GNS -- Is that pronounced Genius?

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

I have recently read Ron's article on the GNS model. What an eye-opener! Having played one RPG (Chivalry & Sorcery) in one campaign setting (Middle-Earth) for nearly twenty years now it was quite amazing to read an article that showed not only how far game designers and players had taken the hobby but also explained why each of the players in our group find certain aspects of our game irritating and other aspects wonderful (and seldom agree on which bits are which). I must say I found it all rather clever.

Then again, I wouldn't say I understood all of it. No fault of the article there, mind you, I think it is just taking me a while to absorb the concepts. In an effort to improve my understanding of the GNS model I'm trying to apply it in a concrete exercise.

A few months ago I acquired The Riddle of Steel RPG. It is an interesting game, one that I feel has a lot of potential. Recently, I read a review of the game at RPG.net (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10177.phtml).  I want to know if this negative review can be explained through an understanding of the GNS model. In other words can the GNS classification of the reviewer be inferred from the review and compared to the GNS classification of the game? This might help a review reader understand where the reviewer is coming from and who the game is best suited for.

I'm hoping that someone familiar with the GNS model and with the game might be willing to read the review and express an opinion on this.

Many thanks for your help.

Cheers,

[Shreyas Sampat]

In specific response to the TROS question:

Reading that review and others, I come to the conclusion that the reviewers came to the game expecting a certain mood, and TROS delivers a different mood very effectively. It's not a GNS thing, as far as I can tell; something more along the line of "genre expectations" might be closer to the mark.

[Shreyas Sampat]

Double post.

[Alan]

Hi Ian,

Whether one can see GNS preferences in someone's response to a game design is an interesting question.  As I start this message, my answer is: I don't know.  Maybe I'll have an opinion by the end.

I will assert that many responses to a game like The Riddle of Steel are the result of assumptions on the part of the reviewer about what role-playing is and how it should be played.

One kind of assumption is synecdoche: mistaking part for the whole.   An example is when someone is determined that their way of playing is the only way, and all else is not role-playing.

There are also specific assumptions that arise from the way most RPGs have been played over the past 30 years.  The two that show up most in criticisms of TROS are about who directs the course of events and the nature of heroism.

Historically, much RPG play has bought into "The Impossible Thing" - that the GM authors the story and the players author their character's parts.  This reflects the high concentration of directorial power in the role of GM in games like D&D in all its incarnations.  Many styles of simulationism emphasize this power split, restricting players to playing their characters as a stage actor might, without any other power to contribute to the imagined events.  Techniques used for defining character behavior are ramapant in these game designs.

Also, games like D&D, with its surprisingly durable higher-level characters, have skewed what it means to be a hero.  Heroism has always had both elements of superhuman capability and the courage to make choices in the face of risk.  In many RPGs, the superhuman capabilities are emphasized to the point of eliminating any meaningful risk.  After playing such games, some people identify "heroic" with "superhuman."

When these above assumptions meet TROS, they are challenged:  First, TROS Spiritual Attributes appear superficially to be behavior traits, so readers can have difficulty understanding that they don't restrict player choices.  Second the SAs are actually a means for _player_ choice to direct play - taking some of that directorial power often restricted to the GM.   In fact, they're so powerful, that, to run a good game, a TROS GM must completely surrender all ideas of _leading_ the story and instead let the players develop story and take the role of tweaking to increase tension.  This can be a very hard thing to give up.

Also, the risky nature of TROS combat and magic challenges the assumption of heroism as superhuman power.  And because the reader is already rejecting the idea of SAs as they are intended, they miss the fact that SAs are what alleviate the risk.

As an additional comment: when a reader feels a core belief challenged, they tend to be hypercritical.  So a reviewer who might have let a flaw slide in a game they are comfortable with, will attack it in a game that confuses them.

So to answer your question: I think many responses to TROS in particular come from assumptions that are learned from certain styles of simulationist play.  I guess answer is yes, GNS preferences do show up in reviews, but not directly.  And I would say that a reviewer with more self-awareness about their own preferences will give a more equible review.

[Valamir]

Very well said Alan,

you should copy this and keep it handy to post in the RPG.net review forum the next time a carbon copy slam review of TROS comes out.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

Whether one can see GNS preferences in someone's response to a game design is an interesting question.  As I start this message, my answer is: I don't know.  Maybe I'll have an opinion by the end.

Here are my thoughts on GNS as it applies to the review.

Zoe, the author of the review, is a Gamist. Her complaints about the system relate to how the game affects her character and its performance within the game.

Her description of SAs and description of combat indicate that how to use SAs was not understood and therefore their ability to make her character exceptional was missed. As a result SAs were described as a good idea badly implemented and combat was described as deadly for the PCs.

