The Problem With GNS

[heinrich]

Within the constellation of arguments in favor of the GNS model, the contrast between simulationism and gamism comes to mind as a problematic example that highlights the problem with the GNS model overall: it tries to sidestep the question 'what is a game?'.

In the strict context of role playing games, gamism is contrasted with simulationism inasmuch as gamism uses point systems in which higher points translate roughly into greater success. The experience of success resembles or at least owes a lot to the same experience in other games where having a high number of points is tantamount to winning.

The argument is made that gamism, because it features point systems and because these point systems imply or allow for a competition between players, amounts to a different emphasis than that of simulationism, for example.

This posting is not to question the merits of one category versus another in terms of their practical value. In other words, it is not about the effectiveness of gamism in encompassing its proposed phenomena or any potential overlap between gamism and simulationism. Instead, it is about how the proposed differences between gamism and simulationism collapse when seen outside the historically contingent pantheon of existing role playing games.

The definitions in this GNS model amount to a taxonomy. It begins with a contigent set of existing games and attempts to create definitions intended to fit those existing games. The definitions, while sophisticated, inevitably carry assumptions that seem absurd outside of context.

Take gamism. Gamism's chief trait is that it features cumulative point systems that are related to character power and by extension character success. But only by extension. Everyone knows that as a character grows stronger or more powerful, the challenges he typically encounters also increase. So how then does greater power equal greater success? If the challenges rise to meet character ability and stand in equal relation to
it, a player's ability to 'win' under the gamism model should increase instead of remaining constant. Game sessions in the gamist style should grow shorter and shorter proportional to character progress along their power/success vector.

In actual fact, success does not occur and the scale of ever-growing power is a fiction of limitlessness, a device that allows for fanciful progress in orders of magnitude that don't really refer to anything other than the cooler and cooler things your character can do. At the level of the 'game' at which gamist games distinguish themselves, it is of fundamentally no importance that such scales exist. This is especially so given that even though a player is said to play to 'win' in this argument, winning is not really possible or a definitive concluding moment in the game.

So we have a definition that, while sophisticated, does not hold up on its own. What about as a contrasting trait -- a negative indicator that has value as a marker of what other styles lack?

The other support for the argument is that gamism is distinguished by what simulationism, for example, lacks. Mainly, the kind of increasing points or measurement system loosely aligned with character progress. A gamist approach is what it is to the extent that simulation does not use or put the same emphasis on points/strategy features. Simulationism is gamism without the game element and mechanics meant to simulate reality.

The problem with this concept appears when we take it out of context. Take the old Atari game Space Invaders. Space Invaders is strictly speaking 'gamist' according to a slightly revised definition based on what we mentioned above. It involves the accumulation of points that more or less denote success to the player. It has increasing difficulty while player ability stays constant. (This is not in direct parallel with role playing gamism. In role playing, if anything, there is a better AI -- the DM -- who tailors the difficulty to the player.) Players can compete with another by measuring their relative success. Game time involves calculated improvements designed to gain access to victory conditions. There may be an end to Space Invaders or no end whatsoever. In either case, it is punctuated by 'levels' or discrete intervals defined by difficulty.

Compared to other games, Space Invaders is actually a good example of what fits the 'gamism' definitions proposed. Most board games, for instance, have victory conditions in which the game concludes. Space Invaders goes on and on, and could do so either without end or with an end that is so prohibitively far out of reach that in either case the experience of the game in unchanged. But imagine what the game would be like if the points system were removed altogether. When you blow up an alien, no points are rewarded. Levels still exist, and difficulty may change, but the idea of success measured in points, the related competition, and illusion of victory all disappear. What you have left is a game, according to the definitions, that fits neatly within the simulationism category.

Preposterous? Not at all. The fact that Space Invaders was never seriously conceived as a way to simulate a real space invasion is not relevant. I could package the game tomorrow and declare that it is. The formal quality of our lobotomized version stays the same. In fact, it probably would model the reality of a space invasion just as well as other simulationist role playing games could.

The point here is that while the taxonomical system provided by the GNS model may satisfy some, even be unsurpassed to date, it is limited by the fact that it tries to incorporate an amalgam of historical abortions and half-concepts into an attempt to provide an all-encompassing definition for role playing. The definition for gamism as having to do with the 'meta-game' of strategy, points, and so on is circular and nonsensical. A game is a meta-game? What else is a game if not the so-called 'meta' aspects? This kind of definition is the result of trying to adhere to a model in which a 'role playing game' is subdivided into three categories in which one of them is an actual game.  Some may object that it is just 'role playing' and not a game, but as I have said elsewhere, while you can escape the noun you cannot escape the verb: it is something you play.

The GNS model must be rectified through reference to the concept of 'game', the result of which being that many games must surely be discarded.

