of the burden of society's traditional male gender role or something unrelated to the genre (but hopefully not the setting, though it isn't clear).

[Bigode]

Some games have competitive elements. Some don't. That alone justifies labeling something as close to the original definition of gamism - despite the facts that: most of the GNS work's crap, RPGs seldom have just one of whatever set of elements you use, and it'd of course be better renamed as, dunno, "competition" than something that refers directly to the name of the entire genre. So, something like gamism should stay.

Some games have very specific themes, frequently even in a moral sense. Some games try quite hard to push the least themes possible. Arguably one could apply a similar distinction even to campaigns, where some are entirely worked around a specific theme, and some don't care that much for any of a number of reasons.

As for simulationism, I'm indeed not sure that it's anything other than narrativism with a focus on "What'd happen if [insert core elements of the setting here] were true?".

Certainly the "competition" and "story" priorities are themselves subdivided, as Frank pointed. But a focus on story and some kind of in-game competition (even against ... oneself) do compete - just check what happens when a party was expect to sacrifice themselves and someone runs away to "win later", or when people pull (perfectly legal, and internal consistent if you assume rules = setting metaphysics) weird crap to succeed and get someone complaining that it's "out of genre". While that likely involves someone being rather deliberately disruptive, it's a conflict of priorities that could each be considered legitimate in separate. What priorities? See above.

---

Thoughts:
- What parts of the gamism concept are salvageable (yes, you can say "none", but better make a damn good case)?
- Same about narrativism.
- Is simulationism separate?

[Absentminded_Wizard]

You know, it would be awesome if Ron Edwards had just picked words that actually meant something close to the concepts he was thinking of instead of trying to sound fancy.

As near as I can tell, Edwards' definitions of GNS terms are roughly:

Gamism = competition (the most straightforward one)
Narrativism = imposing classic story structure and your favorite themes (even if they conflict with the setting)
Simulationism = method acting (either getting *really* into your character or *really* getting into your character's sensations within the setting)

The idea of competition as something people sometimes enjoy in RPGs seems valid to me. I'm not even really sure that Narrativism and Simulationism, as Edwards defined them, are really separate things. It seems to me that, at the very least, there's a ton of overlap (why isn't being really "in character" also a Narrativist value?). I'm also not sure that you can ever fit every type of gameplay into three broad categories without shoving contradictory styles together.

---

I also think the greatest lesson Edwards left for the RPG community is the reason for his failure. Among his problems is the fact that he seems obsessed with the mindsets of the players. This is a problem because it's really hard to read people's minds. Furthermore, how do you know if a particular mechanic promotes the "dreamlike quality" of Simulationist play in people's minds?

I believe any further attempts at a large RPG theory must concentrate on players' behavior rather than touchy-feely psychobabble. It's much easier to figure out if a given rule encourages or discourages particular behaviors than to figure out if it makes you feel like you're in a walking dream.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Just bumping this to remind everyone what a sham GNS theory is.

[Kaelik]

Seriously, people keep posting this shit at other forums like it actually means anything and it pisses me off.

[schpeelah]

I'm not even really sure that Narrativism and Simulationism, as Edwards defined them, are really separate things. It seems to me that, at the very least, there's a ton of overlap (why isn't being really "in character" also a Narrativist value?).

I think the difference is Narrativists want Rule of Drama while Symulationists want the world and the story to be logical. A Symulationist will shoot the villain in the face in the middle of his dramatic speech while a will wait, then make an even more dramatic counter-speech and then challenge him to a sword duel. I'm actually seeing more of a blur between Symulationists and Gamists b/c caring whether story/world elements A B and C interact logically and whether they those interactions help you win is really far from being mutually exclusive.

[MGuy]

I had never even heard of GNS before now and now I feel thoroughly educated.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I think the difference is Narrativists want Rule of Drama while Symulationists want the world and the story to be logical.

I don't understand how you can have the former without the latter in a tabletop RPG.