Her description of the character generation system indicate that the only distinction between PCs that matters is on the character sheet. There aren't enough skills to make my character extra special. Skill packets don't support specialist characters that have skills no other character can possibly obtain (unlike professions or character classes). There aren't enough Flaws and Gifts per character to give my character an edge over the other characters. PCs are created as a group exercise to ensure compatibility of SAs -- this is a totally unexpected concept. How does my character retain its edge over the other characters if we're all creating our characters together?

I think Zoe's analysis of the magic system is from the point of view that a character that wields magic is vastly superior to one that does not. No amount of gaming environment based control over the characters actions matters when the rule mechanics have no such controls. This could be Simulationist -- the system doesn't make sense, has lost internal consistency -- but is more likely to be Gamist -- why would I waste my time creating a character other than a magic-user?

In the end though I think it is the suggestions for "fixing"the game that give it away. All three suggestions are about the character and how to make the game more balanced, as the reviewer sees it.

TRoS, though, isn't a game for Gamists primarily. When the game is player-driven what exactly would the PCs be competing for? Who are they beating? The GM isn't the opposition presenting the standard format scenario. The scenario is based on the player's preferences -- how do the player's compete and win in this environment?

As such, TRoS is going to be frustrating for a Gamist quite a bit of the time. I think that frustration came out in the review. Not that TRoS isn't without problems as a game, but the tone of the review indicates frustration rather than analysis. I think that comes from incompatibility in the GNS sense.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback from everyone. Very helpful.

Cheers,

[montag]

Frankly Ian, I think your last post is way over the line both in terms of GNS and in terms of polite discussion as in "not speculating what another person may be thinking or be motivated by".
The latter is – in turn – none of my business and moreover not a suitable topic for this thread or the Forge, so I just state my personal preferences/opinions and be done with the matter.
Concerning GNS and it's use for analysing the review:
(a) Game texts, rules as written have no GNS mode. They may support one mode better than the rest or support multiple modes, but CAs become relevant in actual play. As has been observed repeatedly, any game can be played in any CA mode, hence reasoning from one to the other is not actually possible.
(b) A particular person's preferred GNS mode is not necessarily the one the person wants to have or claims to have and people may actually "multi-class" with respect to GNS (though it's one mode at a time only AFAIK). So whatever mode someone seems to come from in a review is a poor basis for judging that persons favourite GNS mode.
(c) Assuming we agree, that bias can the be only halfway reasonable basis for the shaky inference from review to reviewer's GNS mode, it's presumptuous to assume one is able to separate GNS incompatibility from ingrained habits on the basis of one's own interpretation of the text. A person's gaming history will shape their expectations and at times cloud their judgement just fine without any GNS incompatibilities involved.

So, in aggregate: if you feel the need to rationalise, retrofit or explain away a review, you can of course do so using GNS. You might just as well use some tee-leaves, or, to switch metaphors, use a chainsaw to drive a nail through wood. GNS is not a tool for analysing game texts, or reviews, it's about analysing play. And while you can of course apply elements of GNS to an analysis of game texts and reviews, they cumulative loan in terms of presumptions and shaky inferences IMHO makes the whole exercise a fine way to waste your time. You are most certainly not going to arrive at any conclusions which are any more certain than a blind guess or which will stand up to any rigourous scrutiny.
Then again, if it makes you happy .. it can't be that wrong! ;)

[Callan S.]

Jeez, Montag!

I think basically Ian is just trying to figure out Zoe's 'tells', something we had a post on recently ( http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10261 ).

The goal is to figure out from her tells why she doesn't like the game. However, it does have a bit of a 'why did she write like this' rather than a 'what does she like in play' angle on it, which isn't that great. Other than that, it seems an extension of that tells thread's idea.

[clehrich]

Now I'm quite confused.  I liked Ian's post a lot, because I thought it amounted to a nuanced reading of a review that was negative because of a strong difference of CA preference.  If Zoe had played the game, based on her review, she would not have liked it; GNS would suggest that the reason might be because of incoherence: she wants Gamism, and the game doesn't effectively support that, so if she'd played it with a Gamist group of friends they would have ended up with incoherent play.  Doesn't mean she's wrong -- in fact, I don't think TROS supports Gamist play terribly well, nor does it try to do so.

As has been observed repeatedly, any game can be played in any CA mode, hence reasoning from one to the other is not actually possible.

While I agree that, analytically, GNS is ill-suited to the analysis of text as opposed to actual play, it seems to me that the basic point of the model as a practical, game-design model supports the notion that games may strongly incline toward one CA or another.  These are called "coherent designs."  It seems to me that Ian's argument is that Zoe has a strong commitment to Gamism, and she has encountered a coherent Narrativist design.  Not surprisingly, she doesn't like the game.  What's the objection to the analysis here?

However, it does have a bit of a 'why did she write like this' rather than a 'what does she like in play' angle on it, which isn't that great. Other than that, it seems an extension of that tells thread's idea.

