GNS Theory: Good, Bad, or Ugly

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Imported from the infamous drow chainmail bikini thread.

First, a quote from Frank for context (since his post gives a nice summary without reference to other conversations in that thread):

Leress wrote:
PL: What's GNS?


Gamist
Narrativist
Simulationist

The idea is that game theory can be described by three distinct poles, and that the quality of a game depends upon how well they approach those three poles, with the added hand wavery that different people value approaches towards those poles differently such that different games have different subjective quality to different people.

It sounds very even handed, but essentially as PL points out it solves nothing and describes nothing and is therefore useless as a theory. GNS theory doesn't actually make any predictions about what you should do when designing or playing a game, and is thus made of FAIL.

The core problem is that GNS design goals aren't defined in a consistent fashion. What makes something simulationist? Every game takes inputs (fixed and random in nature) and gives you outputs. Thus, every game perfectly simulates something. So there's no real way to make a game better or worse in a simulationist sense unless you are concerned with simulating a specific narrative or having a more interesting and entertaining game played while running the simulator - which are apparently Narrativist or Gamist concerns, right? For that matter, a better game can be defined as one which is fairer, or one which is more skill dependent (which is interestingly the opposite of fair in many cases), or one which holds your interest for longer or one which is faster to play. And yes, narrativist demands are similarly inconstant with people wanting a more immersive or more malleable story to narrate. Oh snap!

In short, those three goal posts aren't fixed. And while you can go ahead and rant about how the different goals are valued differently by different players, the fact remains that the goals don't even mean anything so even that statement is essentially meaningless.

GNS theory tells us nothing about what will succeed or fail, and is therefore always fail and never succeed.

-Username17

And now I'll respond to a later post by Crissa:

A crazy rumor doesn't gain traction if it doesn't have a grain of truth, though. If Joe is all about fucking with his friends, and he gets his enjoyment out of making everyone deal with his interruptions, then he will definitely screw up a game where everyone else was all up on the idea of getting into character voices and motives. He'll be playing off of the players while everyone else is trying to play off of imaginary characters, and it probably won't mesh.

I agree that it has a grain of truth. That's what makes it so easy to use to define other people's behavior in message board threads. On reflection, I think the problem is that, while the three poles of GNS theory describe areas of concern for gamers and designers, they're all too broad to encompass all the conflicts that players may have. Gamists will argue about what kinds of tactics the game should encourage. Narrativists will argue about what kinds of stories they want the game to tell. Simulationists will argue about what kind of world they're trying to simulate.

That's how the Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist theory got translated into computer games... Completely in a different way. Gamist are people looking to gain an advantage in the system; they don't care how their character looks or acts, they just want the best advantage. A small number of these guys just want to fuck with people. Narrativist don't care how badly their character sucks, just as long as they get to see the story. They'll use game advantages to gain access to things they haven't done or seen, and they'll attempt to anything to make a story about something. You screw up the text, you've lost these guys. They'll burn up anything to get to a new book or special outfit. Simulationist are all about the world. They want to know what's behind the screen. They get into areas they aren't supposed to, only to test the bounds of the world - not to take advantage of it, like the first group. They'll do things like drop twenty gnomes down a mine shaft just to see what happens, and will gladly burn through all their resources to access different mechanics in the game.

Guess what all these have in common? They're all people who screw up the game! Group one uses hacks. Group two rides the story or playerbase to death. Group three makes hacks! And while Group two and three won't kill an online game - tho they have - group one is not the most common type of griefer.

So the grain of truth is that yeah, if players aren't expecting the same game, it fucks things up. Which is why it's important to give a game that needs the fewest tweaks by the GM to fit those players - else they'll ditch it to find something simpler for the GM to run.

-Crissa

Your examples point to the one problem I initially noticed with the theory. It takes three things any game should do well to some extent (work as a game, tell a good story, and simulate a world) and makes you pick one to the exclusion of the other two. Even if all three poles were well defined, this would be a problem. After all, your analysis of problem computer gamers reveals that people obsessed with only one of these areas of concern tend to be assholes.

[Crissa]

Yeah, like I said, in the game management world, they're only used to describe players who have chosen to go off into some extreme to the detriment of the game.

But to have a good game you need a little of all those. A game so that players feel like they can do something and gain an advantage with the next bauble. A narrative so the player gets immersed and has a reason to connect with the next bauble. And simulation... Well, it's gotta not break suspension of disbelief; or not interrupt the flow of the game/narrative, but enhance it. No one reads flashing text and no one comes back if the monsters walk through walls they shouldn't.

