Is there a 'GNS-questionnaire'?

[Tobias]

Or something similar to it?

So that, after a few sessions, you can get all players (and GMs) evaluation of 'what game are we playing anyway'? (This would mean a questionaire for 'the game we're actually playing', and not 'the game as it is as written'.

Or - for players - so that you can determine which type of play they naturally prefer?

Would it be worthwile having? (It wouldn't have to be flawless - might as well just be the starting point of a discussion between players).

After 2 sessions, I've got my players pretty much pegged as expected (one gamist, 2 simulationists), but it might be handy to have these tools in advance, to determine compatibility of playstyles, players and system, etc.

Thanks.
Tobias

edit: just had a better scan than before, and noticed John Kim's post on 2 options 'campaign axes' and 'channels'. Should've found/read those before. Apologies. Still, if people are aware of these methods, and would prefer an expanded one, I'd still like to know.

[ErrathofKosh]

One of the better indicators is the games that each player prefers.  I have a friend who loves ShadowRun and Rifts.  He tends to play with a Gamist priority.  My other friend loves Rolemaster, the Hero system, D20 and WEG (D6).  He tends to have Sim priorities.  

Of course, there are few problems with basing priorities solely off of game preference, the most obvious being that most gamers haven't exposed to more than four or five of them at the most.  Secondly, there are those that are Sim by habit, which my second friend probably is, because when he GM's a game, it tends to have Nar qualities.  

The way we survive as a group is by understanding that each of us has different priorities.  I don't get angry when my friend charges into the fray, intent on overcoming the challenge of defeating 5 Sith masters, I just charge in with him and forget my priorities for awhile.  Of course, I expect him to do the same for me.

[M. J. Young]

Is there a 'GNS-questionnaire'?

Or something similar to it?

Well, as the author of the http://www.mjyoung.net/rpg/gametype.html">best-known such questionnaire, let me say, yes and no.

The quiz was based in large part on some questions that were thrown out by Ron Edwards, Seth Ben-Ezra, and others back in '97 or '98 when the concepts were originally introduced; at that time, they were attempting to clarify the distinctions between the three agenda and demonstrate that in specific situations each of us would embrace one over the other two.

The problem with the quiz as presented is that it targets mechanics and techniques which are commonly correlated with each of the agenda, and not the agenda themselves. As understanding of exploration has improved, we've recognized that such techniques are useful within all agenda when applied to support the player agendum. Thus techniques-based and mechanics-based analysis fails to reach the heart of what actually motivates the players, and only dimly reflects it.

I'm not saying that the quiz is useless; it can give you some insights into what you like and don't like in games. It remains posted in part because I think it has some value, and in part because, as with Ron's articles, I feel it has some historic significance in understanding the development of the theory.

One final note: there is a mailto form version of the quiz posted on the site. A few months back I had a computer system crash that ate a lot of my programs, and at present I am unable to analyze and reply to mailto forms. Please use the straight HTML text version, or the Word, Excel, or QBASIC versions linked from it.

I hope that helps.

--M. J. Young

[ErrathofKosh]

Wow...  I never knew that such a "quiz" existed.  I took it and while the results were interesting, as M.J. stated:

The problem with the quiz as presented is that it targets mechanics and techniques which are commonly correlated with each of the agenda, and not the agenda themselves. As understanding of exploration has improved, we've recognized that such techniques are useful within all agenda when applied to support the player agendum. Thus techniques-based and mechanics-based analysis fails to reach the heart of what actually motivates the players, and only dimly reflects it.

That being said, it gave me expected results.  (But maybe that's because I've been reading this site too long and have clearly defined what I think on each particular issue.)
I came out equal parts nar and sim, with no preference for any particular resoultion mechanic.  I'm going to give my group the quiz (they have never even seen this site) and see what results I get.  It should be interesting.  (Though, in general, I find any quizzes that try to quantify human behavior a little dubious, but they are fun.)

[Andrew Morris]

I just took and it, and came up with a totally different result than expected. Maybe I just don't have a firm grasp on GNS terminology, but I'd have guessed I was Sim-oriented, with some supporting Gamism. According to the quiz, I'm strongly Nar-oriented, slightly Drama-oriented, and nothing else. Despite M.J.'s reservations about the usefullness, I'm willing to give it a shot. So, can anyone recommend a strong Nar game, preferably with Drama mechanics?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I've said this before and I wish it would be repeated every time this quiz gets brought up.

My points in the discussion from which M.J. drew his quiz questions were constructed specifically for those people who were working from a specific set of game experiences. They were not ever intended as a diagnostic for anyone just from anywhere.

The quiz is a fine thing for what it does (identify some preferences of techniques) but I disavow it 100% as a diagnostic of GNS preferences taken out of the context of the points I made in that discussion for those particular people.

Best,
Ron

[beingfrank]

I was thinking of developing one, building on the various forms that currently exist, for a psychology thesis, but I couldn't find a supervisor who was willing, and then I ended up doing other things anyway.  Sorry this isn't a more helpful answer.

[Tobias]

I thought I had replied, but it seems to have vanished.

All - thanks.

M.J. - Have taken the quiz. Interestingly, I score many things highly (i.e. I think many options are valid?).

Ron - understood. Would it be possible/interesting/valuable to create a version that is not as specific as this sample test?

[Andrew Morris]

The quiz is a fine thing for what it does (identify some preferences of techniques) but I disavow it 100% as a diagnostic of GNS preferences taken out of the context of the points I made in that discussion for those particular people.

So does there exist such a diagnostic tool? I am still working on understanding GNS and something that would identify my own tendencies would probably be very helpful.

[M. J. Young]

There is no such diagnostic tool; there were a few people talking about attempting to create another at the time this one was produced, but I don't think any were ever completed, and most suffered from the same fundamental failure: how do you get past techniques to reach agenda?

Ron seems to think it can't be done. I believe one of Clarke's Laws may apply here (http://www.health.uottawa.ca/biomech/csb/laws/clarkes.htm">the first one, as my Google-fu reveals). However, I agree that the techniques approach is fundamentally flawed, and I have not (yet, at least) heard of an approach that targets agenda more directly.

It's a shame Claire didn't attempt it; that would have been interesting.

--M. J. Young