I agree about tells.  My only confusion here is why is "why did she write like this?" not so great?  I think it's a very good question a lot of the time.  Why did Jake write TROS like this?  Good question, worth thinking about, and which he answers a little bit in the game book.  Why did Ron write Sorcerer like this?  Good question, which he answers at some length within the game book.  So why can't we ask this about a review?

Chris Lehrich

[montag]

Jeez, Montag!
I think basically Ian is just trying to figure out Zoe's 'tells', something we had a post on recently ( http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10261 ).
The goal is to figure out from her tells why she doesn't like the game. However, it does have a bit of a 'why did she write like this' rather than a 'what does she like in play' angle on it, which isn't that great. Other than that, it seems an extension of that tells thread's idea.

With all due respect Callan, I think I got Ian's intent just fine, and if you take the time to re-read it, you'll find that my previous post is full of observations and arguments from precisely the thread you mentioned.
To re-phrase for clarity, my objections to this approach is as follows:
(a) "figure out from her tells why she doesn't like the game" is assuming (i) that the review contains tells, (ii) that one is able to recognise them and (iii) that the dislike of the game is based on GNS-incoherence.
Since there is no way to tell whether any of these assumptions is correct or even likely, I don't have any confidence in the result.
(b) Especially when compared to the simple result you get when you're considering "read the reasons she gives in the review to find out why she doesn't like the game". See, no need to mindread her, no need to engage in risky speculation, just RTFR.
(c) the "why did she write like this" approach you mention shifts the burden of explanation to the reviewer, and presupposes it's not the game's fault, without having explored that issue. I don't like that, for various reasons, the simplest one being that the appropriateness and necessity of this step is not explained.

you might add (d) this is about TROS, a hybrid by Ron's words. Well, one person's hybrid is another person's incoherent game and since TROS is on record as explaining e.g. SAs poorly I could think of a perfectly reasonable explanation for the bad review in GNS terms (that is, assuming I'd be interested in such an explanation) which does require far fewer wild assumptions.

hth

[Ron Edwards]

You guys can all agree to disagree and still get along, right?

Right? If I ever get the idea that phrases like "with all due respect" are not being used in the most honest way possible, that constitutes a flame.* And that means that I am going by totally arbitrary judgment calls, with an eye toward over-responding in order to make the point, if necessary.

My current perception is that you guys are being civil - but only barely. Please bring it a little further from the line, and remember that I cannot perceive what you know you really mean. Let's make what you mean absolutely clear.

Best,
Ron

* Example: a while ago, an active poster at the Forge at that time used the words "sir" or "sirrah" to address people he was annoyed with. I confronted him, pointing out that his use of "sir" constituted "you fucking idiot" in my perception, and that he was, in fact, flaming.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

Frankly Ian, I think your last post is way over the line both in terms of GNS and in terms of polite discussion as in "not speculating what another person may be thinking or be motivated by".

?!

(a) Game texts, rules as written have no GNS mode. They may support one mode better than the rest or support multiple modes, but CAs become relevant in actual play. As has been observed repeatedly, any game can be played in any CA mode, hence reasoning from one to the other is not actually possible.

I haven't read all the threads on CA mode. In fact I haven't read any threads on CA mode. I have only read Ron's article entitled "GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory". It doesn't mention CA. If you could post a link to an article that describes CA and its place in the GNS model I would be happy to read it, in an effort to understand where you are coming from.

(b) A particular person's preferred GNS mode is not necessarily the one the person wants to have or claims to have and people may actually "multi-class" with respect to GNS (though it's one mode at a time only AFAIK). So whatever mode someone seems to come from in a review is a poor basis for judging that persons favourite GNS mode.

My objective here isn't to determine someone's GNS mode, but rather to determine how relevant a review is to me and the way I play. For instance, if the opening paragraph of a review stated "My gaming group  think I'm a Simulationist and here's my opinion of (the game)", if it told me how many hours were spent playing the game, and if it told me whether the reviewer played and/or refereed for that time, then I might have a better understanding of how relevant the review would be to me.

(c) Assuming we agree, that bias can the be only halfway reasonable basis for the shaky inference from review to reviewer's GNS mode, it's presumptuous to assume one is able to separate GNS incompatibility from ingrained habits on the basis of one's own interpretation of the text. A person's gaming history will shape their expectations and at times cloud their judgement just fine without any GNS incompatibilities involved.

Is the logical conclusion of this that a review of a game is meaningless to anyone but the reviewer? Taking into account the likelihood of GNS differences between reviewer and reader, and then adding on gaming history differences, the chances of the reviewer's perspective being relevant to the reader are minimal?

(SNIP)GNS is not a tool for analysing game texts, or reviews, it's about analysing play.

Fair enough. It was just a thought.