-Crissa

[Username17]

Here's the thing: Narrativism and Simulationism aren't even different. One is trying to tell a story and the other is trying to tell A story, but honestly that is exactly the same thing despite varied emphasis. But really the overlap on any of those is so total that it tells you nothing. Let's say you are suggesting moving from a 3d6 system to a 2d6 system. We can now make the following descriptive arguments:

• This is a Positive Gamist Change since the game is now faster to run and easier to comprehend, victory is achieved more readily. The "game" aspect runs faster and more comprehensibly, so the gamist can get more of what he wants.
• This is a Negative Gamist Change since the game is now easier and simpler there is literally less "game" to master. The victory means less and therefore is worth less. So the gamst gets less of what he wants.
• This is a Positive Simulationist Change since the RNG is more approachable and the odds easier to calculate on the fly, the numeric inputs can be more readily matched to desired outcomes, thus making the simulationist's results better. More exact results make a better simulation.
• This is a Negative Simulationist Change since the RNG is shorter and coarser, the numeric inputs are by necessity coarser. The differences between two things become more difficult to model, which makes the simulation worse. Less fine results make a worse simulation.

And frankly, Narrativism and Simulationism are so exactly the same that I don't even need to use different words to describe them:

• This is a Positive Narrativist Change since the RNG is more approachable and the odds easier to calculate on the fly, the numeric inputs can be more readily matched to desired outcomes, thus making the narrativist's results better. More exact results make a better narrative.
• This is a Negative Narrativist Change since the RNG is shorter and coarser, the numeric inputs are by necessity coarser. The differences between two things become more difficult to model, which makes the narrative worse. Less fine results make a worse narrative.

Which gives us the basic problem with the entire theory: it doesn't predict anything. If it was "true" our actions would be no different then if it were "false." It's an empty theory because it does not explain why people do what they do nor does it say what people should do nor does it lay out expectable consequences for doing or not doing those things.

-Username17

[Crissa]

I would have described Simulationist 'a world in' and Narrativist 'story'.

So as they defined it in Forge (which is different from how it's used in video games) I'd have called it 'Chance, Words, Charts' instead of Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist.

Narrativist doesn't want chance or charts in their games. They want WoD, with as little impinging upon their stories as possible. They don't care if there's a stat for Orcs having poor Int, but if it's part of the story, they'll 'roleplay' it. If there's no rules, the better for roleplaying or story.

Gamist wants chance in their game. They want bonuses and the ability to change the game by stats. They want rules to govern the game. It's not fair Orcs get a negative to Int, but it's awesome they get a bonus to Str.

Simulationist wants the world to function a certain way. They want rules to govern everything. It's awesome that ORcs have to dig themselves out of a pit for their negative to Int, and maybe they'll even use that bonus to Str.

...

But Frank's right, the three groups were hardly distinct. Two wanted more rules, one wanted none. Two didn't care about fair, only one did. Two didn't care about fluff, only one did. Or what that two cared about fluff, just one wanted rules for it and the other didn't?

It was a whole weird matrix of stuff and you could end up in any of the three camps for a single position. Oh, and some positions were contrary to themselves. Which I thought was the only redeeming feature of the triad.

-Crissa

[Elennsar]

The only sense I can follow any of that (and thusly how and why I think the theory is overrated) is that you can have the following:

Guys who want to play the game, and who don't care what story is being told as long as its not boring.

Guys who want to tell a story, and who don't care what game is being played as long as it doesn't interfer with the story.

Guys who want to build a world, and the story and game are only aspects of that, sort of like how the LotR trilogy was only an aspect of building Middle-Earth for Tolkien.

Even there, its really, really overrated that someone "is a gamist". Its more "they're focused on these elements (At this time)" rather than "story is irrelevant." and that's all there is to them.

Oversimplification is terrible.

[Username17]

Honestly, I think you'd be better off dividing people into PhoneLobsters, RandomCasualties, and Elennsars.

• PhoneLobsters want explicit and customizable rulesets that are at the behest of the players at least as much as the GM. Being told that they can't do something in the rules is as offensive to PhoneLobsters as being told that the system can't handle the current action and you're going to switch to Magical Teaparty for the rest of the scene.
• RandomCasualties want the ruleset to intrude on things as infrequently as possibly. A RandomCasualty resents system unfairness because it is seen to be getting in the way of the story just as they resent making diplomacy rolls because it interrupts the soliloquy.
• Elennsars want the rules to implacably support the action that the GM envisioned for the game. Unforseen rules effects are despised as much as exceptions. A rule that doesn't do "what it is supposed to do" is anathema and a player who wants to do something the rules don't allow should GTFO.

