The GNS Theory: Draft Cyclopedia Entry

[Kester Pelagius]

What follows below is intended as a cyclopedic reference entry on the subject of The GNS Theory.  Alas there are no quick and easy definitions for this topic, though suggestions for pruning will be given due consideration.

Please note that this entry has been formatted to be specific to topical discussion here at The Forge, thus the references to Mr. Edwards essay.  If these references are deemed too intrusive please let me know so that I can re-edit those portions of the text.

As always comments and criticisms designed to help aide in the editing of this cyclopedic article for clarity are welcome.


(What follows is Draft 1)


The GNS Theory

by C. Demetrius Morgan


From the very beginning of the modern role-playing era a debate has waged about the nature of the beast, or rather the preferred styles of play, and how those styles of play are best defined.  Once such definitions were easy and straight forward, witness the following:

"In a fantasy game, each player assumes the persona of a particular character, be it witch, warlock, mighty warrior or pious priest..."(1)

In short game play was defined by the sorts of character that you were playing.  Or rather the archetypal "persona" which you were going to be slipping into during the game.  The actual style of play wasn't so important in those early days as was the rules of play.  Of course the biggest problem in the early days of FRP games was in getting gamers to understand the difference between "player knowledge" and "character knowledge", thus the IC (In Character) and OOC (Out of Character) short hand often seen in discussions of game play, which is perhaps how this debate truly began.

Once the distinction was made it opened the doors to debate about how the game should be played.  Obviously this is a debate that has yet to be resolved.  Or such is the perception.  Obviously, where a game is concerned, there can be no right or wrong method of play.  Only what feel right to the players involved.  Too, over time, the terminology used by those debating the percieved differences has changed.  Once the distinction was summed up as the difference between "roll" and "role" gaming.  Of course as the role-playing hobby evolved so, too, did the terminology used to described it.

Then the early FRP games existed in a simpler time.  A time before minimalist rules and storyteller systems.  A time before CCGs.  A time before debates about whether diceless or generic rules systems were better than systems that used one sort of dice or another, or which might be set in specific genre milieu.  Thus those early FRP games could all too simplistically mark this distinction as being between whether or not a Game Master or gaming group stressed table top "roll play" over dramatic "role playing".

Times have changed since the early days of FRP gaming.  Not because role-playing is not a clear cut gaming form, but rather because it provides such a dynamic background of possibile modes of play that every group eventually develops their own unique styles of play.  Styles of play which are all equally valid.  Yet styles of play which confuse and confound the novice gamer.

So what, then, is this GNS Theory which people speak with such fervor of at The Forge?

GNS-  This is yet another incarnation of the ever present "roll vs role gaming" debate, yet it is also much more.  As outlined by Ron Edwards in his essay: "GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory"(2)- the GNS model is essentially summed up as the underlying premise native to basic role-playing methodology that refers specifically to the styles of actual play.  Otherwise known as the "Threefold Model"(3).

Per the GNS model, in all its variations, these styles of play are trefold(3) and defined as follows:

Gamism (Gamist):  That style of role-playing which stresses direct competition amongst players.  Archaicly refered to as "roll playing" this style of play stresses the use of complex game mechanics over direct narrative.  This sort of game translates well into CRPGs.
    Per Mr. Edwards this approach is primarily defined by the setting of victory conditions, such as those typically found present in table top war games or traditional board games.

Simulationism (Simulationist):  That style of game play typified by the assumption of predefined roles for the purposes of in-game exploration of roles, sometimes in the pursuit of set objectives.  Thus making this style of play, in part, typical of the sort of role-play which is perhaps closest to the methods used in LARP gaming.
    However here at The Forge Mr. Edwards defines the Simulationism objective as being focused upon "Exploration as the priority of play" in relation to "the internal logic and experiential consistency"(2) of the game world being explored.  Thus this could apply evenly to all forms of role-playing, table top, live action, or even minimalist play in which the story is key.

