GNS on the SFCONSIM-L

[Paganini]

This is a copy of a post I made to the SFCONSIM-L yahoo group this afternoon. I wanted to see what you all think of it. :)

BEGIN POST

Sunday, June 09, 2002, 7:35:04 AM, adastragames wrote:

a> If you believe in the G-N-S (Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist)
a> triad for RPG design, GURPS tries to be gamist and simulationist,
a> rather than Narrativist.  Which, given its design epoch, makes sense.

There are some problems with your post, Ken, that mainly stem
from pop mis-application of terms. This isn't your fault, it's
just an unfortunate, fairly widespread development in the field.

Before we can have a meaningful discussion about this you're
going to have to clarify a few things.

First of all, there are a lot of different versions of "GNS" out
there. Many net flame wars have ben kindled because two people
were talking about different versions without realizing it. :)

Probably the two most well-known versions are the RGFA
"Threefold Model" and Ron Edwards' GNS.

(Note, GNS is the name of Ron Edward's model, that is often
incorrectly used to refer to the entire collection of such
ideas, including the Threefold Model, Scarlet Jester's version
of the model, and so on. For clarity, I put it in quotes when
I'm using it as a general term, and leave off the quotes when
I'm talking about Ron's specific version.)

In all cases, though, you have to understand that "GNS" itself is
exclusively a method for categorizing instances of play. By self
acclamation, "GNS" can't be applied to game systems. The only
purpose / valid use of the Threefold Model is to clarify your
gaming preferences with respect to other, equally valid modes of
play. (The entire motivation behind this was to try and cut down
on green / purple flame wars of the "Story is everything!" "No!
If it isn't realistic, it's bad!" variety.) RGFA regulars would
yell themselves blue at you for characterizing GURPS as a
"Simulationist game."

The RGFA position is that mechanics can not be geared towards
any particular style of play; that mechanics are style neutral.
That is, GURPS is a simulationist game if you play it that way,
but it's a narrative game if you play it *that* way. In short,
any game system can be used equally well with any style.

This is where Ron Edwards' GNS model departs from the Threefold
Model. Ron's GNS is his own creation, but he does draw on the
Threefold, and absorb some of the Threefold's terms, which makes
for a lot of confusion in discussions.

The whole foundation of GNS is that "System Does Matter." Ron
has an essay with this title up on the Forge, you can find it at
http://www.indie-rpgs.com

The idea is that, no, mechanics are *not* style neutral. Ron's
GNS at it's core remains a way of classifying decisions made
during play - but Ron contends that the construction of a game
can facilitate the making of decisions of a given
classification. So, over at the Forge you will find people
talking about "Narrative games," "Simulationist games," and so
on, but they have a standing explanation that such phrases are
shorthand for "mechanics which facilitate Narrative play," or
"mechanics which facilitate Simulationist play," and so on. This
is important. There is no "one true way" to play RPGs, but
specific design can be used to create games that *help* you play
in a certain way. It's like grabbing a screwdriver from your
toolbox... sure you can use it to pound in a nail, but wouldn't
a hammer work better?

Anyway, people who just pass through or who have been taken in
by the pop misunderstanding often use the terms incorrectly in
forums where such standing shorthand is not recognized, which
generates a lot of confusion. :)

a> I've found that my desire for a "generic" game engine has declined
a> over the years.  I want something that suits the genre that I'm
a> running.  GURPS does this for a number of genres...but not all, and
a> trying to make it do all of them makes the system more and more
a> unweildy.

You will find that many of the games designed by the the Forge
regulars are extremely self-aware. The correct application of
GNS theory causes them to lock onto a particular mode of play
and move in for the kill with alarming single-mindedness. (In
fact, you'll find that some of the designers there have raised
game design to the point where it's almost an abstract art. I
point to Nicotine Girls as an example of a game that is unlikely
to be played but that has unbelievable focus and dedication to
its stylistic goals.)

