What do we really mean by GNS?
This is a continuation of a discussion that started on a friend’s LiveJournal, in the comments thread. For the background, go here.
Over the course of the thread, it became increasingly clear to me that l_the_fangirl and I weren’t talking about the same things when we said “Gamist,” “Narrativist,” or “Simulationist.” Well, ok, I think we mostly mean the same thing by “Gamist,” but not the other two. Now, of course, I don’t think GNS is the “one true model” of roleplaying, but I’ve found it to be useful in the past. I do, however, agree with the “big model” theory that gamism, narrativism, and simulationism are only three of the possible universe of creative agendas, and there are really a lot more of them than just those.
Anyway, I’ve come to think that I myself may not have a 100% conventional view of GNS, and so I’m going to follow l_the_fangirl’s lead and rename the three points of the model I use to more accurately reflect the way I think of them:
- Goal-oriented (formerly “Gamist”): Primarily playing in order to accomplish character goals, or “win.”
- Event-oriented (formerly “Narrativist”): Primarily playing in order to participate in an interesting series of events.
- Character-oriented (formerly “Simulationist”): Primarily playing in order to explore an interesting character.
Now, l_the_fangirl renames her three points differently, and I’m going to quote from her comments about them here:
- Challenging (formerly “Gamist”): LTF didn’t elaborate on this one in the comments thread, but I assume from the name she gives it that it’s primarily about encountering and surmounting challenges.
- Thematic (formerly “Narrativist”): “…entirely about themes – if you define a theme as ‘What happens when you choose one of two good things at the expense of the other?’”
- Genre (formerly “Simulationist”): “…the game is entirely about simulating a living, breathing situation and setting in a particular genre. If you wanted to run a game that was Just Like Tolkien, it would be simulationist/genre.”
(l_the_fangirl, I’m sorry if I’m misrepresenting your point of view here; I’m restating it as best I understand it, but if I’m wrong, please comment on this post and say so.)
I should also mention here that I’m coming almost entirely at this from a background of theatre-style LARP. I don’t know what LTF’s background is, but her latest comments lead me to believe she plays at least some tabletop RPGs, so that may account at least somewhat for the difference in our perspectives.
Anyway, I thought this was an interesting discussion and that ryuutchi probably didn’t want it happening in a comment thread on her unrelated post, so I’m reposting it here in the hopes of continuing it.
Comments are closed.
Ok, I wrote a long, thoughtful post about GNS, then hit submit without entering a name and your blog ate it. Let me try to reconstitute it quickly here:
Everyone seems to have slightly different definitions for GNS. Mine are basically the same as yours, with the primary difference that I see simulationism as a more general “see what would happen(if)”, of which “see what this character would do” and “see what would happen in this situation (given certain genre conventions)” are both subsets. Or in other words, simulationism is primarily about exploration, whether that is exploration of character, situation, genre, a specific world, or something else entirely.
I’m pretty much the opposite background of you on this though, my experience with GNS comes primarily from tabletop, although I have been thinking about it more with regards to larp lately.
Ultimately, I’m not too satisfied with GNS. My gut feeling is that it doesn’t really break the reasons people play down to their most basic level. Also, it’s very player-centric, in that it speaks very well to player motivations and not so much to writer/GM motivations. As more and more games (in tabletop at least, I don’t know if its happening in larp as well) are starting to question the traditional GM/Player roles and redistribute responsibilities and activities amongst them, I think it’s becoming increasingly important to have a comprehensive theory that examines what writers and GMs are looking to get out of games as well as players.
GNS, as originally written up by Edwards has specific definitions. l_the_fangirl’s summary is a reasonable summary of Edwards definitions. Unfortunately Edwards original writeups were a bit long-winded, so it was easier to overlook his definition. More seriously, Edwards picked words that could easily mean something else. Narrativism, for example focuses on theme. By Edwards story, if you don’t have a theme, you don’t have Narrativist play, which I expect is surprising to most people seeing the base of “narrative.” Simulation does include what I think most people think it is; striving to simulate a fictional world and dropping characters into it. What is also included, perhaps surprisingly perhaps not depending on the person, is immersive play, or method playing, “getting into character.” Especially surprising is that using the GNS definitions, a game with fast and loose rules but players who really get into their characters are lumped into simulation along with people who build up really complex rigid rules but then just treat their characters like puppets.
Ironically, this confusion in definition has made GNS all the more successful, as people project their own interpretations onto GNS. Your definitions work just as well as Edwards. In the process of trying to create a useful standardized terminology, Edwards has managed to keep things pretty muddy.
Brian: Yeah, I think my definition of simulationism is probably not very mainstream within TS LARP – certainly, the word “simulation” suggests something closer to what you’ve laid out. And I’d definitely agree that GNS isn’t that great, even simply as a theory of player agendas in roleplaying. I’ve heard other people propose additional points to add to the polygon, but I suspect that ultimately you’re right that gamism, narrativism, and simulationism themselves might need to be replaced with something better.
Alan: Thanks, that’s interesting – I wasn’t aware that there was an original source paper from which GNS comes. Do you happen to know where I could find a copy of that?
Hmm, that didn’t show up. To summarize. Edwards thoughts on the matter are at:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html
and
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/
The first link is his earlier post on the matter, and in it Narrativism doesn’t have the word “theme” in it’s definition. In the second (later) article, Narrativist play is specifically defined as having a theme. I think it’s fair to say that the theory has evolved and expanded over the years, which might lead to some confusion. He went on to add longer articles discussing each of the three in depth, further fleshing them out.
To further muddy the waters, GNS is based on the threefold model, which is similar but just different enough to cause some confusion. You can read about that one here:
http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/