[ethan_greer]

Hello, and welcome to the Forge!

Now, please understand I'm not saying this to be rude, or standoffish, or any such.  I'm just utterly, utterly mystified at your conclusions, and so I have to ask:  You have read the GNS articles, right?

If you haven't, start with System Does Matter and then proceed to GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory.

If you have read the articles (the thoughtfulness and clarity of your post seems to indicate you've put a lot of thought into this matter, which would lead me to believe you've taken the time to do the reading), I'm curious how you reached your conclusions.  Where in the text of the articles does it say that Gamism is based on the concept of points, for example?  And where does it say that Simulationism is meant to simulate reality?

Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just feel that you may be operating on a few misconceptions.

[Alan]

Hi Heinriech,

I just reread Ron's essay "GNS and other matters" and found that points played only a small role in his discussion of gamist decions.  Here's a link to the relevant page:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/

You'll note that, of six examples, only one mentions points.  I don't think it's fair to criticize for only measuring in points.

Actually, I think you misunderstand the purpose of the GNS theory.  I don't think it's an attempt to define what a role-playing game is, only to make some distinctions.  It is descriptive, not defnitive.  To date, I've found this approach more useful for game design.

[clehrich]

I'd ask for a few points of clarification here.

The problem with this concept appears when we take it out of context.

If by "out of context" you mean out of the context of RPGs, the argument becomes problematic.  Why should it be the case that RPGs necessarily fit into the general taxon "game"?  That is, I think your argument becomes circular if you mean that because RPGs are games, Gamism becomes an encompassing category.  But RPGs are not necessarily games by this definition; that is, they do not require victory conditions of whatever sort.

Compared to other games, Space Invaders is actually a good example of what fits the 'gamism' definitions proposed. Most board games, for instance, have victory conditions in which the game concludes. Space Invaders goes on and on, and could do so either without end or with an end that is so prohibitively far out of reach that in either case the experience of the game [is] unchanged.

Yes, certainly.  But why is this definition and structure necessarily transferrable to other RPG forms?

The fact that Space Invaders was never seriously conceived as a way to simulate a real space invasion is not relevant.

This is a misunderstanding of Simulationism.  Sim is about exploring, not about simulating anything.  It's a somewhat unfortunate term, admittedly, but it's been reified by what amounts to a tradition (not only the Forge, but also rpg.net, I think).

The point here is that while the taxonomical system provided by the GNS model may satisfy some, even be unsurpassed to date, it is limited by the fact that it tries to incorporate an amalgam of historical abortions and half-concepts into an attempt to provide an all-encompassing definition for role playing.

What I somewhat peevishly refer to as the Grand Unified Theory does indeed attempt a definition, albeit mostly implicitly, but GNS is only a small piece of that model.  This is a running problem in RPG theory, but it is not a GNS problem as such.  That is, the categorical question with GNS is whether it does indeed encompass the possible Creative Agendas; regardless, it does not attempt to encompass the totality of RPG gaming.

The definition for gamism as having to do with the 'meta-game' of strategy, points, and so on is circular and nonsensical. A game is a meta-game? What else is a game if not the so-called 'meta' aspects?

Defined quite broadly, "meta" aspects of gaming do indeed become dominant.  But a big part of Simulationism depends upon the attempt to subvert this perspective, to seek gaming that allows "dreaming" or the fantasy of gaming without the "meta" categories.  To be sure, one can never escape these structures, but they can be relatively de-prioritized to such an extreme that players may refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of meta-options when presented to them.  This is, however, primarily an issue of Stance, not of GNS.

This kind of definition is the result of trying to adhere to a model in which a 'role playing game' is subdivided into three categories in which one of them is an actual game.

Circular logic again, I'm afraid.  By predetermining the meaning of the category "game," you have made your argument not "what was to be proven" but "what was presupposed."  Only by accepting the absolute legitimacy of the parallel to certain other games, notably those in which victory conditions or non-failure conditions (e.g. Space Invaders) are set, can this be used to collapse other possibilities into pseudo-choices.

Some may object that it is just 'role playing' and not a game, but as I have said elsewhere, while you can escape the noun you cannot escape the verb: it is something you play.

I'm not quite sure what you mean about parts of speech, but if I understand at all correctly, I would ask why "play" means "win."  Why does the one entail the other?  To be rather cliche about it, there's the old wheeze about the journey being more important than the destination.  Is this simply an invalid perspective?

As a general point, I think you have made a dangerous comparative move here.  In order to establish the legitimacy of the critique, you would need first to establish the grounds of comparison, the points of valid agreement between categories; you could then challenge one side from within that framework.  But here you have presumed, and not demonstrated, that all RPGs must be treated as members of the taxon "game," defined explicitly "out of context" of RPGs themselves.  What allows this comparison?  Is it simply the noun "game"?  As you say, "you can escape the noun."  Thus the comparison is based on a false identity, such that I need say nothing more than that by your definition, RPGs are generally not games, with the limited exception of some pure Gamist games, and we have no further grounds for discussion.

