I've got a headache, now.PhoneLobster wrote:All about GNS
[D&D 3.5] The Unconventional Wisdom of the Den
Moderator: Moderators
The Church of Ron Edwards.fectin wrote:Who called GNS a theory? It sure seems more like a nomenclature.
I've seen gamers in the wild try to use it as a design principle, too.
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
-
Psychic Robot
- Prince
- Posts: 4607
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm
ron edwards is a turd
much like john edwards
is there perhaps a relationship between the two
the world may never know
much like john edwards
is there perhaps a relationship between the two
the world may never know
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:You do not seem to do anything.Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
That's stupid. It's an interesting enough nomenclature; seems like it would work okay as long as you stayed high level. But a design principle? WTF? How would that even work? There's no good/bad attached to any of that, and attempting to "balance" those elements would be almost tautologically foolish.Maxus wrote:The Church of Ron Edwards.fectin wrote:Who called GNS a theory? It sure seems more like a nomenclature.
I've seen gamers in the wild try to use it as a design principle, too.
Tangentially, has anyone read Howard Taylor's DM book? I liked his categories more than most (three playstyles: fight everything, talk to everything, or solve everything).
That's a really good point. I mean, how many level 20 builds do we see here, compared to old CharOp? ("It's okay to be useless for the first 17 levels, at level 20 you have +16 BAB and 9th level spells!")FrankTrollman wrote: That's probably the core of the "unconventional" Den wisdom right there: the idea that you're going to be min/maxing for an actual game that you will actually play.
...
This emphasis on min/maxing towards the limits of how long the DM is willing to listen to you explaining why you think your power works that way is very much a Gaming Den thing.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
But since, like unto Law and Chaos, everyone has their own ideas of what a 'gamist' game or a 'narrativist' game looks like, designing for one of the three poles is a non-starter as a game.Orion wrote:They don't try to "balance" them. They say that the target audience for their game is gamists, or narrativists, and then throw out all the features they think that group doesn't care about or doesn't like.
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
I actually think GNS is actually not a classification of elements like they think it is, but a simple rehashing of the term RPG.FrankTrollman wrote:The designers of 4e D&D seriously came out and said that D&D was "gamist" game and didn't need to waste time on "simulationist" and "narrativist" elements. It explains much of the difficulties of the system.
-Username17
Role=Narrativist
Playing=Simulationist
Game=Gamist
Of course, the failure is to think that those are separate elements and not one term.
I shouldn't be surprised considering that GNS advocates seem to not be very creative. People like that slightly rebrand an existing idea and then expect to pass it off as a brilliant insight.
Similarly, the term "hot fudge sundae" cannot be reduced into separate elements either. So when someone tells me it's hot outside, I assume that the streets are knee-deep in fudge.K wrote: I actually think GNS is actually not a classification of elements like they think it is, but a simple rehashing of the term RPG.
Role=Narrativist
Playing=Simulationist
Game=Gamist
Of course, the failure is to think that those are separate elements and not one term.
I'm pretty sure that's because it's how Ron Edwards presented it and, should you try to read his articles, you're left with the impression that they are indeed separate things and should be catered for separately.
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
I've seen a couple of criticisms (from Frank, et al.) of the GNS system that I agree with:
- There's significant overlap in the categories, particularly with the wishy-washy term "simulationist" (e.g. I don't think you can find a story or a game that isn't simulating something).
- Even if there's a grain of truth to the idea that there are three dimensions to an RPG: so what? I've never seen anything intelligent result from this theory, just inconclusive arguments over whether game X is more simulationist than game Y, for example.
Are you being sarcastic? If so, you failed for the simple reason your example proves my point. In "hot fudge sundae," breaking it into separate elements is the first step before making the illogical conclusion of assuming that all hot things are related to fudge.hogarth wrote:Similarly, the term "hot fudge sundae" cannot be reduced into separate elements either. So when someone tells me it's hot outside, I assume that the streets are knee-deep in fudge.K wrote: I actually think GNS is actually not a classification of elements like they think it is, but a simple rehashing of the term RPG.
Role=Narrativist
Playing=Simulationist
Game=Gamist
Of course, the failure is to think that those are separate elements and not one term.