There. I came up with that in like 2 minutes. It's a more cogent and descriptive set of divisions for gamers than this GNS nonsense and it suggests a more coherent set of predictions for what will piss players off. For example, noone is going to be happy when the fluff says that Morthangs are "strong individuals" if the actual rule text says that their strength is reduced. PhoneLobsters will be upset on the grounds that the Player asked for a strong individual and their strength got reduced. RandomCasualties will object because the cognitive dissonance slows down play with arguments. And Elennsars will object because a strength penalty in the game doesn't make them the strong individuals they are supposed to be when encountered in actual play.

-Username17

[Elennsar]

A pity that's not entirely accurate.

[Aktariel]

A shame that you can't recognize that it is.

[Elennsar]

I know what I prefer, and "the rules mean the GM can totally dictate every possiblity and the players can imagine NOTHING WHATSOEVER" is not it.

The rules should indicate what framework is possible to work within. If that is "all ____ are ____.", then so be it. If that's "most ____ are ____.", ditto.

I'm against insisting that you get to be a freakish individual because you can't stand the idea of being normal because normal is obviously boring.

If the rules fail to address something that it would make sense that they would, it needs to be added in.

Whether that discovery is made by a player or a GM has no relevance to the importance to ensure the rules really do represent what they're supposed to represent.

[Neeeek]

There. I came up with that in like 2 minutes. It's a more cogent and descriptive set of divisions for gamers than this GNS nonsense and it suggests a more coherent set of predictions for what will piss players off. For example, noone is going to be happy when the fluff says that Morthangs are "strong individuals" if the actual rule text says that their strength is reduced.

Well, if you told me some group were "strong individuals" I'd assume you meant they have a strong individualist personality. But if you change it to "are physically strong" I'd agree.

[Koumei]

Frank: that brought laughter.

Elennsar: just shut up. Please. And really, you DON'T seem to know what you prefer. The GrimDark thread revealed that you wanted a game system that could not possibly exist, and you wanted "40K except not 40K".

Anyway, my view on GNS has always been:

It doesn't really mean anything, and doesn't tell you anything. The people who use these terms a lot are nearly always giant douchebags. When someone describes someone else as G/N/S then they're trying to insult them in a clever manner, and failing. When someone describes himself as G/N/S, they're trying to sound really clever, and coming off as pretentious.

In fact, it's sort of like how nearly anyone who will sum up their entire existence with "I'm Left/Right-Wing" (or "a Liberal/Republican/Democrat/Nazi/Whatever") is an annoying cockbag. Use a description that actually means something.

[Leress]

A pity that's not entirely accurate.

A pity that you missed to point of the example.

[Elennsar]

No, it revealed that you misunderstood what I want and think and want to insist on one particular aspect of 40k to the point of "nothing that contradicts this exists, ever".

You can have a system that uses a bell curve and doesn't make a +1 a huge part of the total involved, and you can have 40k without having the Imperium be the most vile thing imaginable.

If Dan Abnett can portray the Imperium as generally mostly functional, I can certainly work with his writting instead of Ben Counter.

Leress: Other than "GNS is crap", there -was- a point to be missed?

[Absentminded_Wizard]

A pity that's not entirely accurate.

It's accurate enough. PhoneLobster vs. Elennsar makes for a great continuum of GM vs. player control, particularly during character creation.

[Crissa]

Does it need be pointed out that the accuracy itself isn't what is import, but that it is, indeed, not actually accurate at all?

-Crissa

[SunTzuWarmaster]

Congratulations Elennsar, you are officially the worst person on the Gaming Den. That's right, guy that talks about his divorce all the time (GTTAHDATT), you are no longer in last place.

Although GTTAHDATT's (I don't remember his name and I don't want to look up the person that previously sucked most) comments were non-productive to discussion, they could be dismissed out of hand. YOUR contributions to discussion have negative impact AND sidetrack the discussion away from the current topic. Every topic you post in is worse off than it started. Additionally, while GTTAHDATT's contributions could be ignored (having no impact whatsoever), your contributions cannot be dismissed because so many other people respond to them. It's like you are the best troll ever.

In this particular topic, your name was used as an EXAMPLE to provide constructive feedback and you somehow managed to be offended at that and sidetrack discussion (what, 4? 6? posts on you).

Additionally, you post INCREDIBLY OFTEN.

Congrats, you win. You are the most annoying person here and the second best troll I've ever seen (Anon is always the best).

Please leave.

[Bigode]

Not to say there's not a lot of crap on GNS, but I do think N and S are more different than Frank gave credit in the summary: as I see it, Ns wanna tell a story with a specific atmosphere/moral and will twist everything else to fit it, while Ss wanna give inputs and find out what the logical outputs would be. People who "just wanna see things" tend towards casual play, and thus emphasize all of GNS less (though likely G especially less in the case).