Chris

[M. J. Young]

Welcome to the Forge, Heinrich. I hope you will stay with us, as I think you will probably contribute something here, and gain something from it as well.

But I'm afraid your attack on GNS misses the mark significantly.

Gamism is not about point systems. Point systems may be indicative of gamist priorities, and they may encourage them, but there is no such singular correlation. Point systems may be designed to encourage simulationism--in one game I, as a player, devised a points-based rating system which was built solely on whether other characters did things my character would like or dislike, and to what degree, so that I would have an objective (simulationist) basis to determine how my character felt about each character and how he would respond to that character. (This was done in part because there were tensions and personality conflicts between players, and my simulationist side thought it would be both inappropriate and unfair for my character to treat other characters better or worse out of my annoyance at or appreciation of the players.) Point systems have been devised which encourage narrativist priorities. At the same time, strongly gamist games exist in which there are no points, no advancement, no character improvement whatsoever--it's still about beating the game, and thus very gamist.

Gamism's chief trait has nothing to do with points. It has to do with competitive spirit, trying to do your best in the sense of overcoming some obstacle or proving your ability. Players test themselves against the game or against each other, and that's gamist.

Simulationism, meanwhile, is not "gamism without the game element". It is about creating a shared reality and exploring it, without some agenda beyond that exploration. Your example of Space Invaders as a simulationist game doesn't hold, because at no point (even without the points system) does it become exploring the world in which the aliens are invading. It is still about how long can you last against the aliens, even without the convenient measure of points.

I must ask whether you even read the articles, as opposed to cobbling together an understanding from forum posts.

Further, it is not always the case that phrases mean what is meant by the sum of the terms. A "Role Playing Game" is a particular kind of entity which is not necessarily defined or limited by the individual words included. This, ultimately, is the failure of Gary Gygax' argument in http://www.gamingoutpost.com/content/index.cfm?action=article&articleid=80&catid=14&login=">What's In a Name (at Gaming Outpost) that Computer Role Playing Games are not Role Playing Games because you're not playing a role. "French Fries" are not French, and the "English Horn" is not English. "The Dating Game" is not a game by your definition, I suspect (or is it?). As to the verb, is it "Roleplaying", "Role-playing" or merely "Playing", with "Role" as an adverb? You don't define concepts by deconstruction of terminology; it leads nowhere. Kittens and puppies are playful; they play. Children play in similar ways. None of them are out to win anything. You're narrowly defining "play" and "game" and then arguing that anything which doesn't fit your narrow definitions (narrower, certainly, than those found at Dictionary.com--we've been over this ground before) can't be a "Role Playing Game" because it doesn't involve "Play" by your definition or "Game" by your definition. So what is an American? Should that be strictly limited to refer to people whose ancestors lived here for many generations, and how many generations are necessary? Do they have to be citizens of the United States, or do Canadians count? Words mean different things in different contexts; before you use the meaning of a word as part of an argument, you have to determine that those involved in the discussion are willing to accept your definitions, or better, you have to use theirs.

I want to thank you for posting this, really. I just wrote a post about people who within their first month here are making their first post about why we're all wrong about everything, when it's clear they don't really know what we're saying. I hope you don't take that harshly; there are centuries of accumulated experience and thought represented on these boards, and we don't agree about everything, even about everything related to GNS--but we've put time into considering the matters, and have certainly been over the ground you present several times before.

--M. J. Young

[heinrich]

Hello, and welcome to the Forge!

Now, please understand I'm not saying this to be rude, or standoffish, or any such.  I'm just utterly, utterly mystified at your conclusions, and so I have to ask:  You have read the GNS articles, right?

If you haven't, start with System Does Matter and then proceed to GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory.

If you have read the articles (the thoughtfulness and clarity of your post seems to indicate you've put a lot of thought into this matter, which would lead me to believe you've taken the time to do the reading), I'm curious how you reached your conclusions.  Where in the text of the articles does it say that Gamism is based on the concept of points, for example?  And where does it say that Simulationism is meant to simulate reality?

Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just feel that you may be operating on a few misconceptions.

I find the definitions proposed cannot even be referred to by themselves without modification. When you ask where in the text points are mentioned, apart from being a gesture of pure orthodoxy, you overlook that by 'points' accumulation of all kinds is considered.