Narrativism (Dramatist): That style of role-playing in which story telling takes precedence over all other aspects of game play.  This method of role-playing has been variously described and defined over the years.  Some have refered to it as "shared author fiction" or "narrative storytelling".  Visitors to The Forge are probably more aware of Mr. Edwards essay on the matter in which he described this method of play as being "expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme"(2) and as set within one of the classic milieus of the literary genre.  (IE:  Horror, Science Fiction, Fantasy, etcetera.)
    However, in the typical FRP game, the basic principles of the Pulp fiction genre would seem to also be a necessary integer of the formulae.  Thus there is usually some form of conflict and conflict resolution involved in the story telling process, of which the players are often directly made a part, sometimes to the point where they actively take part in narration of game events.  Very close in nature to this style of gaming, though not directly related to it, are the improvisational excersizes used by theatre troups.[/list:u]

Are such distinctions possible in a single game?

Yes and no.  It would be erroneous to classify any FRP game as a "single game" since most rule books present the opportunity for varigated styles of play.  Then again this process is perhaps best summed up as follows:  "Whenever you play any kind of game, there is a type of role assumption involved."(4)  This is certainly true of games involving strategy like Chess, Life, Snakes & Ladders, Clue, Ludo, Monopoly, and even Checkers.  But this statement becomes profound when applied to any sort of true simulation game, be it a historical wargame or fantasy role-playing game.

But aren't all games merely simulations of an abstract environment?

Yes.

However, as outlined above, the GNS model is concerned with "simulationism", meaning the roles taken on by the players, not the simulated environment itself.  Just as "Gamism" is meant to denote the practice or conditionals set within the game by the external interaction of the gamers, as opposed to being directly related to the game itself.  In other words "role" verses "roll" play, in a manner of speaking.

And what of Narrativism?

That's simple enough, this is for the story behind the game.  Something which was sadly neglected in the "roll verses role gaming" arguement, which centered primarily upon the styles of gaming which the players liked, as opposed to the actual game itself.  Thus Narrativism should be see more as embracing more than merely the narrative or dramatic roles which the typical FRP spawn, but as rather encompassing all the udnerlying elements which form, bind, and otherwise cement a good story in place.  In short, Narrativism is the Authorial Role of the game, the game environment, and how the player (and Referee) help to shape that story within the context of game play.




1.  From the introduction to "Fantasy Wargamming", page ix.

2.  Mr. Edwards original article may be accessed in full

here.

3.  Related articles pertaining to this trefold model of role-playing can also be found at "Styles of Roleplaying" and may also may be found here "Role-Playing Games: Theory and Practice".

4.  The Fantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible, pg 20.


Bibliography

"Fantasy Wargaming"; ed. Bruce Galloway, Stein and Day, 1982. ISBN 0-8128-2862-3

"The Gantasy Roleplaying Gamer's Bible", Sean Patrick Fannon, Game Codex, 1997.  ISBN 0-9674429-0-7




Entry provided by:  Kester Pelagius


Kind Regards.

[Marco]

Hi man,

I your attempt may wind up as unintentional flame bait. As much as GNS gets used as a role-vs-role theory (on other boards ... and I think all to often here) that's (as I understand it) the absolute anthisis of what it is. I have  a few specific comments--but I would assume there will be far more.

1. Gamism. This: "stresses direct competition amongst players." is a miniscule subset of Gamist play--and the one that is most commonly invoked to give it a bad name.  A game where the focus was on collectively running a keep with economic rules could be a classic gamist design. It's more about the manipulation of game rules. Brian Gleichman says gamist play is "a demonstration of player skill." I pretty much concurr with this.

2. Narrativist(Dramatist): Under GNS therory there is no 'Dramatist' and the GDS definition of Dramatist is scattered across multiple GNS modes. This is, to my understanding, a major mis-read of GNS (mapping it directly to GNS).

3. "Story" as defined under narrativist has (IMO) pretty strict definitions--which is why I'd avoid using it.

Essentially, this needs a lot of work--probably a section this big on Gamism alone (with examples, alternate takes on it, and major points of debate).

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Kester,

I applaud your intent with this, but it's definitely going to take a lot of baking. Marco makes some good points, although I think he may have mis-read your paraphrase of Narrativism. H'm, already I see potential for I-meant-he-said-that-I-meant dialogue here, always a bad sign.

