GNS detractors and Social Contract

[taalyn]

There was a huge debate this last week on the yahoo group RPGcreate. One particular person was quite vociferous about his opposition to GNS theory (and included standard rants about Forgite snobbiness and hyper-intellectualism), but at one point he expressed what he found to be wrong with GNS theory quite clearly.

 Of course, his definition included points about intuitive group understandings ("I just know") and tendencies to use GNS for pigeonholing, as well as complaints and ad hominem attacks based on our (GNS supporters) observation that he's got major misunderstandings of the theory happening. In the process of the argument, I noticed two things that might be useful to ongoing debates about GNS theory, and it's prpagation (such as it is).

 First, some people seem to feel disempowered by the idea that GNS describes instances of play without _them_ - that they were not consulted about GNS theories, and thus feel left out. Given that the Forge is a public board, I don't think there's much we can do about this. From what I could tell, this one vocal detractor actually had thought about the phenomenon quite a bit, and apparently wrote an essay on the topic (never forthcoming, though). The interesting thing is that comments he made avarious points seem to me top point to a _very_ similar model, which seems to indicate that he's peeved that his non-published (in the loosest sense of the term 'published') theories weren't accounted for. As I said, I don't think there's anything we can do about this until he opens up and shares his own theories.

 Secondly, and more importantly, he made some comments that indicated to me that the problem is not with GNS per se, but rather with the development of Social Contract, and the influence GNS has on that establishment. In particular, he felt the GNS theory was flawed for lack of evidence, and his idea of evidence consisted of taking random players at a convention and seeing what happened. In such a case, it seems that GNS is not the issue, especially since any given mode of play can present itself at any time throughout the game - it isn't "evidence" that's presented, but merely instances which can be sorted via GNS.

 It seems more important to him (based on what I read, and these are likely entirely my own perceptions unrelated to what he actually felt) to provide evidence of how GNS is worked in play. Given a random group of gamers, 3 who tend towards Gamism, 4 towards Simulationism, and 2 towards Narrativism, how is the Social Contract regarding acceptable modes of play established? Now, obviously this commits the sin of pigeonholing he was railing against (one of the reasons I'm fairly sure he doesn't understand the theory, despite his protests that he does), but in terms of the 3D model, the Beeg Bloorny Horseshoe model, and other mode-models out there, I wonder if this is something worth delving into.

 Would a discussion of how modes are prioritized be useful in terms of explaining and elaborating the model? Could such a discussion shed light on issues with Simulationism and its non-challenge description (I mean that Simulationism is often described as a lack of Challenge-based or Theme-based decisions)? Could it help in explaining the complexities of the model, and illuminate where people often get confused?

 I don't know, but the idea that he was confusing the model with it's application in the establishment of Social Contract really sparked for me. Has anyone else noticed such a pattern among detractors?

Aidan

[C. Edwards]

Given a random group of gamers, 3 who tend towards Gamism, 4 towards Simulationism, and 2 towards Narrativism, how is the Social Contract regarding acceptable modes of play established?

I think a good deal of the... bitterness people have about GNS stems from the well meaning, but completely fallacious, assumption that any group of people regardless of playstyle should be able to sit down together and play a game with all the participants having a 'fun' time. Some playstyles just don't work together in a way that allows those participants to all enjoy themselves. They may be able to play together if they're all amiable people, sure, but sacrifices will have to be made concerning play that will have the effect of decreasing the enjoyment for some or all of the parties involved.

Personally, I don't think people can communicate in the detailed and comprehensive manner that would be required to completely iron out Social Contract issues. Spoken or written language just doesn't allow for that kind of precise communication. Maybe when we develop telepathic abilities Social Contract issues will cease to be an issue. I think those 'sweet spots' of role-playing  mostly occur when the people involved are just in tune to one another in a way that goes beyond any conventional means of working out Social Contract.

