My break with GNS

[Storn]

Let me state up front, I think GNS is an interesting attempt to define Player behavior...but WAY too rigid.  And too complex.  If you cannot tell me a definition in a paragraph, it isn't a definition anymore... it is an intellectual exercise.  The fact that there are pages and pages for each section, G, N, S, points this problem out to me.  As well as the constant negotiation of folk who are not as far down the process (like me!) to understand what the old guard understand.

But that isn't the biggest flaw, again, in my opinion.  The biggest flaw was revealed to me while I was trying to get the word, Create, into the discussion.

If Exploration happens in every mode, so does Creation.  That is pretty obvious, but hang on.  Creation happens well before the campaign does.  Creation of the rules, Creation of the game group.

When I put "Create" in front of GNS, it started me down a path away from GNS.  And I added one more element, Proxy.  Let me demonstrate.

Create Game
Create Narrative
Create Simulation
Create Proxies (i.e. characters, for GM, the world stage)

   Every campaign across the land has those 4 Creations in there as well as many others.... ,Create rules (often done by a 3rd party),  Create Social Situation, Create practice of the craft (lets actively get better at this), Create a physical space to game in.... etc. etc.  Certainly there are campaigns that ask for more of the modes than the other... LARPs are fairly rules light... but they have rules.  Dungeon crawls *can* be story-lite...but there is enough story to hang a hat on.

No Game:  Well, no rules, no game.  Might as well go write stories or draw pictures.

No Narrative.  Might as well play a wargame.

No Simulation.  No context to roleplay against or with.  Again, might has well go and write stories.

No Proxies:  It ain't happening... even if it is illusion, it is the principle illusion that matters.  Without a proxy, the role playing exploration is moot.  No world, no characters.  Saying it doesn't matter is just so much angels on pinhead to me.

   You cannot roleplay with any of those elements missing.  You can "play" and you can "create" but it ain't roleplaying.

   Once I established that in my mind, I understood this next nugget.  Every Player, including the GM, has to have all FOUR things going on at the same time in order to ROLE PLAY at all.  If you cannot wear those 4 hats, you aren't role playing as we understand it.

And therein lies the flaw in all the arguements I'm hearing.  Every player is Gamist, Narrativist and Simulationist at the same time.  The GNS model says that isn't possible.  I say not only is it possible, it HAS to be that way... or you aren't roleplaying.

Because a player cannot ROLEplay without creating a Narrative, understanding and utilizing the Rules to some fashion (granted, there are folks who barely get the rules..but they still abide by them).  A player cannot HELP but EXPLORE the Simulation put before him.

Sure, GNS can point out tendencies.  Sure, every player can exhibit stronger leanings towards a G or N or S.  But y'know what... Aaron Allston's catagories do a better, more workable, more succinct job w/o all the intellectual wrangling.  And I did a better job of wrapping it all up into "watch a player's tells"... which is the same exact thing Allston or Robin Law's (Laws of Roleplaying) suggests by saying "learn to cater to the player's needs".  These models ALLOW for a mixture of definitions of player types... you can be a Power Gamer-Plumber, for example.

Then GNS isolates the GM and says "its only about the players reaction for the sake of this definition.'  Bullpucky.  The GM is a player at the table.  The GM is defining tower of Simulation.  What rules to use, parameters, decision making between competing players.  The player's reaction can and will affect the GM, altering the simulation, the game, the story... and then the GM modifies and adds to the simulation... and it gets relected or acted upon back... and so on and so on.  So any model that doesn't include the GM is simply wrong... again, in my book.

I don't think the gist of what GNS is trying to get to is wrong.  But I think the definitions of G and N and S are problematic, confusing and create more obsfucation than clarity.  I also think that the statement of GNS "are seperate entities" doesn't make sense to me.

So.  That's it.  I think GNS is interesting, but bloated in its terms.  I'm going to use another art analogy.  There is something wonderfully rough here... but it is like Logo design... it doesn't need iteration after iteration of adding complexity... it needs iteration after iteration of simplify, simplify, simplfy at the same time, getting more accurate.  Logos go thru a hundered, 2 hundred iterations to get to that succinct image that can represent such a complex organization.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Storn,

You've talked yourself into a circle. I think you're all tied up in knots that make little sense, mainly through some kind of obsession with the term "create," but it's not a big deal. Suffice to say that you're not presenting any sort of refutation of the Big Model or Creative Agenda in particular.