Also, while there's a raft of differences between a PL and a RC posting, I think the summary made them actually too similar: both are represented there as wanting as many possible concepts to be balanced (and there's a third position other than Elennsar's: "I don't want a lot of concepts to exist", instead of "I want to make divergence worse"), and as wanting the least possible mechanical difference (so, the logical conclusion'd be both being willing to go MTP, especially given that the RC summary talks about Diplomacy of all things). And having just (PL+RC)s and Elennsars probably fails to represent lots of people.

Warmaster: who the fvck was GHT... ? I only recall the Count mentioning his ex sometimes, but not "a lot of talk on the divorce" or being the worst person here.

[Elennsar]

Making an offensive and untrue comment about someone and expecting them to be perfectly happy with it is unreasonable.

"Let's take Elennsar's position, distort it to the point of parodying it, and use it as an example."

That's what bothers me.

For example, noone is going to be happy when the fluff says that Morthangs are "strong individuals" if the actual rule text says that their strength is reduced. PhoneLobsters will be upset on the grounds that the Player asked for a strong individual and their strength got reduced. RandomCasualties will object because the cognitive dissonance slows down play with arguments. And Elennsars will object because a strength penalty in the game doesn't make them the strong individuals they are supposed to be when encountered in actual play.

Is reasonable. "Elennsars want total GM control." is not.

[Koumei]

The person who first described it to me as though it were amazing wisdom divided it as:

Gamist: wants to play the game. Usually associated with liking rules, wanting to win the game, and considering it in terms of objectives and overcoming challenges. More likely to play tabletop wargames than the others, often accused of being a powergamer and the 40 odd variant names.

Narrativist: wants to tell a story. They can get pissy if rules get in the way of telling the story or actively obstruct this. They want an overarching plot that means something, and probably like describing things and thinking ahead. As a GM, they're the ones likely to be accused of railroading.

Simulationist: doesn't actually care about the story, but is interested in being something, and getting into the shoes of the character. In theory, there could be no plot or action and they'd still be happy describing how their character feels and what they do. They like having problems to overcome more than they actually like overcoming them. Unless they don't. Typically associated with World of Darkness wank.

A clever person (or, you know, not that clever) will notice that these are still pretty shoddy categories, and it still doesn't mean anything. They made the categories sound better and more distinct, but any given issue in a game still doesn't really mean anything or have any success criteria for either of them.

[ckafrica]

My biggest problem with GNS is it is obviously designed to belittle playing styles.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Yeah, the pigeonholing aspect of the theory has that effect. The interesting thing is that what style is being belittles seems to evolve over time and between communities. For example, if PL is right, it was originally designed by White Wolf fanboys to belittle those horrible gamist munchkins. However, it's now used by 4e devs and fanboys to look down on those grognard simulationist gamers who don't realize that you don't have to model anything outside the dungeon.

[PhoneLobster]

As I vaguely recall it I think the "good guys" style for them was the Simulationist, so they got to dump on the munchkins AND the melodramatic goths.

But yeah it was very much about belittling. And every damn conversation about a mechanic would be sort of like...

Some Guy: I thought of this mechanic!

GNS Guy: Looks like you are a (select preferred GNS category) type like me! Because of the way (whatever that mechanic was) works. But you might like it more with this other mechanic which I seem to think supports (preferred GNS category better).

Some Guy: Nah, I like my old mechanic/want a different one.

GNS Guy: Humph, you must belong in (slightly less preferred GNS Category) maybe you should try this other random mechanic that I don't really like that might support that.

Some Guy: Hmmm, Nah.

GNS Guy: I was mislead by your ignorance of GNS and game design clearly you are REALLY a (select least favourite and most hated GNS category) therefore I cannot help you, you should go talk to others of your ilk, good day sir, I SAID GOOD DAY!

Some Guy: I just wanted to talk about my cool mechanic...

[JonSetanta]

While TGD has yet to surpass /tg/ in total percentage of butthurt-to-productive ratio in post quality, it's coming damned close recently.

[Bigode]

While TGD has yet to surpass /tg/ in total percentage of butthurt-to-productive ratio in post quality, it's coming damned close recently.

Pot, meet kettle. Though you aren't nearly as bad as what you're talking about, I'd suggest you taking care with it.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Congratulations Elennsar, you are officially the worst person on the Gaming Den. That's right, guy that talks about his divorce all the time (GTTAHDATT), you are no longer in last place.

Go fuck yourself. You don't fucking know what I went through, you son of a bitch.