GNS detractors and Social Contract

[ejh]

I'm reading this, trying to understand what the argument's about, and failing.

Sidhain, could you tell us what, in your opinion, GNS theory "fails at" -- what it claims to accomplish which it does not really acccomplish, and how?

I must admit I haven't memorized the essays on GNS and I don't read every single thread on this board, and I sometimes wonder what's S and what's N and stuff like that.

But it seems like you've got some very specific ideas about what GNS *tries to be* but *fails to be*.  It would be helpful in understanding the thread if you could articulate those clearly.

[Sidhain]

Taalyn, let me apologise after getting annoyed at certian posters on RPG create , I jumped the gun a bit on you and for that I apologise.

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."

I think this is very good, for you, and I am glad it helped improve your gaming I just question, fundamentally, that anyone but you (or someone with similar) issues, needs it. Unfortunatly I've dealt with far to many people online (some who I think have great ideas) but whose ideas differ so greatly in form from anything players I know would ever want to use that it is very much a /personal/ thing for them. Someone once quipped you can find three people who share your hobby and start a magazine--well now days you can find two and start a website---and while those ideas may be innovative, intteresting to those two guys, that doesn't mean they have any applicabality beyond the problems of those two people. Now, I'm not trying to say GNS is "small" just that I've seen people trying to convince others that GNS changed the world, when in reality it only changed /their small corner of it/. I'm trying to find value in GNS to myself, and in doing so have found more of it less useful in dealing with gamers out there in the non-net world.

Something also another person elsewhere brought up. One can enjoy a good novel, without being able to pontificate for hours on /why/, they just enjoyed it, thats enough. I think for the gamers I experience, that is their goal "just enjoy it" not worry about beyond whether they did or didn't. Yet there are legions and mountains of literary critics, and critical essays respectively out there that break the ideas down. Yet still don't get to the "why I enjoyed it" part. Now this may be fundamentally that being who I am, I the person, bring forth a huge weight of social contract elements that weight gaming so that for the most part if I'm involved, I'm enjoying it. I can count on my hands the failed instances of enjoyment from gaming, and mostly the comes from people who, just tried to /control/ the way gaming went--(Not this part has nothing to do with GNS but goes to social contract---usually the given person was a player who wanted attention for /them/ and acted out using their character as a focal point for that. In this case it was a singular individual whose behaviour was to blame.


Gah I'm rambling pardons....

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..

Usefulness does not equal or correspond to validity.  

The problem is here is for me is that for a model which is supposed to represent an /active/ thing---the model has to be useful, or becomes invalid. If it cannot address how play in gaming works for everyone, then what again was the point of creating a pet or private theory? Game all you like that way, fine, I support you in it, but what has that to do with games, gamers, or anyone else. Above one person found it useful, good! But the fact is the model is meant to describe decision points, not individual gamers right? It's supposed to define instances of play via choice/decision--If something outside the model, is indewd role-playing, and yet the roleplaying model, is failing to account for those instances pf choice and decision in play that don't fit its precepts, what again is the models use?

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).

No this may be my closer to answering some of my problems actually if I am indeed looking at it for gaming design, which is possible, I had considered to be looking at it from the direction of "how my players act and why", but also "why do games which suggest X style not work well all the time"

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."

I find the vocabulary flawed, because my players--none I've ever had except in my MIRC/PBEM games have any knowledge of it, and with few exceptions we don't clash--I've had a few dozen groups over the years (and with the exception so small I noted one instance above) and the only other instance (involved a GM who suggested resolution path was not one our characters would have chosen, and GM simply voided all other possible player input towards resolution and that's an issue of social contract and need for faux empowerment.)

If a vocabulary is useful, it has to be used by all speakers of the language--you for example, wouldn't try and speak English and use English vocabulary to convey your message to someone in Russia who didn't know English---and that's the issue, we've different gamers who speak different languages and just don't have a common tongue. And GNS is about as useful to bridge the gap as Esperanto.

The problem to me, is that GNS isn't a bridge between two languages, but a language to itself. It's like asking people to learn German in order to write English papers.
It isn't that /no ones/ writing will be improved, its just that those people who it will improve are having a unique experience.