Let me know when you want to come up for air.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

You'll forgive my healthy dose of skepticism that you've hit upon some magic RPG formula in a matter of a couple weeks and on that basis dismiss what 100s of intelligent folks have spent years working on.

I don't see anything in what you've written that isn't already well accounted for in the model...The WHOLE model.  


I hope you'll forgive me for saying this but quite honestly...I'm left decidedly disinterested these days with defending the same things over and over and over and over.  You may find this difficult to believe, but these points have been raised many times by many people over the course of the years these discussions have continued.  Yes I understand that you can't read all of the 100,000 odd posts that are found here.  But I hope you can understand that many of us have (or very nearly so).

That's not to detract anything from you, your ideas, or your ability to analyse RPGs.  But seriously if we collected a dollar from everyone who joins the Forge and in a matter of months thinks they've come up with "a better model", Clinton would have our hosting fees paid for for a good long time (and a few of my dollars as well).

So its not that I want to dismiss your views out of hand.  But please understand that the mission of the Forge goes well beyond simply being a place to discuss theory.  And I think we've been too long distracted from pursuing that mission by constantly having to cover the same ground again and again with every new batch of members.

The theory has accomplished what its needs to.  We now have a common lexicon of terms to use to discuss design and actual play without everyone talking past each other with their own ideas of what words mean.

Discussions of theory going forward, IMO, should be constrained to explaining that lexicon and its useage to new participants.  Spending time on debating the theory's merits or accuracy (i.e. is GNS "true") should IMO no longer be a priority.  Its central tenets have stood up to every counter argument thrown at it for 3 years.  Its finer points have evolved and grown to encompass the input of 100s of folks over that time.  It has proven its merits and its accuracy through numerous past challenges.  That's more than enough for me to say, "GNS is exactly as accurate as it needs to be to serve the purpose we need it for".

I'm sorry you weren't here then to participate in those debates, your input would have been valued.  Rest assured there were several folks of similiar bent as yourself making much the same arguements (many of which were incorporated into the model) so your point of view was not un represented.  But at some point we have to say "enough is enough" its time to move on.  IMO that time is upon us.

IMO its well past time to leave the rehashing of old ground behind and start tackling our other priorities more thoroughly.

NOTE:  I have no official capacity in this regard.  Its just my view as a member that the mission of the Forge is not being advanced by continued rehashing of theory.

[Storn]

I haven't come up with a better model.  I didn't try to come up with a model at all... If I stumbled into one, well that wasn't my intent.  What I DID do was point out the logic that I used to come the conclusion that I did.  

My conclusion:  That GNS theory is flawed because is preposes that Players are one way or another.  It is flawed because it does NOT account for GM.  It barely speaks of the Creative Process and relugates it as the Creative Agenda...which, quoting Valamir "only addresses part of the model"... yes, exactly.   I don't think GNS comes anywhere close to understanding that EVERY campaign is a simulation.  Period.  It is an attempt to create story and game in "another world".

What I AM saying is that I think that the current definitions of GNS and Creative Agenda (thank you for mentioning that) SHOULD be better.  I shouldn't HAVE to read thru 10,000 posts.  The struggle to come to terms with the differences between Narrative play and Simulationist play go on and on and on.  The more I read, the less I think GNS works.  Because the more that Narr and Sim play blur together.  

And the mere fact that these discussions keep popping up points to THE situation that I feel that you (the supporters of the theory) are avoiding.  The fact that GNS cannot be explained in three paragraphs.

My conclusion:  GNS definition needs  better clarity and accuracy... or it fails as a theory.  Not endless defense and pages and pages of clarification, which don't clarify much for me at all.

And yes, I'm challenging the bigger brains on this forum to clean up the theory.  So, Val, if you are tired of defending, I ask you to re-examine what you are defending... perhaps there is a flaw...

[ethan_greer]

I don't think what you propose really gets into the meat of the Creative Agenda portion of GNS theory. To translate from your proposal to GNS theory terms is pretty easy.

Create Game = Explore System
Create Narrative = Explore Story
Create Simulation = Explore Setting, Color
Create Proxy = Explore Character

You're up in the Exploration layer of the theory. All five elements are required to be happening in order for Creative Agenda to be addressed. This reads to me more like a rewording than a refutation.

[Lxndr]

Some other minor points:

GNS doesn't say "fuck you, GM" (at least as far as I can tell).  It says "the GM is just as much a player as anyone else; he might have slightly different duties, a different interface with the system, but he is still a player."  In other words, it does account for the GM - it calls the GM a player, and treats him the same as any other player.