If I am actually in charge of a character I need to know what my character could do before I know what they would do. If the story and setting isn't logical and I'm playing Batman Black Vigilante, I don't know what I could do that's dramatically appropriate. Yes, BV crashing through a skylight 40 feet up and landing safely is dramatic. But it would be even more dramatic for BV to inject himself with giant-growth chemicals and crash through the wall Dr. Manhattan style.

The question is, CAN I get giant-growth chemicals? If the setting doesn't have a logical answer for that and have a little bit of, oh, thought put into it then I don't know what dramatic things my character can do. So where's the Rule of Drama?

[Koumei]

I had never even heard of GNS before now and now I feel thoroughly educated.

That's odd. When I first read it, I felt:

"I have never even heard of GNS before and now I feel thoroughly retarded."

[souran]

Considering that GNS is now not considered an indepenant framework for game modeling even by Ron Edwards why is this important.

The arguments here are roughtly like trying to argue for or against a reletivistic universe with only newtonian physics. The math says no no but the universe says yes yes.

Anyway, frank start talking about the big model.

[Username17]

Considering that GNS is now not considered an indepenant framework for game modeling even by Ron Edwards why is this important.

The arguments here are roughtly like trying to argue for or against a reletivistic universe with only newtonian physics. The math says no no but the universe says yes yes.

Anyway, frank start talking about the big model.

The thing is that while the terms are meaningless, GNS is actually invoked by some real designers. Mike Mearles, in his never ending quest to sound like he pays a lot more attention to RPG theory than he actually does, seriously brought up Gamism as opposed to Simulationism as a justification for why everything is so fucking arbitrary in how it does everything. I mean, he didn't use that terminology consistently and clearly had heard the terms only second or even third hand - but he did use that terminology. GNS has had an impact. Not a positive impact, but an impact nonetheless.

But no one gives two shits about the Big Model. Because it doesn't bring snappy terminology that sounds like it means something. It brings reams of incomprehensible context-free walls of text. Page after page of insightless meanderings. A verbal diarrhea presented in self aggrandizing oatmeal-thick prose. And probably the biggest offender is that rather than coining new words like "narratavism" the Big Model chose instead to just shit all over the definitions of real words that people really use in real conversations both when discussing RPG design and elsewise.

Let's take a gander at their Bloated Lexicon.

It's very hard to even have a discussion when someone is telling you that playing a game is a subset of the social contract. Not "requires a social contract" but that it literally is part of the social contract. That's... incomprehensible gibberish. No one could have read Rousseau and say that with a straight face.

But the real deal is that no one is having that discussion, because no one gives a rat's ass. These ass hats seriously tell us that addressing a Premise (by which they actually mean a character trait that affects the story) through simulationism is an "unrealizable goal." Seriously. No it isn't. The fact that people manage to affect the world with their character traits in the real world (which in turn is unwaveringly simulationist in that it is actually real) means that this claim is a priori false. But it's parroted around by those ass hats like it meant something.

And no one cares. Justin down at White Wolf is a bad author. He's bad because he never considers the capability of the PCs to just leave instead of dealing with the soul crushing no-win situations he likes to set up. It never occurs to him that rational people might simply walk away from a bitter combat to the death over nothing. That upon finding out about the cannibal army, they might just all the cops or go to France instead of charging in and dying for no appreciable gain or praise. But he's not bad author because he isn't paying enough attention to The Big Model, or that he doesn't acknowledge their distinctions between Transcript and Story or any of that. He's bad because there are specific pieces of human motivation that he isn't considering, and it runs like corruption through a veined cheese in everything he writes.

-Username17

[tzor]

Let's take a gander at their Bloated Lexicon.

You must have double pasted the url. I corrected it so this link should work without post editing of the resultant url.

All I can say is, can I get college crfedits for reading this shit? That has got to be the biggest pile of intelectual manure on the subject of gaming I've seen so far.

[souran]

Frank

Nice post. I basically agree about the big model. Really this whole thing became less about game design and more about the psychological of gaming long ago.

The thing is, the wargamming community is able to use these same terms, from a longer tradition, and actually apply them in a way that gives meaning to what a game does.

The "Gamist" type of GNS is trying to link itself back to the "gamist" used in hard game design. These are people for whom winning is more important that context, realsim, etc. They chase combinations in card games and they are more than willing to do flavor of the month crap as long as it works.

