Anyone here ever try to apply GNS to the counter and hexmap crowd?
I only ask because it occurred to me that differing GNS priorities would explain why I have so often pissed off other people at the game table.
For example, I played in a Divine Right tourney at Gen Con a few years back. I besieged a fellow player will all of my armies, flagrantly ignoring a breakpoint on the CRT. My opponent pointed out that I was wasting resources by sending one army too many. When I told him my armies don't know the rules, he became agitated to the point of souring the whole event for me. In retrospect, he seemed to not comprehend my non-Gamist priorities. I certainly can't blame him for that, since we were playing a tournament after all.
Also, I have often made less than ideal moves in a game simply to explore the results. Seems like a classic Sim goal.
Any one else have similar experiences?
Sounds plausible; or at least I can sympathise with the point at issue. Perhaps this is best answered by "thats why some wargamers made RPG's".
Yeah, I used wargame examples in some of my very first discussions here on the Forge - in trying to get clear about what distinguished Nar Story from the kinda "story" you might be interested in while playing a wargame, I think.
As I recall, Ron is pretty consistent in saying he really only points GNS at RPGs, but there were some discussions (with Nadav?) about making it a more general games theory. Certainly I can see bits of G, N and S in wargames, even computer wargames. I remember nursing certain units through the Panzer General campaigns 'cause I wanted that neat-story feel of a veteran unit working its way through the war - and the distinction between "I wanna win" and "let's see what would happen if Lee had a few more trooops at Gettysburg" has been around in wargaming forever . . .
But none of that is really exactly what GNS covers (different basis of Exploration, perhaps?), and (as far as I know) no one is overly enthusiastic about saying it should/could. There seems to be more than enough to work through just within the RPG world.
Not that I wouldn't participate if a discussion in this area results, and there might even be something learned in the process that illuminates how GNS works with RPGs. Seems like RPGs are definitely the focus, though.
Gordon
Quote from: jrientsFor example, I played in a Divine Right tourney at Gen Con a few years back. I besieged a fellow player will all of my armies, flagrantly ignoring a breakpoint on the CRT. My opponent pointed out that I was wasting resources by sending one army too many. When I told him my armies don't know the rules, he became agitated to the point of souring the whole event for me. In retrospect, he seemed to not comprehend my non-Gamist priorities. I certainly can't blame him for that, since we were playing a tournament after all.
Well, GNS is designed for RPGs really. I am sure it could be modified to cover other forms of games in one way or another. I'm not sure if the GNS modes could really be used in wargames. They are most likely going to be SImulationist and/or Gamist by nature.
His pointing out your misuse of breakpoints sounds more like an instance of Exploration of System to me.
Hi there,
Coulda sworn there was a great thread about wargaming somewhere in this forum. I didn't get there with searches for "grognard" or "wargames" there. Maybe later.
Best,
Ron
Quote from: jrientsAny one else have similar experiences?
Not with wargames (my opponents and myself are firmly "gamists") but in a game where communication is important, as Diplomacy, certainly you have "role-players" who get their enjoyment from crafting witty letters and speaking "in character" and for whom the narrative of the game is more important than winning. I'm not one of them.
J,
I am very much the same. That said, I suspect that GNS applies to wargames very well. But since this site is dedicated to RPGs, I suppose it's not the place to discuss it.
Actually, the interesting thing to do would be to go to a grognard site, and find out if they can corroborate, and/or what they think of the theory.
Mike
Hey all,
I would say that for any wargame that includes a story element, even if just in the color-text, that game can be treated the same as any other role-playing game. Thus, GNS is just as relevent for such games as for tabletop games.
In my experience, players do exhibit the same preferences with the same interpersonal problems. Because wargames focus so much upon sim: setting (not! color) and gamism, those players whose preferences lie elsewhere are all the more incongruous. Of course, as with LARPs, because there is a heavy player-vs-player mentality, there are a number of people who profess a preference for sim (color, in this case), but really are strict gamists in actual play.
Later,
Grant
I played in a game of Charlie Company (Vietnam wargame rules) at the local games club. It was a mass participation event hosted by the indigenous wargamers. A few of us who were playing a company at the same table got together and made a few props (bandanas, saw-off shotguns, toy helmets etc). The wargamers looked at us in astonishment when we entered the venue (well wouldn't you). But before the end of the day many of them had bought into the whole back-story we'd created on the fly - interpreting dice rolls to fit the story ("Hey you got through on your comms roll – the LT's blackmail stunt must've paid off – the Huey pilot is gonna come get ya"). I think there must be at least a few Nar-Simers out there.
Alan.