Here are quotes from the two articles you mentioned:

**Gamist. This player is satisfied if the system includes a contest which he or she has a chance to win. Usually this means the character vs. NPC opponents, but Gamists also include the System Breaker and the dominator-type roleplayer. RPGs well suited to Gamists include Rifts and Shadowrun. (SDM)

**Gamism is expressed by competition among participants (the real people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters, both short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual play strategies. The listed elements provide an arena for the competition. (GNS)

The parentheses after each quote refer to the article. The first definition of what it is to be a 'gamist' has to do with the satisfaction sought by the player as the others do nearby, and in the same article, and appropriately so. When speaking of players, it is necessary to speak of what their aims are, etc. But inasmuch as a definition of gamism is included and is implied by this definition, it is open to doubt. Here, 'winning' is the key. But 'winning' is isolated and restricted within the game. If characters were only used, for example, for one game and then tossed away, 'winning' would be more conclusive and tangible. But despite the fact that the 'gamist' may play for the ongoing series of mini-victories just like in Space Invaders, so long as his character remains afterward a suggestion of games to come and, thus, the unending game he is in, victory or winning does not make up a definitive formal property of the game as a whole. It serves to break up or punctuate the game within, but just like chapters to a novel, it has little or nothing to do with the starting and end points.

The second definition above refers to competition, which at least strongly implies point systems, since players can measure their competition using just such 'meta-game' elements. After all, not just points but abilities accumulate. Treasure accumulates. So on and so forth. The emphasis on play strategies is only short-lived, because while players 'compete' against one another, it is never done directly. That is, given the historical set of role playing games we are choosing, parties are the rule. Role playing is not the staging of momentary conflicts between real players who combat directly in an isolated context. For example, you roll a character and I roll a character and the game is only to see who wins in a battle upon which new characters are rolled and the game is played again accordingly. When the competition is indirect, it is measured in terms of some symbolic value: the accumulation of (experience) points, treasure, new skills, etc. etc. Again, the reference to the so-called 'meta-game'.

In answer to your first question, then, 'where in the text is gamism based on the concept of points?' it's flawed on two accounts. First, the text is only secondary to the phenomenon of 'gamist' games, which the GNS model itself endeavors to explain. To that end, the definition has to be accepted provisionally in order to question it. But in questioning it, one looks at the phenomena, the so-called gamist games, and sees that in most cases some sort of arbitrary system of accumulation is at play, the best example of which is that of pure points, abstract markers that refer to nothing. Here's the second problem with the question. Nowhere in the post is it asserted that gamism is based on the concept of points, because that statement is way too vague and misleading. Gamism in practice may feature -- prominently -- points systems. In fact, they do.

Here's a quote from GNS:

Overt Gamist RPG design is very rare. I think it takes a central role only in D&D well before it acquired its "A," [...]

D&D being the classic example where the accumulation of (experience) points and abilities provides a useful fiction to measure player success even though, again, difficulty always remains in proportion to power.

No doubt some of you can find 'gamist' games where the emphasis is all on strategy without points, like Chess. But if if the definition of 'gamism' is vague, it isn't my fault. You'd be first of all elevating the exception to the rule to a place of prominence. Second, you'd be prioritizing one lesser aspect of the 'gamism' definition and its combined mentions from the articles over the more major ones.

Your second question about simulationism has to do with my problem with the concept. Think about it. You assert that exploration is the defining feature of simulationism, but on the other can't avoid the fact that exploration is so fundamental and integral to all role playing that to say simulationism favors is it is to only advance a negative definition. Simulationism 'favors' it because the other styles of games have their emphasis elsewhere. Gamism with its 'meta-game' goals and so on. I assert that simulationism is perhaps more truthfully viewed as what its name implies. The enjoyment is in the simulation, whatever the outcome. Rules and legalisms abound and themselves make up much of the fun. One tries to make it 'real' through the use and application of rules. Thus the definition is modified.

[heinrich]

Hi Heinriech,

I just reread Ron's essay "GNS and other matters" and found that points played only a small role in his discussion of gamist decions.  Here's a link to the relevant page:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/

You'll note that, of six examples, only one mentions points.  I don't think it's fair to criticize for only measuring in points.

Actually, I think you misunderstand the purpose of the GNS theory.  I don't think it's an attempt to define what a role-playing game is, only to make some distinctions.  It is descriptive, not defnitive.  To date, I've found this approach more useful for game design.

This post manages to accuse me of exactly what I accuse GNS.

The purpose of GNS as I said in my post (see the word 'taxonomy') is descriptive and not definitive. That's the problem. While being sophisticated, its chief limitation is that it is bound to depict and organize the contingent set of role playing games, sifting through the rubble and pulling out meaningful distinctions. But what is truly awe-inspiring is the fact that any fundamental relationship with games in general is overlooked. The thought behind the model is good, but its limitations need to be seen.