In the same way, assuming that G, N, and S can be taken out of GNS or that R,P, and G can be taken out of RPG creates a structure where you assume they operate interdependently or independently and aren't instead three words describing a single unique thing.
To go back to hot fudge sundaes, a GNS advocate would make hot fudge sundaes that were boiling bowls of fudge with a tiny slice of banana and a drop of ice-cream in the middle and try to call that a "hot fudge sundae" because they were focusing on the "hot" and "fudge" elements and offering little "sundae" elements.
Last edited by K on Tue Aug 02, 2011 2:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
And then claim that it's for fudgists, not sundae-oriented consumers.
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
Yes, at least the "sundae-haters" would. So what?K wrote:To go back to hot fudge sundaes, a GNS advocate would make hot fudge sundaes that were boiling bowls of fudge with a tiny slice of banana and a drop of ice-cream in the middle and try to call that a "hot fudge sundae" because they were focusing on the "hot" and "fudge" elements and offering little "sundae" elements.
Arguing over whether such a mutant creation would be a hot fudge sundae is exactly the sort of thing that GNS fans love to do, because there's not much else they can do with their theory.
the only time GNS is even remotely a thing is when looking at certain roleplaying games and seeing if they are for you.
Fate vs Rolemaster vs V&V vs D&D vs Munchkin vs Gurps vs Vampire vs Ars Magica vs Paranoia
Each of these games makes different sacrifices/trade offs between G N and S.
Fate and Vampire are big on N followed by S and tries to have as little G as possible.
D&D 4: is big on G with much less S and N.
Ars Magica tries to blend all N and S, with the focus on the Mythic part of the world, and abstracts the combat and other parts.
Paranoia/Teenage mutants from outerspace is alot of G and N, without really caring about S that much.
It helps to know what flavors you prefer, so you know what games you'll like.
Fate vs Rolemaster vs V&V vs D&D vs Munchkin vs Gurps vs Vampire vs Ars Magica vs Paranoia
Each of these games makes different sacrifices/trade offs between G N and S.
Fate and Vampire are big on N followed by S and tries to have as little G as possible.
D&D 4: is big on G with much less S and N.
Ars Magica tries to blend all N and S, with the focus on the Mythic part of the world, and abstracts the combat and other parts.
Paranoia/Teenage mutants from outerspace is alot of G and N, without really caring about S that much.
It helps to know what flavors you prefer, so you know what games you'll like.
Thanks for an example of the kind of useless, inconclusive argumentation I was referencing earlier!sabs wrote:Fate and Vampire are big on N followed by S and tries to have as little G as possible.
D&D 4: is big on G with much less S and N.
Ars Magica tries to blend all N and S, with the focus on the Mythic part of the world, and abstracts the combat and other parts.
Paranoia/Teenage mutants from outerspace is alot of G and N, without really caring about S that much.
You're welcome 
Though it's not inconclusive. If all your friends are really into telling stories, and really hate being reminded of the 'game' part of their RPG. Then making them play D&D4 where they have powers that say things like: move opponent back 2 squares. Will make them unhappy.
Simularly, if your friends are really into miniatures, and the meta-gaming aspects of RPGS. Then playing FATE will irk them to no ends.
What's idiotic is when people start going off on how one aspect is TEH MOZT IMPOTANT!
Different games focus on different parts of the RPG spectrum, and different players/gms enjoy different blends.
I know a GM who is an amazing GM when it comes to the narative parts of a game, but he's horrible at the gamey, min-max, making your NPCS have the right numbers to match what's in your head, and making numerically good challenges for a party. But his /stories/ are amazing. And conversely, I know some gm's that are really good at the gamey math part, but their story telling makes George Lucas look like a genius.
Though it's not inconclusive. If all your friends are really into telling stories, and really hate being reminded of the 'game' part of their RPG. Then making them play D&D4 where they have powers that say things like: move opponent back 2 squares. Will make them unhappy.
Simularly, if your friends are really into miniatures, and the meta-gaming aspects of RPGS. Then playing FATE will irk them to no ends.
What's idiotic is when people start going off on how one aspect is TEH MOZT IMPOTANT!
Different games focus on different parts of the RPG spectrum, and different players/gms enjoy different blends.