GNS doesn't say "a player is X" (where X corresponds to G, N, or S), like the "player types" of Robin Laws or Aaron Allston.  It says "a play instance is X", and possibly "this game session/campaign leaned in X direction."  From there, you can look at "this game/rule/etc. is meant to encourage X decisions".  You can also look at "this player seems to prefer X decisions over Y decisions" (but this can be misleading, and a person's preferences and priorities can change from moment to moment, or from game to game).  In other words, GNS doesn't presuppose anything about players - it assumes that play itself can only prioritize one of these creative agendae at any one moment (but that which one is prioritized can change from moment to moment).

[coxcomb]

I am not an old-timer on this site, and I sympathize with you Storn.

From my point of view, it seems you are looking for GNS to do things that it was not designed to do. It's easy to do that, I know. Unless I am mistaken, GNS is intended to describe the reason why a player participates in the game, and nothing else.

This biggest confusion that I see on these boards happens when people start confusing techniques with GNS. Ron is very clear in, IIRC, all of his essays on the subject that GNS does not equal techniques of play, or any of the myriad other aspects of social contract.

Here is my summary of the theory, flawed though it may be. Ron or someone else can correct me if I'm wrong:

1.) The parameters of all role-playing are defined by social contract. That is, the players involved have stated or unstated agreements on all aspects of how the game happens. Most problems arise when participants are not using the same contract.

2.) Each individual player brings a bunch of preferences, desires, and whatnot with him to the table. One of these things is the motivation for play, which consists of a combination of three core motivations:
* Desire to prove "skill" of some sort by meeting and overcoming challenges (Gamism)
* Desire to immersively explore the fictional space for the sake of exploration (Simulationism)
* Desire to ask questions about the human condition and make thematic statements (Narrativism)

3.) All Roleplaying:
Involves a "story"
Involves conflict
Involves exploration
Not one of these things is the exclusive domain of any particular creative agenda.

4.) Exploration (which happens in all roleplaying) involves five elements:
* Character (people in the imaginary space)
* System (rules used to govern action in the imaginary space)
* Setting (the embodiment of the imaginary space)
* Situation (the things that happen in the imaginary space)
* Color (details that establish tone, and mood in the imaginary space)
Things that happen during play often involve multiple elements (for example, assuming character voice often expresses character, situation, and color)
Each of the five elements can be broken down into more granular bits. The importance of granularity is ultimately established by social contract, though the system being used has a great deal to do with it.

***

I hope that is helpful in some way.

[Paul Watson]

And the mere fact that these discussions keep popping up points to THE situation that I feel that you (the supporters of the theory) are avoiding.  The fact that GNS cannot be explained in three paragraphs.

My conclusion:  GNS definition needs  better clarity and accuracy... or it fails as a theory.  Not endless defense and pages and pages of clarification, which don't clarify much for me at all.

I don't believe the inability to explain GNS in three paragraphs invalidates the theory.

In my professional work (software developer) I constantly put into practice many theories, most of which (if not all of which) can't be explained in a paragraph, such as encapsulation, polymorphism, abstraction and the Law of Demeter, among others. Stating that these theories of software design cannot be simply explained in a paragraph doesn't invalidate them.

Saying the GNS theory of RPG design can't be simply explained in three paragraphs doesn't invalidate it either. Sometimes a theory is complex and requires some time and effort to fully grasp.

As a side issue, some of the creation you talk about can take place on the fly, during play, rather than ahead of time, and there are a number of groups who play this way. Narrative can be created entirely on the fly. Characters can start with a name and minimal attributes, with the rest defined during play. To a certain extent, even some of the rules can be defined on the fly.

[DevP]

And yes, I'm challenging the bigger brains on this forum to clean up the theory.

There glossary in progress. That should count for a lot. Meanwhile, the short definition from "GNS and Other Matters of Theory" is a touch old, but actually I think still hits most of it in short order. (Also, good principles or rules of thumb may be consise, but coherent theories rarely are. Much the pity...)

My conclusion:  That GNS theory is flawed because is
preposes that Players are one way or another.  It is flawed because it does NOT account for GM.  It barely speaks of the Creative Process and relugates it as the Creative Agenda...which, quoting Valamir "only addresses part of the model"... yes, exactly.   I don't think GNS comes anywhere close to understanding that EVERY campaign is a simulation.  Period.  It is an attempt to create story and game in "another world".