As for points, see the above. Again, are we talking about the definition of 'gamism' inside an article or two, or the definition and what it attempts to explain together? What it tries to explain, it seems to me, has at least as much prominence as the definition itself. 'Gamism' as it relies on the 'meta-game', historically, uses points and systems of accumulation to symbolize progress. D&D is a great example, but there are others. Trying to shift the emphasis to 'strategy' and 'winning', as you may do when you try to respond, amounts to favoring one aspect of a vague definition over another, but it also would mean using concepts of 'strategy' and 'winning' that as they appear in these so-called gamist games are watered down and end up being metaphorical. The strategy part never crystallizes in the kind of clearly defined choices that you find in chess or even RISK, and the 'winning' part as I said in my post never really happens.

[jdagna]

Your second question about simulationism has to do with my problem with the concept. Think about it. You assert that exploration is the defining feature of simulationism, but on the other can't avoid the fact that exploration is so fundamental and integral to all role playing that to say simulationism favors is it is to only advance a negative definition. Simulationism 'favors' it because the other styles of games have their emphasis elsewhere. Gamism with its 'meta-game' goals and so on. I assert that simulationism is perhaps more truthfully viewed as what its name implies. The enjoyment is in the simulation, whatever the outcome. Rules and legalisms abound and themselves make up much of the fun. One tries to make it 'real' through the use and application of rules. Thus the definition is modified.

I would say this is a gross misunderstanding of Simulationist modes and game design.  I have participated in systemless and diceless games that I believe were primarily Simulationist.  The use and application of rules are absolutely not necessary for Simulationist modes.

Another thing you seem to get wrong is when you say that, since all modes explore, Sim play is just an absence of Gamist or Narrativist modes.  If I remember correctly, one of Ron's essays addresses this argument specifically, so it certainly isn't new and I don't think it holds any water.


However, that's not really what I want to say.

Why is it that you show up here and simply attack GNS?  Why not do something positive like explaining your ideas for how to improve it?  Or write up a replacement model to explain role-playing?  You don't seem to have anything to contribute except animosity and contentiousness.  You don't even show the humility of saying "This doesn't make sense - can anyone expand on it?"

Let me share my views on GNS model.  I do not see it as "the model" of role-playing, as if it were some sort of RPG gospel*.  I feel like there's something missing in there somewhere.  But I'm not sure where, and I haven't found any better models.  Perhaps someday I'll have my own manifesto to put up for others to review.  In the meantime, I feel like the articles and discussions here at the Forge are examining important issues and defining a vocabulary that helps us talk about role-playing issues.

Thus, even if the GNS model is inherently flawed, it is still serving its intended purpose - merely to provide a vocabulary for discussion, with the goal of improving players' experiences in gaming.  

So, unless you have some sort of constructive disagreement, or honest inquisitiveness I'd recommend staying quiet.

*Which is not to imply that anyone sees GNS as some sort of gospel, but I think some people reject the GNS model because they think it's supposed to be.

[Jeffrey Miller]

The purpose of GNS as I said in my post (see the word 'taxonomy') is descriptive and not definitive. That's the problem.

How is it a failure?  GNS (as I understand it) isn't striving to define anything, only provide a framework for conversation.

As for points, see the above. Again, are we talking about the definition of 'gamism' inside an article or two, or the definition and what it attempts to explain together? What it tries to explain, it seems to me, has at least as much prominence as the definition itself.

I've read with interest your posts and the responses, and I think the key thing you're missing is that you're assuming that GNS as a theory is an attempt to categorize, define, delineate, or otherwise categorize GAMES, when instead its looking at player behavior and what sort of decision environment is encouraged by the game.

Trying to shift the emphasis to 'strategy' and 'winning', as you may do when you try to respond, amounts to favoring one aspect of a vague definition over another,

So what sort of response are you looking for? :)

...but it also would mean using concepts of 'strategy' and 'winning' that as they appear in these so-called gamist games are watered down and end up being metaphorical.

I fail to see the logical connection between abstraction of incentive-driven player behavior and a "watering down" of the concepts.  I'm actually, in general, having a very difficult time parsing out what exactly your argument is to begin with, but I'd like to hear what you have to say.

The strategy part never crystallizes in the kind of clearly defined choices that you find in chess or even RISK, and the 'winning' part as I said in my post never really happens.

And yet, there are games that you can 'win', and games in which you can 'lose' within a Gamist perspective.. and yet, that's not the point of Gamism;  the definition isn't about games that have clearly defined win-lose functions, but about non self-adjusting game systems that encourage "Gamist" behavior.  

Does that generally imply point systems?  It does only so much as the games on the market that fall under a "Gamist" label (as defined in the GNS essay, not in your posts here) traditionally have favored point/reward systems, but that doesn't mean these are the only possible expression of the Gamist trend, that they're a requirement of Gamism, and certainly doesn't mean that clearly defined win/loss scenarios are needed.

