An Academic-ish Approach to Game Theory?

[K]

even granting that those terms are broad and qualitative.

The fucking point is they are NOT just "broad a qualitative" they are gibberish and contradictory.

The more important thing to remember is that using those terms as categories doesn't actually do any work. They are not useful for deepening your understanding of games, how people play them, and how to design them.

GNS meets all the criteria of psuedoscience It's the astrology of game theory.

[nikita]

How its played is irrelevant for such an analysis. What matters is how its meant to be played, which is solely informed by the game text and rules.

I my view the analysis of game should take into consideration of what it was supposed to do versus how it all ended up to be. This can be found from designer's notes and interviews. Question of how game is played is also relevant observation as it tells you a lot about game's internal currency (i.e. where rules take it towards). A classic example is XP system and how it rewards certain play styles.

I think that all game design should start with a question of what is the experience that designers want to create. It is often dubbed "player experience" in trade literature. Second consideration is thinking what is essential part of that experience and then pondering how the game should capture that experience.

That is something many would be designers fail to achieve and it is only the first step.

[tussock]

#GNS.

Gamist: if you just use the rules, it works. Like a traditional game, monopoly or contract bridge. It's fun for at least some people. Lets you value the rules, outside rule 0.

Narrativist: you can make the game outcomes conform to various predetermined stories, and the rules at least don't strictly prevent that. Lets you value the open spaces around the rules, perhaps.

Simulationist: the implied setting and plot resolution is consistent with many of the possible rules-based mental extrapolations. Lets the setting have events declared outside the player's influence in a self-consistent fashion. Values comprehensibility.



Quite why people write ten thousand words about them is beyond me. The key point was always that people value D&D (and by extension, other RPGs) from a variety of perspectives. As a dice-rolling game, as a platform for stories, and as a way to interestingly constrain their imagination about fantastic things.

And I think when people answer to their GNS leanings (many being right in the middle), it gives you some clues about how they'll appreciate padded sumo or linear adventure design or open-ended combat mechanics. So it's even useful.

[PhoneLobster]

Gamist...Narrativist...Simulationist...Quite why people write ten thousand words about them is beyond me.

Possibly because none of your definitions in any way actually match GNS theory?

And I think when people answer to their GNS leanings (many being right in the middle)

Not actually possible under GNS theory. Which states that the three types of game and gamer are fundamentally incompatible.

I know you and other people WANT some of these terms to mean something and imagine GNS has something to say, but you really need to stop letting your make belief substitute for what the theory and it's definitions actually state.

[Leress]

Why are people trying to use GNS as a base for anything?

EDIT:

Somewhat related

Here is a link to someone who is trying to do an academic approach to games and game design:



http://keithburgun.net/interactive-forms/

http://keithburgun.net/articles/

I will give my critiques later on his stuff.

[schpeelah]

Why are people trying to use GNS as a base for anything?

The terms seem self-explanatory to people, like they could understand the meaning just by seeing the word. Of course, for each person that "obvious" meaning is different.

[ishy]

Yeah GNS seems lawful but it actually is more chaotic.

[TiaC]

Yeah GNS seems lawful but it actually is more chaotic.

GNS manages to be even less clear than the Law-Chaos axis. That's actually impressive.

[Windjammer]

I've found Brian Gleichman's take very helpful:

http://whitehall-paraindustries.com/The ... ad_rep.htm

As of 2012, there's a new attempt in Scandinavian academia to create a community of scholarly exchange on RPG theorising that mostly ignores Ron E ever existed. They even have their own peer reviewed journal. I find the material very pedestrian, but it's certainly off to a promising start.

[ACOS]

I've found Brian Gleichman's take very helpful:

http://whitehall-paraindustries.com/The ... ad_rep.htm

I was a bit disturbed by the discussion in the linked thread @ rpg.net. And of course V. Baker (aka lumpey) had to chime in to revel in the fact that people were indeed playing the game as he intended, complete with necro-pedo-rape.

Well, at least it wasn't horny dogs.

[nikita]

As of 2012, there's a new attempt in Scandinavian academia to create a community of scholarly exchange on RPG theorising that mostly ignores Ron E ever existed. They even have their own peer reviewed journal. I find the material very pedestrian, but it's certainly off to a promising start.

I've read those papers too. They are very much working from solid base of previous academic work. None of it is very sexy but it is going to be the basis of course books we will all read and write in a decade or so...

[RadiantPhoenix]

I'd replace "GNS" with three common failings of RPGs:

• Unplayable
• Not interesting: "I'ma go play Smash Bros now..."
• Dissociated (not necessarily a failing)

To which I'd add three more:

• Failure to live up to the premise: "Your raging werewolf is brought down... by a dozen pre-schoolers with sticks"
• Encouraging douchebag DMs (might not be a failing if you're into BDSM)
• Making me feel sleazy for even considering playing it: Pokegirls.

[erik]

[*] Making me feel sleazy for even considering playing it: Pokegirls.[/list]

You had my interest at sleazy, but now you have my attention.

[RadiantPhoenix]

[*] Making me feel sleazy for even considering playing it: Pokegirls.

You had my interest at sleazy, but now you have my attention.

Mutants: guys (and generally only guys) gotta collect them all... for rape and brainwashing and more rape.

[schpeelah]

Making me feel sleazy for even considering playing it: Pokegirls.

You have stained my search history by making me check that no one has produced a Pokegirls RPG.

Mutants: guys (and generally only guys) gotta collect them all... for rape and brainwashing and more rape.

You mean "collect them all through rape-based brainwashing".

Weird thing: I went to check what that's all about (also to earn internet furry tough guy cred) when I first heard about it years ago, checked out a couple stories from their top 10 and was completely baffled that none of them was porn. I mean, the setup is Pokemon except all the Pokemon are female furries who need to have regular sex with humans and then accept the human as their master. How do you write anything but slavery porn with a premise like that? But no, it's all Nice Guy Slaver fantasies: "I'm a good guy, I treat my slaves nicely and think of them as people, not like those other guys!"

[erik]

I don't know why, but I assumed it was female pokemon trainers capturing pokemon... for reasons.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I don't know why, but I assumed it was female pokemon trainers capturing pokemon... for reasons.

"Pokegirls" sounds so innocent, doesn't it?