Every story - be it RPG or not - takes place in "another world", but the thing is: is that world the point? Hamlet is not about the historical Denmark, but about Hamlet himself creating major tragedy. Meanwhile, my recent Donjon hacks aren't about "the stench of mildew emanating from the dungeon walls" and other color, but rather it's about beating bigger and bigger challenges.

A big problem is that you're defining "Narrative","Game","Simulation" very vaguely. Your use of Narrative seems to be the account of what happened, but that's not Narrativism, which you're playing focused on putting a story out; the use of Game refers really to the ruleset, but that's very different from a Game or especially Gamism, in which you're playing to find bigger and bigger challenges to beat; and the use of Simulation is roughly the virtual context you inhabit, but that's not Simulation, in which you're playing to explore this virtual world in consistent detail.

Why isn't the GM given a special role here? First off, his role in being the source of the Creativity really is hampered by his players. No one is going to play with a GM if they don't dig is big idea, and if he tries to push his vision on unwilling folks (like the GM with his storyline in mind vs. his dungeon-hacky players?) you're just going to get frustration. If you don't have some connect between the GM and the players, you're just going to have a non-starter. Moreover, the GM does not embody the creative process! The GM has a creative role, but it's not necessarily the only one. The rules and system and etc. will decide how much Creation each player does.

GNS is about player motivation. The GM is a player, albeit one with more responsibility, no singular player-character, work ahead, etc., but the GM is in this for *fun* too, and is a player, a participant. Why are they here? What is the "point" of the action? That is what GNS addresses.

You say all players are G, N and S at the same time, but I pointed out how your own definitions of these three aren't quite correct. (No offense, but I feel like your definitions on G, N and S are based on the words themselves, rather than the little snippet from the essay.) If we get on the same page about what those words, I'm curious if you still think (a) the GMs are some very special case, (b) gameplay is about all 3 modes.

[greyorm]

Heya Storn,

Not to trash your thoughts, but you're not tackling any new ground here. You're saying "A game requires these items." And I'm saying, "Yeah, so...GNS already accounts for all of those elements as being required in a game, regardless of the mode being engaged in. So your points are really...irrelevant to your conclusion."

As well, your "definitions" of G, N & S are...limited, to say the least. So, yeah, a game requires rules...that's not Gamism. An RPG has a story...that's not Narrativism. Context, coherency and consistency are required in all modes...that's not Simulationism.

Honestly, this is like the first year physics student who tries to turn the world of physics on its head because they've found this basic problem with theory! (And the same one every other first year physics student found before him!)

However, the real problem is that the student's experience with and understanding of the material are too limited for him to draw studied conclusions from -- his premises are incorrect, so necessarily his conclusions are.

I mean, really, if I had a nickel for every individual who has ever argued against or for GNS theory with me based on the idea that the rules have something to do with Gamism, I'd be rich.

So, yeah, come up for air. Untie yourself. Light does not travel through an Etheric medium, and there are explanations for how it is translated across empty space. Take some time to ask questions and digest the material before trying to prove or disprove it.

[Ron Edwards]

And I just realized I was very rude to you, Storn. For which I apologize.

Everyone so far has provided important concepts about your points, which I think are valid and valuable. But the real point is to say, "It is OK to hash through the topic like this." The better we do it, the more valuable this particular thread might be for future participants.

I'm really looking forward to the upcoming Glossary posting, which has now been through two sets of review-readings and will include a diagram of the Big Model. To make it good, unfortunately, takes time - it's more than just a list of terms and memorizable phrases (which I think would, by itself, be counterproductive). My hope is that discussions like this one and the Glossary will make the discourse with interested new Forge members easier and better.

But it won't eliminate the need for such discourse. Everyone has to hash it out for himself and herself, and - with no judgment implied - some folks do this best by objecting and by proposing re-phrasings. We as a community shouldn't shut these kinds of discussions down.

The only way to keep the old guard from being driven crazy, though, is for newer members to pick it up too. I'm very grateful to Landon Darkwood, for instance, for diving into a recent Narrativist-Simulationist discussion and nailing the topic to the wall. I'm very grateful to Dev, Paul, Alexander, and coxcomb for their work in this one, all of which was spot-on or nearly so.

So again, my apologies to you, Storn. I don't think you've provided much meat for the general discourse, but this sort of posting and the resulting discussion is very important to keep the understanding of the material fresh for others, and to give them the opportunity to teach. And who knows? The next such post you make will smack someone in the eyes and we'll say, "Hey! That is a big deal."