I can understand some of the guy's ire I suppose, probably similar to what I feel when I hear about Bush trying to stick oil derricks in the middle of pristine wilderness. Nobody friggin asked me!

-Chris

[Alan]

First, some people seem to feel disempowered by the idea that GNS describes instances of play without _them_ - that they were not consulted about GNS theories, and thus feel left out.

This reminds me of unionizing at Amazon.com.  Myself and many other employess started the movement.  We did our best to invite everyone we could.  Once things got going, we had to come up with wording for our petition for a unionization vote.  When we presented it, people who had previously been invited to participate, but had not, then complained we had formulated it without them.  

They wanted it both ways: they wanted to avoid breaking new ground AND be included in that breaking at the same time.

I run into that all the time.  The only thing to say is that it's not the ONE TRUE WAY, it's merely another tool for thinking about RPGs.

he felt the GNS theory was flawed for lack of evidence, and his idea of evidence

Well, I know we haven't done statistical studies - but a theory can also be tested by the results of its application.  I would suggest he test the theory by playing a game designed with the GNS theory in mind.

[Sidhain]

Actually Taalyn, I'd like if you'd not put words in my mouth. I was using GNS to examine /trends/ in my own gaming group--trends in /types of decisions being made/ and how that can be used to better my /current play for the current game/. This isn't where GNS breaks down. Where it breaks down is in trying to create /games/ that cater to only one mode of play, ever. You see by creating a game that only supports G, or N, or S--you /force/ people to make decisions based on the presumptian of the game, rather than on making decisions based on presumptian of the /best mode/ for the group at a given point.

[Sidhain]

Well, I know we haven't done statistical studies - but a theory can also be tested by the results of its application.  I would suggest he test the theory by playing a game designed with the GNS theory in mind.

I have. I've not seen improvement/change in play with any given group using a game that hijacks their current mode of play to fit its preceptions. Now /some/ games encourage certian modes, without eliminating others---this allows for broader play, and smoother dilemmas when a given groups current interest /isn't/ the mode the game is encouraging.

I personally feel GNS should be tested without experimenter bias--that means, test it without having someone who has a real interest in the outcome. Unfortunatly, that rules out nearly everyone here.

[Alan]

Well, I know we haven't done statistical studies - but a theory can also be tested by the results of its application.  I would suggest he test the theory by playing a game designed with the GNS theory in mind.

I have. I've not seen improvement/change in play with any given group using a game that hijacks their current mode of play to fit its preceptions. Now /some/ games encourage certian modes, without eliminating others---this allows for broader play, and smoother dilemmas when a given groups current interest /isn't/ the mode the game is encouraging.

Are you saying that making players take part in a game designed for a GNS preference they don't like produces poor results?  That would be expected and a verification of the GNS theory.

[Sidhain]

Are you saying that making players take part in a game designed for a GNS preference they don't like produces poor results?  That would be expected and a verification of the GNS theory.

Actually no, that would be pigeonholing the players into /one/ style of play. In general, I've noted a player makes GNS decisions based on a number of factors--encouragement by the game, their mood, the style of the GM--but the issue is that players make decisions as they will--they may have a stylistic trend, but they do not uphold one style of play (hence they are not pigeonholed, nor can they be). But, a game in which only one mode of decisions is supported leaves the players who /do/ make a different decision either forced to think to the game--rather than to their own /best/ enjoyment, or it stalls at is proves incapable of allowing a jump to another mode for that point.

[jburneko]

Hello Sid,

First I'd like to acknowledge that taalyn, DID start this post clearly stating that he was working from his interpretation of what you said.  So, he didn't "put words in your mouth."

I think I understand what you're talking about.  If I'm not mistaken you're talking about something like this:  Assume you have a group of players with slightly diverse gaming interests but who have worked out a Social Contract that permits them to game together comfortably.  Now take a game that was designed with one specfic mode of play.  Yeah, if you give it to this group it's probably going to create some problems but then I would say that the game wasn't designed for them.  They need something that speaks more to their Social Contract.

And that's fine.  Remember nobody said Incoherent == Bad.  At most I think it might have been suggested that Incoherence makes a game less accessible to a newbie because it doesn't clearly define how this new and alien thing is supposed to be played.  It might be suggested that Incoherent is probably unhelpful for the group that is already GNS dysfunctional because they have no have basis on which to get past their dysfunction because each player will point to a different portion of the text to prove that the game is really about what they claim it's about.  

GNS coherent games are for people like me.  BEFORE I even heard of GNS I used to get very angry at the texts of RPGs because they refused to tell me how to play them.  I'd turn to the Gamemaster section and I'd read all this wishy-washy text about how you could do this or you could  do that.  I'd throw the book across the room and I'd yell, "I know what I COULD do why don't you tell me what YOU do."  Why did you write this?  What is this game about to YOU.  How do YOU play this game and why is that cool for YOU.  If I agree, I'll play your game.  If I don't, I'll play something else.

As for switching GNS priorities in actual play, again when I do that I like to switch games along with it.  When I want to address a deep complex issue about power I play Sorcerer.  When I feel like just sitting back and running a dungeon crawl, I play D&D3E.

I think what you're suggesting is that there are groups who go through phases of GNS priority within a given campaign.  Such that in Session A this player is all about just wanting to see if he can beat the bad guy, and in Session B he just wants to chat in character, and in Session C he wants to show of his characters ethical standard.  When you get into this territory you start getting in that whole thing about "Instance of Play."  It may be that all three sessions are really leading up to ONE BIG payoff moment where the REAL priority shines through and it's matter of whether the system is going to stand by him or against him in that moment of truth or perhaps this person really needs a game that will address their ever shifting priorities based on their mood of the day in which case, I again say Incoherent design != bad as long as it is RECOGNIZED as such (whether it's articulated or not) and properly drifted into a satisfying flavor the day then it's perfectly fine and workable.

Hope that was clear.

Jesse

[Sidhain]

GNS coherent games are for people like me.  BEFORE I even heard of GNS I used to get very angry at the texts of RPGs because they refused to tell me how to play them.  I'd turn to the Gamemaster section and I'd read all this wishy-washy text about how you could do this or you could  do that.  I'd throw the book across the room and I'd yell, "I know what I COULD do why don't you tell me what YOU do."  Why did you write this?  What is this game about to YOU.  How do YOU play this game and why is that cool for YOU.  If I agree, I'll play your game.  If I don't, I'll play something else.

I think that this may be a serious and important part of examining games. Because, I've always enjoyed taking a set of mechanics and going "I can do this, and this, and this" I don't want you to tell me what to do, I've my own ideas thank you very much, and if you go all Synnabar and the rules must be and setting must be, then well BYE! Sorry thanks for playing. I like games that give me /ideas/  on how to play but don't require that being used.

So the issue is--if GNS works for you, but not for me--what GNS doing? Is it only applicable to gamer Type B? and not Gamer Type Q?  

I advocate testing of GNS--I don't think its "all invalid" I just think it needs testing, and not testing by people who believe it works, but testing by people who don't care if it does or doesn't. I'm also to the point where I think that most gamers, not you or I, or likely most Forge-goers, but that most exist in a "Heisenberg" level of gaming. They can observe gaming in action, or they can play, and they choose to play rather than observe. The problem is that trying to get them to observe is pretty moot, because that would require them to stop playing to do so. On the other hand, I think some GNS advocates are trying to /play/ and /observe/ and it clouds the the usefulnes of the theory to anyone other than 'We already think this works fine."

[taalyn]

Sidhain, as was already pointed out, I did try not to misrepresent your ideas, and was clear (I thought) that this concern about social contract was my interpretation, and what _I_ got out of your comments. Please do not assume I'm out to get you - I wasn't.

That said, it seems that the issue is more about Drift, then. Can any game be purely a single GNS mode? And even if it is, does that necessarily prevent anyone from drifting it in play? Personally, I'd say no to both.

The question isn't whether it works for you or not - anyone can reject anything they'd like, for whatever reasons. I can choose not believe in gravity for example, and explain why I don't float away in some other way. Everyone else will probably still see gravity's effects on me, however. This is a little over the top, but I think the analogy holds - whether you agree with GNS theory or not does not mean it isn't applicable to your instances of play. It's _applicable_ (regardless of whether it's correct or not) to everyone - the question is whether you accept it or not. It seems that you're very cautious about it at the moment, which is perfectly acceptable, of course.

The other problem with testing, beyond finding an unbiased audience, is that it is supremely difficult to isolate GNS from Social Contract, Drift, Exploration, and so on, in game. We don't exist in other people's minds, so even with their input (after the fact, presumably, because it would disrupt the game itself otherwise, and therefore be prone to hindsight and misremembering issues), determining whether Drift played a factor, or Social Contract, or trying to hit on the person to the left, or GNS modes on their own are responsible for decisions is exceedingly difficult.

My last question for you - what exactly is it that you want to test? I'm not clear on that - is it that you want to test whether these are the only modes involved in decision making, or whether there are fewer? Or something else entirely? I'm sorry, but the purpose for the testing (beyond the anecdotal experience compiled already) is totally transparent to me.

Aidan

[John Kim]

I think that this may be a serious and important part of examining games. Because, I've always enjoyed taking a set of mechanics and going "I can do this, and this, and this" I don't want you to tell me what to do, I've my own ideas thank you very much, and if you go all Synnabar and the rules must be and setting must be, then well BYE! Sorry thanks for playing. I like games that give me /ideas/  on how to play but don't require that being used.  

Other than not liking Synnibarr, can you give some examples of how this affects your taste?  I haven't read Synnibarr, but really I could care less whether the book says that anything is required -- because it is plainly false.  I can always treat a game as an unrelated mish-mash and try to mine it for ideas, but it helps give an idea if I know why the designer made particular choices.   Now, these might be mistakes.  For example, Paranoia actually gives a decent idea of what play should be like IMO.  However, the 1st edition mechanics are poorly suited for that play.  I could try to use the skill tree mechanic for some other game, since it is a decent idea.  But having the idea of what the designer was intending a mechanic for seems like useful information to me.  

I advocate testing of GNS--I don't think its "all invalid" I just think it needs testing, and not testing by people who believe it works, but testing by people who don't care if it does or doesn't.  

Even if there was some objective way to test GNS, I'm not sure how this is going to work.  If they go through the effort of testing GNS, presumably they have an interest in it.  I agree that it would be interesting to have a wider group of people exposed to the idea and see what they think, but I don't think that others make better testers than us.  I mean, no one here on the Forge is getting paid for liking GNS.  (At least, I don't think so.  Hey, wait a minute, am I missing out on something? :-)  The only bias is that the ideas resonate with them, which is part of whether the theory works.

[Sidhain]

Synnibar basically has rules that state "If the GM isn't using this rule you may call him on it, and gain XP for your character" it basically is designed to empower rules lawyers to use the system entirely as presented.



As for GNS and bias: The problem is, how useful is a theory that can only be used by people who already adhere to it as a model to address gaming in general?

[jburneko]

As for GNS and bias: The problem is, how useful is a theory that can only be used by people who already adhere to it as a model to address gaming in general?

I don't know if this is particularly useful, since it's just one guys testimonial but I didn't start out my roleplaying history knowing about GNS.  I knew there was this hobby called roleplaying.  I had vague notions about what I wanted out of that hobby but there was no way two years ago I could have articulated what that was.

I always had doubts that roleplaying could produce the kind of effect I was going for.  I just kind of assumed that roleplaying was this uniform medium like a comic book or a film and perhaps the MEDIUM just wasn't suited to what I wanted.