Again, I encourage you to read the GNS essay carefully before responding, and as much of the GNS threads as you can (as posted earlier by other posters);  if you still have problems with GNS, then by all means, air them here! We're glad to have you..

-j-

[heinrich]

Here's a post that is patently absurd. If I dispute a circular definition, and thereby make reference to it, I commit the error of 'circular logic' according to this post.

Let's begin at the end:

As a general point, I think you have made a dangerous comparative move here.  In order to establish the legitimacy of the critique, you would need first to establish the grounds of comparison, the points of valid agreement between categories; you could then challenge one side from within that framework.  But here you have presumed, and not demonstrated, that all RPGs must be treated as members of the taxon "game," defined explicitly "out of context" of RPGs themselves.

There is no presumption. It is surely not demonstrated that role playing games are rightfully considered games are thus possess the same formal characteristics. This is the failure of the space provided and the time available. Instead, as a fully appropriate first step, a set of criticisms are made against the GNS model that highlight some if its circularities -- circularities that might be dispelled through reference to a more definite concept of 'game.'

What allows this comparison?  Is it simply the noun "game"?  As you say, "you can escape the noun."  Thus the comparison is based on a false identity, such that I need say nothing more than that by your definition, RPGs are generally not games, with the limited exception of some pure Gamist games, and we have no further grounds for discussion.

A coup de grace against a straw man. The fact that most role playing games would be excluded is not necessarily true, but let's agree that many would. Even so, that is precisely the ground for further discussion. If after a historically contingent set of compositions and much study, one lands upon the Sonata form, and it is agreed the world over that the sonata form has such-and-such parts and certain regularities, would a series of failed sonata compositions by music majors then disprove the rule? Would all discussion of it cease if a few inspired composers changed and expanded the form? No. The sonata form has had better minds working on it than those working on role playing games.

To use an example I have used elsewhere, say I enjoy the game RISK. I enjoy it so much that, using a certain kind of logic, I decide to double the number of territories on the map and multiply the armies by two-hundred. The game quickly becomes unplayable. Do I then dispense with the category of 'game'? After all, while my version of RISK is no longer a game, it still resembles one, it still is a game-like exercise. Perhaps I should use an expanded model of what a 'game' is to encompass all the other failed experiments made by amateurs out there.

A game is something worthy of study, something mathematicians and artists and intelligent people have been studying for a long time. It has certain formal properties that distinguish it -- just like a song does -- and if those formal qualities do not crystallize, then you do not have a game, you have something game-like. Many current role-playing games are game-like. And even some of the 'pure Gamist' games as considered by GNS probably fail in this regard, too.

This is a misunderstanding of Simulationism.  Sim is about exploring, not about simulating anything.  It's a somewhat unfortunate term, admittedly, but it's been reified by what amounts to a tradition (not only the Forge, but also rpg.net, I think).

See my post above. To say that simulationism is about exploration is to engage in gross redundancy. It's one of the current features of GNS.

Defined quite broadly, "meta" aspects of gaming do indeed become dominant.  But a big part of Simulationism depends upon the attempt to subvert this perspective, to seek gaming that allows "dreaming" or the fantasy of gaming without the "meta" categories.  To be sure, one can never escape these structures, but they can be relatively de-prioritized to such an extreme that players may refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of meta-options when presented to them.  This is, however, primarily an issue of Stance, not of GNS.

Buried within here is an almost original thought. Note the 'fantasy of gaming.' This statement is worthy of attention because it does throw light on simulationism as it is practiced. Simulation is a 'fantasy game' -- that is, it is a make-believe game and what is being make-believed is that we are even playing a game. It's a pseudo-game, but this is more or less what I have been saying. Given this statement, one could argue that what is being simulated in simulationism is not the environment, but the game itself.

Also, be careful. When you say that players 'many refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of meta-options when presented to them' it begs the question: why? Is it because they are not as 'real'?

Circular logic again, I'm afraid.  By predetermining the meaning of the category "game," you have made your argument not "what was to be proven" but "what was presupposed."  Only by accepting the absolute legitimacy of the parallel to certain other games, notably those in which victory conditions or non-failure conditions (e.g. Space Invaders) are set, can this be used to collapse other possibilities into pseudo-choices.

This is accepted. But again, this is not circular logic. It is incomplete description, but again, that is not inappropriate.

I'm not quite sure what you mean about parts of speech, but if I understand at all correctly, I would ask why "play" means "win."  Why does the one entail the other?  To be rather cliche about it, there's the old wheeze about the journey being more important than the destination.  Is this simply an invalid perspective?

Nowhere is it even implied that to 'play' means to 'win'. Anticipating the weak objection, 'why does role playing have anything to do with games' the reference to the language used by the role players themselves is meant to show its symptomatic dimension. You might reject the word 'game' -- the noun -- but you still adhere to the verb 'to play' when referring to role playing games. This tells of a neurotic denial to accept the truth.