Again, though I think GNS /can/ be tested, and should be tested. With as rigid terms as any psychosociological test. Because /maybe I am wrong/ but my exerience doesn't make proponants of it look right.


It is entirely possible /my experience/ is so out of left field that is the problem.

I didn't come in to want to see GNS to fail, I thought "hey this is neat sounds good" and haven't yet seen the "good" as upheld in practice.

[taalyn]

Thanks for the apology, Sidhain. Fully accepted! Now, on to business...

Reading back through some of your posts, I _think_ I have it figured out what your issue is: Does GNS adequately describe all possible approaches to decision-making in game? This is a valid concern, and now I see how the whole "test it at a con" thing is useful.

BUT...recent speculation (see the Beeg Horseshoe thread) proposes a 3d model. I can't say if it speaks to you or not, but I think it does address issues where the factor in the decision is vague or multivalent. Particularly in vectors.

Simplistically, a player has a region of space in the 3d model, and will accept possible decisions that 1) fall within that bounded space, and 2) lie closer to their preferred vector. If there are many decisions possible, the one that meets their requirements in all 3 dimensions is likely to be chosen, and if there aren't any decisions available within their prefereed space, they will choose one by changing their space, usually along lines which still respect or prioritize their favorite mode (for the moment).

Ultmately, I think what this means is that generally any given instance-of-play doesn't have a particular mode behind it - if it falls within their player's prioritized space, there is no attention to or observable (to an observer or the player) recourse to a particular mode. It is only when available options lie outside of a preferred course of action that GNS becomes active and relevant.

Do your ways of playing fit this idea? Could you provide an example of something that challenges GNS? I know you've done it before elsewhere, but having one example we can discuss, and easily accesible, might be helpful.

Aidan

[Valamir]

Sidhain, I'm not clear at what you're trying to accomplish with your criticism.

I would be very surprised if the principals of GNS actually completely do not apply to your group.  I suspect you are simply looking for a big neon arrow and aren't finding one.  But regardless of whether it does or doesn't, you seem convinced that you don't need it.  Not having any reason to disbelieve you, I say that's great.  Fantastic in fact.  A gaming group that doesn't clash is a rare and wonderful thing.

I would like you to consider for a moment, a few possibilities.
1) that "clash" does not necessarily mean violent arguement at the table.  A clash in gaming priorities can simply mean that when three of you walk away from the table ecstatic that 1 of you walks away disappointed.  Is it possible in all the years you've played that you've had players walk away from the table disappointed, perhaps even on a regular basis.  Just because you don't know of it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Not everyone is quick to bring up their own disatisfaction and may well have just kept it quietly to themselves so as not to spoil someone elses fun...perhaps even blaming themselves for it.  Are you sure no one in all of your dozen groups may have been harboring secret disappointment because the game was not what they wanted.

The fact that you can only identify 1 instance and that is an extreme one suggests that you may be looking for something big and flashy when really dysfunction can be something that goes largely undetected.


2) I cannot address with you how "useful" the theory is because I don't understand what you're expecting to be able to do with it.  Is it possible that GNS is in fact a saw, and you're expecting it to be a hammer and after swinging it around a few times you then proclaim that it doesn't drive nails very well and is thus not useful?  Without knowing what "use" you think you should be able to put the theory towards responding to your point is impossible.

And by this I don't mean a vague "I'd like to be able to blah".  I mean an actual honest to god event that really occured that you attempted to explain with GNS and could not.  Not speculation, not an imaginary exercise, an actual use, describable in detail, where it failed.  THAT alone will give us something to talk about.  


Finally, I'm not sure how or why you expect something (anything) to be equally useful to everybody.  You dismiss Jesse's testimonial as just being one person and reiterate some idea that if it doesn't help everyone its just a pet project without a point.  I admire your egalatarian spirit, but quite frankly, bollux.

If even one person had their gaming enhanced by the discussions that go on here that's justification enough for the whole thing.  And it isn't one, its dozens, possibly hundreds.  This site is full of people who to one degree or another found the theory useful...or at least found thinking about the topics the theory discusses useful.  I've said before that the process is as important as the destination.