Cheers,

[montag]

Hi,

Frankly Ian, I think your last post is way over the line both in terms of GNS and in terms of polite discussion as in "not speculating what another person may be thinking or be motivated by".

?!

Some consider it rather impolite to speculate at length on the motivations of people who are still alive and therefore could be asked. Probably a matter of personal preference though.

SNIP

I haven't read all the threads on CA mode. In fact I haven't read any threads on CA mode. I have only read Ron's article entitled "GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory". It doesn't mention CA. If you could post a link to an article that describes CA and its place in the GNS model I would be happy to read it, in an effort to understand where you are coming from.

CA is short for Creative Agenda, that is the G, N or S in GNS. Can't point you to anything specific though, probably best to start with Ron's other essays.

My objective here isn't to determine someone's GNS mode, but rather to determine how relevant a review is to me and the way I play. For instance, if the opening paragraph of a review stated "My gaming group  think I'm a Simulationist and here's my opinion of (the game)", if it told me how many hours were spent playing the game, and if it told me whether the reviewer played and/or refereed for that time, then I might have a better understanding of how relevant the review would be to me.

Aaaah! Sorry, I really didn't get that from your post.
That – at least to me – is a wholly different matter from trying to infer a reviewers CA on the basis of the review. I agree it would be incredibly useful if reviewers were able to relate their "habitual" biases in terms of GNS. Or generally, in Forge-jargon. I too would get a lot more out of most reviews that way. I think it's – unfortunately – unlikely to happen, but might be worth asking reviewers whether they could categorise themselves with respect to GNS or at least state their preferences in greater detail.
For reasons given above I think asking directly, while not perfect (also mentioned above ;) would do a much better job of answering your question concerning the relevance of the review for you.

(c) Assuming we agree, that bias can the be only halfway reasonable basis for the shaky inference from review to reviewer's GNS mode, it's presumptuous to assume one is able to separate GNS incompatibility from ingrained habits on the basis of one's own interpretation of the text. A person's gaming history will shape their expectations and at times cloud their judgement just fine without any GNS incompatibilities involved.

Is the logical conclusion of this that a review of a game is meaningless to anyone but the reviewer? Taking into account the likelihood of GNS differences between reviewer and reader, and then adding on gaming history differences, the chances of the reviewer's perspective being relevant to the reader are minimal?

Absolutely not. For one, on a general level there is always some stuff which will be interesting to know. Both objective criteria (typos), almost objective criteria (say, e.g. a Hack & Slay game in which characters usually last 1 hour of game time if played by the rules and not a single word is spared to mention this in the book ;) and things to which you can simply go by your gut response (e.g. SciFi or Fantasy)
With respect to GNS, there's always drift, that is adaption of the rules to support another mode. Unfortunately the theory has not yet reached the stage where it's possible to determine whether successful drift will occur and with what likelihood. So you could have a game, which is easily drifted to their CA by one group, resulting in a glowing review and the same game, unsuccessfully drifted (or rather, attempted to) to the same mode by another group, resulting in a bad review. Then there's the unresolved question of how flexible people are with respect to their CA (seems to vary) and so on and so forth.
(That aside, I fail to see how your conclusion could follow from my statements.)

hth

[Trevis Martin]

Ian,

C.A. is for Creative Agenda, the term which has come to replace the (I believe) small p 'premise' in Ron's original essay to keep it from being confused with Narrativist Premise.  The best overall view of the model is at this point located in the Narrtivism: Story Now essay.  Or in this thread.

I'd recommend reading all the mode essays, it helps clarify the original quite a bit, and there has been some evolution over time.

regards,

Trevis

[Valamir]

hmmm, for what its worth, Ian I thought your analysis of Zoe's play habits to be a quite reasonable bit of detective work.  Obviously there's the built in caveat of having only a single data point to go on, but I think you had some pretty good observations.

I also don't think its accurate to say that GNS has no value in evaluating game text or reviews.  By and large that is a good rule of thumb, because it heads off the sort of analysis that most people would do looking at mechanics and such.

But the written text conveys tells just as personal conversation does.  While alot of RPG authors go to some length to purge those from their work using a more formal style, those that use a conversational tone especially carry indicators of their authors thoughts.  Games like Burning Wheel, Arrow Flight and TROS actually convey in spots some pretty clear glimpses behind the curtain at what the author considered important (at least at the time of the writing).

Reviews are similiar.  This one made no effort at all at any kind of use of formal grammar or structure.  In tone it was largely a rant.  And that rant IMO does display certain biases and assumptions of the author.   In truth a hastily written emotionally felt written work like this review probably conveys a more honest sense of the authors underlying beliefs than actually asking them would.

So while one obviously can't say "the review is gamist".  I think its entirely reasonable to suggest that the tone of the review indicates that the reviewer likely has gamist tendencies and that is quite probably the source of much of the disatisfaction with TROS.