[heinrich]

Gamism's chief trait has nothing to do with points. It has to do with competitive spirit, trying to do your best in the sense of overcoming some obstacle or proving your ability. Players test themselves against the game or against each other, and that's gamist.

On one hand it has to be admitted that testing you or your character against the game or against other players is often done within an abstract framework of 'points' or some other symbolic marker or token that symbolizes or quantifies success.

Simulationism, meanwhile, is not "gamism without the game element". It is about creating a shared reality and exploring it, without some agenda beyond that exploration. Your example of Space Invaders as a simulationist game doesn't hold, because at no point (even without the points system) does it become exploring the world in which the aliens are invading. It is still about how long can you last against the aliens, even without the convenient measure of points.

If I make any sense of this proposed definition, it's that while gamists play to win, simulationists don't care whether they win or lose. That's all well and good, but has little to do with the nature of the game itself other than those 'meta-game' elements that allow for strategy and the perceived measurement of success are lacking. This is not some preference-laden statement on simulationism. It has only to do with the formal aspects. What is the distinctive trait? That it is exploration without any other traits? Clehrich said that simulation has nothing to do with simulating, but inasmuch as the preference between winning and losing is suspended, simulationism takes on the appearance of mere enactment. Again, I make no statement about the value of that or whether it is to be enjoyed, so 'less' is in the tangible sense and not in terms of its 'value' or enjoyment.

As for your disputing Space Invaders as simulationism when the points are stripped away, it is without merit. My world might have just the restricted scope of what I see on the screen as all that I require. What's more, I don't have to play it to win, but only to enact or act out what would happen if you were someone trying to defend the earth against aliens given the X, Y, and Z restrictions of the game.

I must ask whether you even read the articles, as opposed to cobbling together an understanding from forum posts.

Yet another one. I must have read them too closely, because I see what they lack as well as what they provide.

A title for this objection might be: 'The articles as Gospel'.

Further, it is not always the case that phrases mean what is meant by the sum of the terms. A "Role Playing Game" is a particular kind of entity which is not necessarily defined or limited by the individual words included. This, ultimately, is the failure of Gary Gygax' argument in http://www.gamingoutpost.com/content/index.cfm?action=article&articleid=80&catid=14&login=">What's In a Name (at Gaming Outpost) that Computer Role Playing Games are not Role Playing Games because you're not playing a role. "French Fries" are not French, and the "English Horn" is not English. "The Dating Game" is not a game by your definition, I suspect (or is it?). As to the verb, is it "Roleplaying", "Role-playing" or merely "Playing", with "Role" as an adverb? You don't define concepts by deconstruction of terminology; it leads nowhere. Kittens and puppies are playful; they play. Children play in similar ways. None of them are out to win anything. You're narrowly defining "play" and "game" and then arguing that anything which doesn't fit your narrow definitions (narrower, certainly, than those found at Dictionary.com--we've been over this ground before) can't be a "Role Playing Game" because it doesn't involve "Play" by your definition or "Game" by your definition. So what is an American? Should that be strictly limited to refer to people whose ancestors lived here for many generations, and how many generations are necessary? Do they have to be citizens of the United States, or do Canadians count? Words mean different things in different contexts; before you use the meaning of a word as part of an argument, you have to determine that those involved in the discussion are willing to accept your definitions, or better, you have to use theirs.

'I must ask whether you even read [my post], as opposed to cobbling together an understanding from [words and phrases]'

See my earlier post where I explain that. Never imagined it would require so much explanation. Part of the lack of mental self-discipline that I gather from what I have been reading here is due to the predominant belief in today's ideology that definitions don't really refer to anything and have just a provisional value. 'That's just your subjective view, man' etc. etc. Part of the impetus behind abandoning the label 'game' in role playing is that no one wants to trouble themselves by asking the apparently far too difficult question as to what a game is. It would lead them too far afield and into other pursuits. To me it is obvious. Not because 'role playing game' includes the word 'game' (although, if you think about it, those who reject the term 'game' in role playing obviously ascribe some clear meaning to it) but because it is a game and thus deserves the label.

I want to thank you for posting this, really. I just wrote a post about people who within their first month here are making their first post about why we're all wrong about everything, when it's clear they don't really know what we're saying. I hope you don't take that harshly; there are centuries of accumulated experience and thought represented on these boards, and we don't agree about everything, even about everything related to GNS--but we've put time into considering the matters, and have certainly been over the ground you present several times before.

Long live the oligarchy. Funny that given this ground has been so covered, nothing essential from my first post has even been addressed. Instead it is only that the GNS definitions have been so sadly misunderstood as to be questioned outside of the sometimes refined/sometimes haphazard line of argumentation they themselves have laid down.