The problem with classifying more traditional games like GURPS
according to the GNS style that they facilitate is that such
games lack the kind of self awareness described. Some parts of
the system seem to facilitate a particular style, but others
will tend to facilitate other styles. This is not to say such
games are bad. During play gamers make many different decisions,
for many different reasons, and you'll usually find all three
GNS elements present in a given game session. GNS is useful in
that it allows you to identify your focus of play, and design
mechanics to encourage that focus. The point is, if a game
session can have mixed GNS goals, then a game system also can.
The problem is that with a non-self-aware game the mixing isn't
obvious. So, there might be something about GURPS that you don't
like - it conflicts with your preferred style of play - but
you'll have trouble identifying it because it's hidden.

This is the main reason why I dislike GURPS and other
non-self-aware games. They are confusing. When you read them,
they *seem* disorganized, even though they may have impeccable
layout and organization.

However, in the specific example of GURPS, there's another
reason I don't like it... namely, the system is broken
mathematically. There are plenty of web pages and archive posts
on various groups / lists that can give a run down of the
problems way better than I can. In a nutshell, though, GURPS
suffers from some severe breakpoint and currency problems.

a> I suspect, from having skimmed Nathan's posts over on RPG-Create,
a> that he's more of a Narrativist/Gamist person, and simulationism, to
a> him, has a truly limited role in RPG creation.  OTOH, on RPG-Create,
a> most of the knocks on Simulationism come from the (unspoken)
a> assumption that anything that tries for simulationist veracity will
a> be unplayable, and quickly turn into the Towering Pile Of Tomes.

It's true that my preferences lie heavily with Narrativism and
Gamism. However, a huge strength of a tool like GNS is that it
allows you to objectively talk about games - it gives you a
baseline reading. It allows for statements like "Yeah, that's a
good game, but I'd never play it because it's designed to
facilitate a play style that I hate." I can say objectively that
GURPS is not a good system. It's confused and mathematically
broken. Does that mean you can't have fun with it? No way. You
can have fun GURPS games. You can have Narrative AD&D games,
too. But these are things to think about before jumping on the
GURPS bandwagon. GURPS is broken... do you really want to use
it? GURPS has a lot going for it... it's old,  has a fairly big
name, and good company support. There are a lot more things than
just "good design" that go into making a game successful, and
those things might be more important in the long run to a
commercial endeavor.

END POST

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Nathan,

I think that was pretty well-stated. My only quibble is that the original "System Does Matter" essay is obsolete - not that I disagree with much that's in it, but it's definitely holding some phraseology that (little did I know) causes some people some serious trouble. And the crucial Exploration concept isn't there at all; it took the Scarlet Jester and Seth ben-Ezra to show me what I was missing.

Anyway, I think the best essay to reference is the big'un, "GNS and related matters of role-playing."

Thanks for repping the Forge and contributing clearly to that discussion. I appreciate it a lot.

Best,
Ron

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Ron,

Actually, I'd been thinking a lot about the "System Does Matter" essay this last week.  (Just read it again out of Sorcerer.)  It seems to me that in spite of some required updates, this is a much better introduction to GNS that the biggun'.  

Not that biggun' isn't important. But "System Does Matter" a) isn't as overwhelming (by a long shot), and more importantly, b) it present everything in a concrete manner of game play that I think most people are going to get and recognize.  Short on theory, but big on: "Do you like doing this during game play, or this?" I think most people will get a quick "Oh, I get this, yeah," understading on a first reading.

Just something to think about.  Because then folks who want more can go to GNS, and the folks who've had enough can say, "Yeah, I read about GNS. Made sense to me."

Just something to think about.

Take care,
Christopher

[Jake Norwood]

I'm gonna back up Chris here. "System Does matter" made sense. The GNS forum doesn't.

Jake

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Jake,

A question of clarification:

Are you saying the GNS Essay, over in the articles section, doesn't make sense to you?  

Or that the GNS forum here on the discussion boards doesn't make sense to you?

Or both?

Or are you saying none of it makes sense to anybody, and everybody that's been talking about it for several years now is in mass-delusional state, and the rest of us are smart enough to pierce the psychosis and not fall into their trap because they only think it makes sense?

Thanks,
Christopher

[Christopher Kubasik]

And, um... It's Christopher.

Thanks.