Best,
Ron

[Storn]

Create Game = Explore System
Create Narrative = Explore Story
Create Simulation = Explore Setting, Color
Create Proxy = Explore Character

You're up in the Exploration layer of the theory. All five elements are required to be happening in order for Creative Agenda to be addressed. This reads to me more like a rewording than a refutation.

Good point.  Why Create instead of Explore?  

Because you cannot Explore what hasn't been Created.  Where is the Creation layer?  To my mind, it is bigger than what I've gleaned from Creative Agenda definition.

This is why I'm calling for a tightening up on definitions.  I think Exploration is a definite component of a good "role playing experience" and it does spread across GNS.  I just think it could be more accurate.

Someone in this thread said "creation on the fly"... yup, I agree.  But that is Creative Process in action in a group... not Exploration.  Exploration happens after Creation.  Sometimes it may only be a second.  But if one player makes a new plot line on the fly... that is creative.  THEN exploration of the whole group tackles that new plot line.

Am I obssessed with Creative Process?... well, yeah.  It is my life's work.  I admit that.    But storytelling is an act of creation.  A roleplaying is storytelling.  That might be too simplistic, but it gets to the bottom of what we do awfully accurately.

As for the calls for the theory has stood for 3 years and therefore this doesn't need to be gone thru again.... Sorry, disagree.  Theories can be challenged centuries after they are concieved... not just 3 years.

I might be a "1st year physics student" analog in this case.  But it doesn't invalidate the challenge.  It doesn't invalidate the student.  It doesn't invalidate the next person who comes along and challenges GNS.   This is an opportunity to teach this "1st year physics student".

Lastly, check the sign on the door... I said "MY break with GNS".  Not anyone elses.  I'm admiting that I'm too stupid to understand all the crosspostings, the very long definitions, the confusion between hair splits of Narr and Sim.  But don't be ridiculous, I don't think I'm remaking the Wheel of RPGs here with my theory.   I don't really have a formulated theory.

[Lxndr]

Those who are more knowledgeable than I might correct me, but it is my understanding that Exploration, in terms of the creative agenda, is INCLUSIVE of creation - the creative agenda just speaks to the reason behind why things are being created, and then explored.

Exploration and Creation are thus intermingled.

[greyorm]

That's far more clear a view of what you're getting at, Storn, but I would say: you're not talking about GNS modes, you're talking about another box (like Social is a box) when you're discussing Creation of Game Elements and where they lie in relation to the rest of the model, and what other sections of the model they encompass or are encompassed by.

So, yeah, let's discuss that...perhaps in another thread, because I'm thinking there's a topic split happening up ahead, here.

As for the calls for the theory has stood for 3 years and therefore this doesn't need to be gone thru again.... Sorry, disagree.  Theories can be challenged centuries after they are concieved...

Yes, but not by the same challenge that it has withstood for a century.

Like I said, in physics, it is established that light does not require an etheric medium to travel through. That debate has happened and the ether has been discarded as a possibility or necessity...nonetheless, people still bring it up, using old arguments that have been put forward and disproven time-and-again.

In the same vein, GNS has already withstood the specific arguments you've levelled against it. It withstood it when the last batch of nay-sayers made the same arguments, and it proved itself the time before that, as well.

What you are arguing is nothing new...hence, it isn't a challenge that will overturn or change current theory. After all, why would your repeating a tired and defeated argument suddenly change the fact that the tired and defeated argument didn't work the first two (or more) times around?

It won't. Now, that said...

But it doesn't invalidate the challenge.  It doesn't invalidate the student.  It doesn't invalidate the next person who comes along and challenges GNS.   This is an opportunity to teach this "1st year physics student".

It does invalidate the first, and the third if the next person uses the same challenge, for the reasons given above, but not the rest, as you say.

For someone to challenge something, they need to understand it and why the conclusions the theory has come to were made, not go roaring into attack-mode with faulty premises based on limited understanding of the material. Or if they do, they need to recognize their own shortcomings in regard to comprehension or experience with the material, as you have, so they can gain that comprehension through such dissection and identify those shortcomings.

So, let's go. Do the criticisms about your basic understanding of what the modes are and represent make sense to you?

[ethan_greer]

Yeah, what Lxndr said - Exploration (Captital 'E') has a specific meaning in GNS theory that (I believe) includes the creation process that you're talking about, Storn.

*Hunts through glossaries*

Yeah, here it is, from the Gamism: Step On Up article:

Exploration
social and personal imagination, creation of fictional events through communicating among one another.