I fully expect that in that very reasoned deliberation on those matters considered before that in typical fashion the concept of 'game' was thrown out the window as 'too subjective' and that one mustn't be 'exclusionary'.

What does role playing belong with in this world? Knitting? Scuba diving? Auctioneering? Maybe 'games.'

[Jack Spencer Jr]

What does role playing belong with in this world? Knitting? Scuba diving? Auctioneering? Maybe 'games.'

How about roleplaying belongs with roleplaying?

[heinrich]

Why is it that you show up here and simply attack GNS?  Why not do something positive like explaining your ideas for how to improve it?  Or write up a replacement model to explain role-playing?  You don't seem to have anything to contribute except animosity and contentiousness.  You don't even show the humility of saying "This doesn't make sense - can anyone expand on it?

You're the kind that is so pathetically sensitive that any kind of real questioning is construed as an 'attack' and who lives in a world of 'positive' nice people and 'negative' bad people.

Animosity? Contentiousness? You must read a lot into the tone of the writing, because I am pretty dispassionate about these things.

I'm an outsider to the culture of internet posters and message board squatters. What I found here were some intelligent articles on role playing, but what I have gotten so far is the forum is more or less doctrinaire rubbish.

Let me share my views on GNS model.  I do not see it as "the model" of role-playing, as if it were some sort of RPG gospel*.  I feel like there's something missing in there somewhere.  But I'm not sure where, and I haven't found any better models.  Perhaps someday I'll have my own manifesto to put up for others to review.  In the meantime, I feel like the articles and discussions here at the Forge are examining important issues and defining a vocabulary that helps us talk about role-playing issues.

I suppose that by posting a message that tries to confront the GNS model on any level I am attacking the Forge.

Thus, even if the GNS model is inherently flawed, it is still serving its intended purpose - merely to provide a vocabulary for discussion, with the goal of improving players' experiences in gaming.  

So, unless you have some sort of constructive disagreement, or honest inquisitiveness I'd recommend staying quiet.

I only respond to this posting because I am sure it is representative of others to come. You can't argue with someone speaking another language. If that other language is an altogether different kind of argument, in which direct statements are taken as vicious attacks and any kind of strategy employed other than endlessly reworking the same definitions without any fundamental questioning is 'not contributing anything', then it is hopeless.

[heinrich]

We'll just go one at a time.

How is it a failure?  GNS (as I understand it) isn't striving to define anything, only provide a framework for conversation.

That's an awfully ambitious goal.  But in any event, I never said GNS was a failure.

I've read with interest your posts and the responses, and I think the key thing you're missing is that you're assuming that GNS as a theory is an attempt to categorize, define, delineate, or otherwise categorize GAMES, when instead its looking at player behavior and what sort of decision environment is encouraged by the game.

You have read with real interest. Because you claim I take something as an assumption when I make it an explicit assertion. Of course, GAMES! Only when you yourself make the assumption that role playing has nothing to do with games do you believe that someone making that exact point is making an assumption. I state very clearly that I think role playing needs to be analyzed alongside and as a game. But you unearth this as an apparently hidden assumption.

The whole big fat corpse in the middle of GNS' dining room is that all of its fine distinctions, with their considerable subtlety, are only possible by excluding any mention of other games, or games in general, from the outset. In other words, an assumption.

I fail to see the logical connection between abstraction of incentive-driven player behavior and a "watering down" of the concepts.  I'm actually, in general, having a very difficult time parsing out what exactly your argument is to begin with, but I'd like to hear what you have to say.

Is this behaviorism? Is the meaning of a behavior strictly reducible to the so-called incentives driving it? If so, it would seem to erase the whole aspect of games that has to do with logical combinations, that is, 'strategy' as any kind of distinct dimension.

And yet, there are games that you can 'win', and games in which you can 'lose' within a Gamist perspective.. and yet, that's not the point of Gamism;  the definition isn't about games that have clearly defined win-lose functions, but about non self-adjusting game systems that encourage "Gamist" behavior.

This seems to define gamism as a category of games that encourage gamist behavior.

Again, I encourage you to read the GNS essay carefully before responding, and as much of the GNS threads as you can (as posted earlier by other posters);  if you still have problems with GNS, then by all means, air them here! We're glad to have you..

Good. Another one.

[heinrich]

What does role playing belong with in this world? Knitting? Scuba diving? Auctioneering? Maybe 'games.'

How about roleplaying belongs with roleplaying?

What you get with that mindset is exactly that.

I see nothing in GNS for example that distinguishes role playing definitively from other games, especially since no concept of 'game' is ever really advanced, even to oppose. I see only the desire of role players to separate any mention of games from that of role playing.

But desire just isn't good enough.