Simulationists are the ones who like game design that does jsut that, simulate. They want realistic outputs for realistic inputs. They want the system to be repeatable. The better the rules accurately reflect an event the happier they are. In an rpg sense if it pisses you off that falling damage could increase beyond a height high enough to achieve terminal velocity then you want simulationist rules.

Historians/Fact Checkers/Accurists: Players who want the game to be as accurate in some fashion as possible. Historians are the most common, but you could have it be with anything. If you are playing a game about hiding in a mall from zombies there is going to be somebody for whom EXACTLY how the doors work or the fact that wallmart no longer sells handgun ammo will be crucial to how much they are willing to buy into a game. In wargmes these are the guys who get angry over how much movement one kind of tank has compared to another or if this gun can shoot through walls but that one can't.

Kiss-players: Players who want simplicity in everything. They like beer and pretzels games over anything complicated. They like games where they don't have to read the rules the most. If a game has a lookup table these people wont' play it.

These are not on some sort of opposing scale like alignment. That would be stupid. Nothing in the real universe is anything like alignment. These are indpendant descriptors of how players like rules.

Note that these are similar but not identical to play styles like the rules lawyer or method actor. Also note that there is NO narrativist. Why? fristly these come from the old ssi/avalon hill rules for games design so story is not really an issue.

Secondly, the problem with the idea of narrativism as it applies to game design is: You cannot make better rules if your fundamental belief is that all rules detract from the experience. This is not to say that story isn't important. Its that saying that the rules need to give way to what creates a shared story experience for the players at all times is just not a game at all. Infact, creating a shared experience where the rules are always subservient to the story is called a book or novel. However it is not a GAME.

Using the sort of definations above you could define games based on what they do and how they play. For instance here is how I would rate all past editions of dnd, on a scale of 1-5 (5 being strongly affiliated with a characteristc.
(1st) (2nd) (3rd) (4th)
Gamist 3 3 5 4
Simulationst 5 4 3 1
Fact Checker 3 5 2 2
Kiss 3 1 4 4

Really all these things do is tell you what its been possible to see for years now.

1) The german school of game design is dominating the market.
2) In general most rpgs have been moving towards a simplier resoultion mechanism. To do this they usually end up dropping the factual accuracy of the games and the simulationist elements. Think of it this way: old school rpgs presumed that the world functioned along the lines of the rules when the players where not playing. If you turn your back to the game world it could chug along. Newer rpgs (nwod & exalted, dnd, wfrp) only "exist" when and where the players are.
3) High rules complexity is a total non starter in the game market anymore. If you can't teach the whole game to somebody over a lunch break nobody will sell that game.

Which are 3 conclusions that are way more useful than anything GNS could really give you.

[Murtak]

1) The german school of game design is dominating the market.

What the fuck is the german school of game design?

2) In general most rpgs have been moving towards a simplier resoultion mechanism. To do this they usually end up dropping the factual accuracy of the games and the simulationist elements. Think of it this way: old school rpgs presumed that the world functioned along the lines of the rules when the players where not playing. If you turn your back to the game world it could chug along. Newer rpgs (nwod & exalted, dnd, wfrp) only "exist" when and where the players are.

Oh please. Unified mechanics are simply good design. There is no connection to world building or simulationism (whatever that term is supposed to mean in a fantasy world). Shadowrun for example has unified, simple mechanics and manages to have a world that actually makes some sort of sense. DnD 2nd edition or the old World of Darkness on the other hand never managed to have a believable setting, despite having a hundred times the rules.

3) High rules complexity is a total non starter in the game market anymore. If you can't teach the whole game to somebody over a lunch break nobody will sell that game.

High rules complexity is bad, period. Of course you may want to have more rules to more accurately describe what happens in your world, but all other things being equal your rules should be simple. Take a look at DnD, going from 2nd to 3rd edition. Countless rules got simplified, yet the world lost nothing as a consequence of those new mechanics. What you are seeing is progress.

[MGuy]

I think the German comment is a tie in with the psychological comments.