Then I ran into this wacked out theory called GNS that suggested there was no uniform "roleplaying medium" and that instead there were differing "creative agendas", as they are now called, and infact there are a whole array of design choices and actual play techniques that help or (perhaps more importantly) hinder actualizing these "creative agendas."

So here's one anecdotal data point: Before I knew about GNS I was a very frustrated gamer.  After discovering GNS (and Stances and Currency, etc) and applying this kind of critical thinking both to game texts and my own actual play group my frustration level has dropped to near zero.  And when I AM frustrated I can now clearly articulate WHY I'm frustrated and think up possible solutions to the problem or at least know how to formulate an objective question that can be answered in terms that speak directly to my problem and my "creative agenda" without the issue being clouded by a bunch of kneejerk assumptions on the part of others of what roleplaying "is", "requires", "needs" "must or should be."

It's much clearer to say, "I've got this player who has a problem with Trollbabe because he prefers social conflicts to be resolved via Drama after a real-time actor stance discorse between PC and NPC any suggestions on how I can help him out?"  Rather than just saying, "I've got this player who has a problem with Trollbabe because he thinks it eliminates roleplaying, can you help me out?"

The second sentence is what my player ACTUALLY said to me.  The first sentence is what I determined he meant after thinking about his actual play behaviors in Forge Theory terms.

Jesse

[taalyn]

As for GNS and bias: The problem is, how useful is a theory that can only be used by people who already adhere to it as a model to address gaming in general?

This doesn't ask for anything. Any theory under the sun can be used by people who already adhere to it - in fact, it's for those people that the theory is useful. That others don't find it useful is irrelevant. I don't find much use for theories of ProtoIndoEuropean sound change in my daily life, but that doesn't mean they're not true, or valid. Usefulness does not equal or correspond to validity.

Adhering to a model also does not mean that the theory isn't applicable to a wider audience. Bias could be argued, but that doesn't reduce its usefulness to those that adhere to it, or its applicability to a wider scale. It could also be argued that people who don't accept a theory have some bias as well.

I still don't understand what it is you're objecting to.

Aidan

[jdagna]

Sid, I think you might be paying too much attention to using GNS for game design.  I really don't think that is its strong suit (or its purpose).

Really, GNS is very simple.  It says "Look, people have different goals when they play.  Sometimes those goals clash, and they disagree and stop having fun.  They try to fix the problems but words like 'story' get used by everyone to mean something different, so we need to introduce a vocabulary to facilitate the discussion. With it we can talk about those play styles and help people identify the points of disagreement so that they can find compromises."

You cite a happily-cooperating group composed of differing play styles as an example.  Those people don't need GNS because they've already found a way to work together despite their differences.  In their case, a game designed to facilitate one GNS mode might be a disservice for them.  I for one am not convinced that incoherence is generally a bad thing (in fact, I'd argue that well-done incoherence is a good thing).

People use GNS to classify lots of things.  Ultimately, it only works to classify particular instances of play.  We can talk about people's preferences (since most seem to prefer certain modes over others).  We can talk about game types (since most games seem to reward or hinder certain modes over others).  We can use GNS to very narrowly target certain modes during design.

But even if we could prove that GNS-designed games aren't as good as other ones, it wouldn't disprove the theory's validity (because, at its core, it doesn't talk about games or people, but modes of play).  What you'd have to prove is that 1) people do not use different play styles or 2) that having a way to discuss those play styles doesn't improve play (for people willing to learn and compromise).

Can GNS be useful to people who don't believe in it?  Of course not!  Do the laws pertaining to driving in the United States help people in Russia?  But the rules of the road help nonetheless, by making sure that people can communicate on the road and drive more efficiently and with greater safety.  Like driving laws, there is no one true way - every country (heck, every state) has their own driving laws.  It's not the law so much as the presence of any law that helps.   Likewise, it isn't GNS so much as the presence of any thing that explains different play styles and aids in a dialogue to find a compromise.  This is why some groups stumble onto their own solutions independent of GNS as a formalized theory.