I know a GM who is an amazing GM when it comes to the narative parts of a game, but he's horrible at the gamey, min-max, making your NPCS have the right numbers to match what's in your head, and making numerically good challenges for a party. But his /stories/ are amazing. And conversely, I know some gm's that are really good at the gamey math part, but their story telling makes George Lucas look like a genius.
I've never bothered to really study up on GNS theory, but I can see role playing rules within a rule set as a combination of the three ideas.
If you look at 1E AD&D, for example, you can find a number of rules that are not really written to promote the "game" nor are they written to promote the "story" but instead to recreate or simulate some element of psudo reality for the simple save of simulating it.
The disease charts are a good example: No game or story purpose whatsoever.
The Weapon vs Armor type tables is another good example. There is little "game" reason to have your sword be worse against chain while your mace be better than chain, and there is clearly no story involved; it is simply an attempt to simulate the effects of different weapon attacks against different armor types. The fighter is not going to have a mace always on hand for the case when he can get that small plus to hit because of the armor of his opponent. (Besides, he is mostly fighting monsters anyway.)
Terminal velocity rules incorporated into falling damage is simulist. (It's also stupid because you deal with so many abstract concepts including hit points and the fact that the factors that deal damage at the point of impact are so complex that velocity only plays one of many parts.)
If you look at 1E AD&D, for example, you can find a number of rules that are not really written to promote the "game" nor are they written to promote the "story" but instead to recreate or simulate some element of psudo reality for the simple save of simulating it.
The disease charts are a good example: No game or story purpose whatsoever.
The Weapon vs Armor type tables is another good example. There is little "game" reason to have your sword be worse against chain while your mace be better than chain, and there is clearly no story involved; it is simply an attempt to simulate the effects of different weapon attacks against different armor types. The fighter is not going to have a mace always on hand for the case when he can get that small plus to hit because of the armor of his opponent. (Besides, he is mostly fighting monsters anyway.)
Terminal velocity rules incorporated into falling damage is simulist. (It's also stupid because you deal with so many abstract concepts including hit points and the fact that the factors that deal damage at the point of impact are so complex that velocity only plays one of many parts.)
Certainly I agree that people might enjoy one game more than another based on their tastes. But unsupported statements like "Vampire has as little G as possible and Teenagers From Outer Space has a lot of G" just seem like argument bait since the definition of G, N and S is so vague and has so much overlap.sabs wrote:You're welcome
Though it's not inconclusive. If all your friends are really into telling stories, and really hate being reminded of the 'game' part of their RPG. Then making them play D&D4 where they have powers that say things like: move opponent back 2 squares. Will make them unhappy.
Simularly, if your friends are really into miniatures, and the meta-gaming aspects of RPGS. Then playing FATE will irk them to no ends.
If you'd played Vampire and Teenagers from Outerspace those statements would make complete sense.
It's about 4th Wall breaking. Games that focus on Gamist, break the 4th wall all the time. D&D4E, Teenagers from Outerspace, Tales from the Bar, are all examples of that. Most of the people who HATE 4E hate it because it's too 'gamey'.
Vampire gets hated because it's all about the Goth Angst mobile. And the actual 'game' part sucks donkey balls. It's literally one of the worse game systems out there. It's actually WORSE than Mother May I.
It's a quick and dirty way to catagorize games, and to help put into words you can use, the feelings/reactions people get to said games. It's not useless, but it's also not a holy grail of super-awesome if you understand GNS you will makz ze best game EVERZ.
It's useful for talking about what people like about certain games, and figuring out what kind of games you prefer.
It's about 4th Wall breaking. Games that focus on Gamist, break the 4th wall all the time. D&D4E, Teenagers from Outerspace, Tales from the Bar, are all examples of that. Most of the people who HATE 4E hate it because it's too 'gamey'.
Vampire gets hated because it's all about the Goth Angst mobile. And the actual 'game' part sucks donkey balls. It's literally one of the worse game systems out there. It's actually WORSE than Mother May I.
It's a quick and dirty way to catagorize games, and to help put into words you can use, the feelings/reactions people get to said games. It's not useless, but it's also not a holy grail of super-awesome if you understand GNS you will makz ze best game EVERZ.
It's useful for talking about what people like about certain games, and figuring out what kind of games you prefer.