[Sidhain]

BUT...recent speculation (see the Beeg Horseshoe thread) proposes a 3d model. I can't say if it speaks to you or not, but I think it does address issues where the factor in the decision is vague or multivalent. Particularly in vectors.

I've been considering this at great length, mostly because I've been busy but conetemplating this. I think the issue may be that my groups "game" choices are three dimensional--that is they are made because of various incoming information. They adapt themselves to that information so that the game will run smoothly. It's not that they aren't making GNS decisions, just that they are making the decisions based on "what is best right now based on what's going on" rather than based on a common reoccuring sink--while I can examine trends when their mood follows a pattern its rarer than opposite. I'll try and explain using an example:

GNS are indicidual cogs that turn, when they run into a player who they are "toothed" for an individual element grinds and shakes but doesn't turn out play. On the other hand when a given cog of the model is applied to someone already in that mode it runs smooth, like a clock. Now in my case my players, because of a certian social element I bring to play, are amophous, whicheve cog is applied or suggested they adapt to fit and run smoothly. Or better yet "move their positioning so that they can line up with other cogs."  But------

Simplistically, a player has a region of space in the 3d model, and will accept possible decisions that 1) fall within that bounded space, and 2) lie closer to their preferred vector. If there are many decisions possible, the one that meets their requirements in all 3 dimensions is likely to be chosen, and if there aren't any decisions available within their prefereed space, they will choose one by changing their space, usually along lines which still respect or prioritize their favorite mode (for the moment).

This is similar to the way it comes across to me, but I think sometimes

that they don't /have/ as much a preference for play as they do for play with me as GM. When I'm GM, I make sure to encourage a feel they enjoy. If they aren't enjoying it as given /I/ adapt, and they adapt, and we reach an accord. Here is that social element--it isn't that they don't ever make GNS style decisions just that the weight of that is so minute as to be unnoticable.

Do your ways of playing fit this idea? Could you provide an example of something that challenges GNS? I know you've done it before elsewhere, but having one example we can discuss, and easily accesible, might be helpful.

I don't really have examples per se because my gaming has for the most part always been functional, thus examining it minutely is more difficult. The biggest issue I think is I've two games I've created one my superhero game supports narrativist/authorical stance shifted play. In this case they love it. On the other hand, my FRPG has very high Simulation "this is what the world is like" support--and they also love it. (They've also resisted any attempts to shift its emphasis out of that).

GNS /seems/ to fail because they are too busy already enjoying play in whatever style we're doing to care "why/how" and I think its because I want it to "work" to improve play, and the fact that it doesn't improve successful play, or enhance it is why I consider it broken.

Because my play is not (at least not when I GM) broken, and I'm trying to tinker with it--like Tim Allen in his standup/TV show--I'm trying to up the power of the tool, but the tool has nothing to do with my gaming.



If that makes sense. GNS is a tool but not the kind of tool you can use to build something, its the kind tool you use to repair something that's broken.


I've very little "broken" (Note, as a player I've found lots broken, but that more to do with my desparation to play and willing to try GM's who just don't fit my interests--nothing GNS at all, as it breaks way before that.)

[Sidhain]

I would like you to consider for a moment, a few possibilities.
1) that "clash" does not necessarily mean violent arguement at the table.  A clash in gaming priorities can simply mean that when three of you walk away from the table ecstatic that 1 of you walks away disappointed.  Is it possible in all the years you've played that you've had players walk away from the table disappointed, perhaps even on a regular basis.  Just because you don't know of it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Not everyone is quick to bring up their own disatisfaction and may well have just kept it quietly to themselves so as not to spoil someone elses fun...perhaps even blaming themselves for it.  Are you sure no one in all of your dozen groups may have been harboring secret disappointment because the game was not what they wanted.

In the years I've been gaming I can count /two/ players who didn't work with the rest of the group (One quite recently). This was something in the players that demanded not a style of play, but "attention" to themselves and their actions. I always try and produce enough tasks/allow action on an equitable basis, but they wanted to be stars of the show and reduce other players to supporting cast. Nothing I could have done to resolve that comes from GNS, they simply didn't want the same social contract as the other players.  I am not a mind reader. I can only go by what they say, or imply by their actions, but aside from those two players above, I've never a want for players beggint to play something, anything, that I run---I could name a game I own at random, and am 90% sure they'd ask "when and where" this doesn't seem to indicate discontent to me, and I'm not someone who has a narrow game selection, I've owned 300 different game systems in the many years I've been playing and usually the above applied.