Best,
Ron

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Marco,

Thanks for taking your time to respond.  I will attempt to offer salient comments upon each of your valuable points.  It is my hope that, with the aide of input from active forum posters such as yourself, that we can cobble together a fresh and, if not concise, at least on the whole historically accurate for the hobby cyclopedic entry on the subject to hand.

I [think] your attempt may wind up as unintentional flame bait. As much as GNS gets used as a role-vs-role theory (on other boards ... and I think all to often here) that's (as I understand it) the absolute anthisis of what it is. I have  a few specific comments--but I would assume there will be far more.

The intent of encyclopedias is to provide historical overviews of topics.  Not to include mention of styles of game play from the early days of the hobby with cross referenced analogues to the GNS Theory, which is a extention of a very old debate, as most older gamers will recognize, at least in part, would be anthithetical to the point of cyclopedic entries.

Of course I expect there will be many choice words.  I understand this.  This is a draft, after all, and I am certain better quotes could be found in the material I have to hand.

But, as the old saying goes, one can not bake fudge brownies without breaking a few eggs.  :)

1. Gamism. This: "stresses direct competition amongst players." is a miniscule subset of Gamist play--and the one that is most commonly invoked to give it a bad name.  A game where the focus was on collectively running a keep with economic rules could be a classic gamist design. It's more about the manipulation of game rules. Brian Gleichman says gamist play is "a demonstration of player skill." I pretty much concurr with this.

I have no qualms with this save to say this delves into game theory, which would require an whole other entry to cover modes of applied game play.  I tried to keep the examples as generic as possible.

Using this example the first thing most people would probably think of who read the article that were non-FRP gamers would be Monopoly.  Which isn't a bad thing necessarily.  However I tried to keep my references hobby orientated.  (I can change that.)

Of course if others think my orignal entry requires further elucidation upon this point do not hesitate to respond to either of this posts with good ideas or sample examples.

Remeber, this is a work in progress which, ultimately, if the power that be are amenable here at The Forge, shall be posted somewhere for all and sundry, but mostly newbies, to have freely available as a reference resource.  Keep this end goal in mind.

2. Narrativist(Dramatist): Under GNS therory there is no 'Dramatist' and the GDS definition of Dramatist is scattered across multiple GNS modes. This is, to my understanding, a major mis-read of GNS (mapping it directly to GNS).

Please refer to my comments about the intent of encyclopedia entries, I think those comments are pertinent here.

3. "Story" as defined under narrativist has (IMO) pretty strict definitions--which is why I'd avoid using it.

Essentially, this needs a lot of work--probably a section this big on Gamism alone (with examples, alternate takes on it, and major points of debate).

Every RPG has different styles of play, as I tried to stress within the entry.  Or was the entry, as written, not clear upon this point?

I do think that further examples could be useful.  Suggestions are welcome.  Please keep in mind this is a cyclopedic entry, not an essay about applied GNS game theory.

What's the difference?

An cyclopdeic entry about the Book of Enoch provides a overview of the topic, not a chapter by chapter, verse by verse, break down of the subject matter.  Also it would reference related material from the Bible, mention some of the differences between 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch, and perhaps give a history in brief of the text.

That is what I am attempting to provide here.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Ron,

I applaud your intent with this, but it's definitely going to take a lot of baking. Marco makes some good points...

Indeed.

H'm, already I see potential for I-meant-he-said-that-I-meant dialogue here, always a bad sign.

As a former SysOp I shall endeavor to restrain my fingers from flying free with willy nilly biting remarks.  (That's how it always starts you know, so very unintentional. ;)

Of course if there were any issue about the clarity of a point made in my draft I am sure that most members of The Forge would be quite pleasant, civil, and even complimentary in their criticism while pointing out said percieved error.  From what I have seen of the postings here most are made without the ugly, too often unnecessary, heat or mad dog fervor so often found elsewhere.

Is that not correct, members of The Forge?


Kind Regards.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings All,

This is just to inform those of you who may be interested that, yes, Kester (that's me, or rather my handle) is working on the entry.  But Kester (still me) would also like to know if anyone has any suggestions, input, criticism, red herrings, or favorite "quotes" about the GNS Theory/Debate which they think I should look at.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius