Model or something more?

[Felix]

Hello, everybody. Registered user 1,399 here, for those keeping track. I've been lurking for several months, so I hope I have a decent handle on theories here. (I also hope this is the right forum for this post; it might be better off as a slightly more general question in RPG Theory.)

  I think that the GNS model is interesting, and I did kind-of use it once, when my GM asked for advice on a problem in the game we were running. However, there are a few issues that concern me, although I don't want to get into them in this post.

  Anyway, my question is: how do you view GNS? As a useful way to discuss role playing theories, one of several possible models, or the authoritative way to study and design RPGs?

  To use an example -- and this is just designed as an illustration, not a reason to get into a debate on economics -- consider the theory of capitalism. Some people view it as the only legitimate way to manage an economy, and might insist that trying to run a society some other way is doomed to fail. Others might view it as a possible theory on how distribute resources, but think that socialism or something else could also be effective. Finally, some people might just consider it a way to form a vocabulary, so that if someone uses the phrase "the marketplace," you know they're talking about something other than the local shopping center.

  Given what I've read so far, I view GNS as just one of several possible ways to model how players make decisions. But there are probably situations where it doesn't apply, and a different model might help a group more. However, I've seen posts where (it seems to me) people believe that GNS is something more authoritative, and that the reason people reject it stems from misunderstanding the details of the theory.

  What's your take?

Felix

[Jason Lee]

Welcome to the Forge!

Well, because you asked my opinion...

GNS, and all the other jargon associated with it, is primarily useful as a communication tool.  It serves that purpose very well.  There are other models (where's Fang when you need him?), and I don't believe GNS is all inclusive.  Sometimes people do reject it based on a misunderstanding of the theory.  More rarely someone will reject it based on an understanding of the theory.

The GNS layer seems to get all the attention in the model presented in Ron's GNS essay (I've no idea why), but there is a lot more to it.

I'm personally formulating an opinion that the actual GNS layer doesn't really exist, and looking directly at Exploration or Stance would be more functional.  But, I ain't gonna try to defend that one until it holds water in my own head (maybe the Nar essay will poke a big hole).

...those are my opinions.

[Mike Holmes]

GNS is miniscule. It covers one problem in RPGs. It exists side by side with all sorts of other theories. Ron has never said otherwise.

GNS is like the transmission of the car. You can't just consider that. There are mechanical issues which could be likened to the engine. There are currency issues that could be likened to fuel. These are all interrellated, but GNS is only one tool amongst many in working with design or RPG therapy.

I'm fond of pointing out that there's this hug field of mathematical study called Game Theory, that is extremely pertinent to designing games. Only it's difficult nature keeps it from being employed more in design. But we all do so every day in small measure. I pointed out another favorite thingie of mine to Josh the other day. In 1938 Von Neumann published The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, which contained in it's twelve hundred pages amongst other important ideas like solving zero-sum games, something called the Min/Max theorem. Yes, when we refer to minmaxing, we are referring to the work of the same mathmatician who invented the modern computer amongst other things.

We're only barely scrathing the surface of how all these things relate. GNS is just one theory that points out that in play there are three basic decision making methods which each require separate considerations. Doesn't even really tell you how to address the needs of those who prefer one method over another. We just intuit that part at this point.

We're working from art to science.

Mike

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Given what I've read so far, I view GNS as just one of several possible ways to model how players make decisions. But there are probably situations where it doesn't apply, and a different model might help a group more. However, I've seen posts where (it seems to me) people believe that GNS is something more authoritative, and that the reason people reject it stems from misunderstanding the details of the theory.

I believe the Ron has said this, more or less himself.

*GNS is not the end-all, be all of RPG theory, but it is a solid foundation for understanding.

*There are situation where GNS is not especially helpful of clear. GNS is more useful is finding out what went wrong in some case just for example.

*People seem to reject what they don't understand, especially if they perceive their own preference is under attack, which is unfortunately has been the case with GNS. I'm not sure who is worse, people who reject GNS without really understanding it or people who embrace it and spout it off all the time when they don't understand it either.

[Felix]

Cool! I got replies.

Cruciel wrote:

Welcome to the Forge!

Thanks for the welcome.

The GNS layer seems to get all the attention in the model presented in Ron's GNS essay (I've no idea why), but there is a lot more to it.

I'm personally formulating an opinion that the actual GNS layer doesn't really exist, and looking directly at Exploration, Stance would be more functional. But, I ain't gonna try to defend that one until it holds water in my own head (maybe the Nar essay will poke a big hole).

I've noticed that it gets a lot of attention. It was certainly the first thing I noticed when I heard about the Forge. It might be because various GNS models have been floating around the internet for years; a lot of the rest of the formal theory is newer. Also, GNS is easy to explain (well, the subtleties might be difficult, but Ron does give an easy to understand one page explanation in "System Does Matter.") That means it's frequently used as a starting point.

What you say about GNS not really existing sounds reasonable to me. Rather, it exists, but only as a subset of Exploration and Stance, similar to how Newton's laws of motion are explained under Einstein's theories, but there are other complications involved. It's just sometimes more convenient to use an approximation.

Felix

[Jason Lee]

I've noticed that it gets a lot of attention. It was certainly the first thing I noticed when I heard about the Forge. It might be because various GNS models have been floating around the internet for years; a lot of the rest of the formal theory is newer. Also, GNS is easy to explain (well, the subtleties might be difficult, but Ron does give an easy to understand one page explanation in "System Does Matter.") That means it's frequently used as a starting point.

There's a whole forum just for assaulting/discussing GNS, while equally important concepts like Currency and Stance coast by relatively unmolested (in comparison) - used yes, refuted no.  I think the reason it gets all the attention is because it's inches away from personality classifcation system (for the record, it ain't supposed to be).  Naturally, people will find themselves not fitting into the mold and therefore the mold must be wrong (a valid statement).  So, then effort it put forth to convince them they do fit, or convince them their criteria for why they don't fit isn't part of GNS.

I think it gets all the attention because it seems to define peoples movitations, and it gets taken personally (for the record, again, it isn't supposed to be about motivations, just indentifing behavior).  Though, it is the great founding theory, so maybe that's all it is.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Felix,

You know, it might surprise people to know that my real goal in writing about game design at all, years ago, was to discuss Currency.

It turned out, and I think still is this way, that people get in trouble at the GNS level more than any other. It's the bridge, as I describe in another thread, between the social people and the rules/activities of play. It's "what we want" in social terms, when play.

Well, without any vocabulary for that, people get all kerflooey a lot of the time. Either they have some functional GNS thing going on among them without using Forge jargon for it, and that's great - or they try to resolve creative/goal stuff via the system, or resolve system stuff using social means only. These last situations often pan out poorly.

So that's why we talk about GNS a lot here. It's the trouble spot. If the texts and general culture of role-playing had been really great about that from the start and all messy and contradictory about (say) to-hit rolls, then the Forge would be dedicated to to-hit rolls almost exclusively.

Best,
Ron

[ADGBoss]

I am not sure I said this before though I think I did mention it to Ron at one point. I think the most powerful thing that GNS Theory does is make you think.  Yes people besides Ron Edwards think about Role Playing otherwise he would be almost alone here.

Never the less I liken GNS to Flat Earth thinking. People said the world was Flat. Columbus said nope.. its not (I am generalizing here bare with me) so he set sail. He thought he reached India but we all know he did not.  So although Columbus was not 100% correct, he did prove more or less the world was indeed round.

So GNS may not answer every riddle of Why We Play or What we play, but it has broken a few barriers of entrenchment in old ideas and has gotten people thinking.

Just my two Lunars

Sean
ADGBoss

[clehrich]

Never the less I liken GNS to Flat Earth thinking. People said the world was Flat. Columbus said nope.. its not (I am generalizing here bare with me) so he set sail. He thought he reached India but we all know he did not.  So although Columbus was not 100% correct, he did prove more or less the world was indeed round.

This is a valuable analogy, I think, for two reasons.  The first is the reason that ADGBoss proposed it: on the one hand, the theory was mostly correct; on the other, the errors in it led to knowledge.

The second, as some of you probably know, is that this is historically completely inaccurate, a myth invented in the late 19th century by Anglo-American scholars who were more concerned with proving that Catholicism is inherently stupid than with historical fact.  The reality is that in Columbus' time, it was well known that the Earth is round.  They also knew how big it was.  So when Columbus proposed to sail west to the Indies, they said, in effect, "Er, Chris, there's an ocean out there bigger than all of Europe and Asia put together, and you'll die of hunger sailing across it."  Columbus, a crappy navigator, had grossly miscalculated the size of the earth, and thought that the Indies were really close by.  He was wrong, they were right, but there were also another couple of continents that nobody knew about.

So for GNS, the point is that it really doesn't matter if the theory is somewhat erroneous, even misguided.  It's close enough to use for exploration.  The hope is that, guided by GNS and other parts of the Grand Theory, as it were, we will discover new stuff along the way.  And then, of course, we'll have to go back and revise the theory.  But that's how science works.  As Mike says, we're moving from art to science here.

Personally, I'd like to see more moving from hobby to art, but that's a separate issue.

[Valamir]

Great post Cle.  I get a chuckle each year out of our celebration of one of history's biggest idiots.  Its amazing how far eager salesmanship, wealthy patrons, and dumb luck can get you.

[Mike Holmes]

Uh, Ralph, I think you just likened Ron to a big idiot.

But, I agree that Chris' point is dead on. Can't find out new things until you start the journey.

Mike

[talysman]

Great post Cle.  I get a chuckle each year out of our celebration of one of history's biggest idiots.  Its amazing how far eager salesmanship, wealthy patrons, and dumb luck can get you.

heh... the thing is, even the part about columbus being an idiot is a myth. first, he wasn't alone; he had a map made by a famous cartographer that, contrary to all the world maps in existent at the time, proposed a much-smaller earth than the scholars believed. I haven't seen any description of his argument why the ancient greek calculations of the size of the earth were wrong, so I don't even know if he had any.

the popular theory I've been seeing is that columbus guessed there was undiscovered land out there and made up a story to convince someone to finance his trip. since he continued to insist he was in the east indies even after multiple trips, while skeptics argued (sensibly) that he had just discovered unknown lands, not the orient, it seems pretty likely he knew at some point what was really going on and simply lied to keep his viceroyship. if he hadn't, the king would have lost interest and expansion into america would have been put off for quite a while.

so... working that back into the analogy... maybe Ron wants us to explore the New World instead of finding a new route to the same kind of games we've always played. especially since those venetians have a monopoly on the east indies trade, anyways.

[soundwave]

Personally, I use GNS as a model to understand social behaviour in gaming. It's very useful for solving problems of dissatisfaction with various elements of gaming.

I find most problems of dissatisfaction in gaming can be traced back to conflicting GNS priorities of one sort or another. Dissatisfaction is the most common problem people have in gaming, and therefore using GNS to analyse the situation and formulate solutions is useful for most problems.

I do actually use GNS something like a personality classification system, but not concretely tied to people. People have different GNS mode preferences in different situations, but they do generally have preferences.

[clehrich]

I do actually use GNS something like a personality classification system, but not concretely tied to people. People have different GNS mode preferences in different situations, but they do generally have preferences.

That's a nice way of putting it.  I think there was a thread about GNS and Robin's Laws which covers some of this ground, but I recall that thread got rather sidetracked.

[Eric J-D]

I'm with soundwave and chlerich on this one.  Thus far GNS's biggest contribution to my own thinking about games has been largely diagnostic.  Many of my own dissatisfactions in games can be traced back to conflicting GNS priorities.  That said, I also think that Ron's essay on GNS can help introduce some players to the fact that other priorities of play (i.e. Narrativist ones) do in fact  exist, thus helping to break what others have called the "Sim by habit" or "Sim by default" mentality.

As Ron, Mike, and many others have said, GNS is still only one box, albeit an important one.  Personally, the largest box, the social one and the one in which all play occurs, is in my opinion the one that doesn't get enough attention.  I suspect that this is because the social box is the Pandora's box of most groups and thus, to mix classical images slightly, the potential Achilles heel for some of them.  To open the social box and look at its contents could unleash the Whirlwind.

From what I have gathered, Sex and Sorcery will pry the lid off this sucker and shed some light on how roleplaying has always been a risky and dangerous activity.  Perhaps Ron will need to change Sorcerer's tag phrase to "A dangerous roleplaying game" for the new Sex and Sorcery supplement. [Annoying pedant hat on: "dangerous" in middle English lit like Chaucer's Canterbury Tales generally refers to the sexual allure and temptation (whether welcome or unwelcome) that one person poses to another.  See the Wife of Bath's tale in particular.  Annoying pedant hat off.]

Cheers,

Eric