2) I cannot address with you how "useful" the theory is because I don't understand what you're expecting to be able to do with it.  Is it possible that GNS is in fact a saw, and you're expecting it to be a hammer and after swinging it around a few times you then proclaim that it doesn't drive nails very well and is thus not useful?  Without knowing what "use" you think you should be able to put the theory towards responding to your point is impossible.

See above, I think it's probably a tool, but diagnostic one--and I've refused to see "everything is fine" as an acceptable response when it is used.

And by this I don't mean a vague "I'd like to be able to blah".  I mean an actual honest to god event that really occured that you attempted to explain with GNS and could not.  Not speculation, not an imaginary exercise, an actual use, describable in detail, where it failed.  THAT alone will give us something to talk about.  

I've been trying to shift the emphasis in my FRPG from very simulationist in style to a more Narrativist style. The players whose trend is lately to play Narrativist have refused the changes, and said "We like it as it is now" even though I find the results mundane myself. I tried to guage why they wouldn't prefer the change. It doesn't require any relearning of the rules, just a shift in emphasis from "I choose this event" to "you choose this event"

Finally, I'm not sure how or why you expect something (anything) to be equally useful to everybody.  You dismiss Jesse's testimonial as just being one person and reiterate some idea that if it doesn't help everyone its just a pet project without a point.  I admire your egalatarian spirit, but quite frankly, bollux.

Now I'll admit, I may have been trying to use tool I don't need, but I've been trying to do so without suggesting my players are that much better than everyone elses players. But they might just be. Which suggest to me, that others are trying to use the tool to repair something, that needs to be addressed at a different level than GNS. Because I've not always had the same players (although I do have several players who keep ending up in the groups I put together)

If even one person had their gaming enhanced by the discussions that go on here that's justification enough for the whole thing.  And it isn't one, its dozens, possibly hundreds.  This site is full of people who to one degree or another found the theory useful...or at least found thinking about the topics the theory discusses useful.  I've said before that the process is as important as the destination.

Let me make an absurd example--If one person can have their pain and suffering eased by dying, shouldn't everyone be able to die to easy their pain and suffering?
Just because it helped one person, doesn't mean its a solution for anyone else. Now, yes there are many people here who find it works for them. But I've seen an equal number of people (actually I've seen more than people who post to these kinds of discussions here) who've gamed just fine for decades without GNS.

So if their games are working just fine, and has never needed GNS, why do you suppose that these people who need it to resolve these issue do?


Is it something wrong with gaming--thus needing a gaming model to help explain it?

I've seen it inferred that this is a brilliant leap forward. I do not doubt it might be for some, but what about me who already has succesful groups--why do I need GNS?

In the thread on RPGcreate someone implied it was the "Greatest Evolution" in RPG's in the last five years.

Now--if its only useful to Forge members is it really an Evolution /in/ gaming or just a mutant branch of the family tree? (or maybe an evolution for a mutan branch...?)


I'm trying honestly to examine this, but the fact that your coming off to me as saying something wrong in /all/ groups bothers me a great deal.  (And it may just be the way I'm taking it and not something your trying to indicate)

[taalyn]

Heya Sidhain,

Here's my take on what's going on - feel free to take it with a small Ukrainian salt mine if you need to.

There are two things you're getting wrong about GNS theory:

1) it applies only to the individual gaming instance. So your Narr-tending player who won't take a Simmy game in a Narr direction isn't "disobeying" GNS - that's a fundamental part of the theory. Note too that describing a game as Narr or Sim is verboten - Games are not Simmy, poeple are not either, only individual decisions are. The examples you've provided all fit fine within GNS. Coherent, congruent play is what GNS is built out of, but not, I think, what it is built for:

2) You are trying to use a saw as a hammer. GNS is useful in a game as a way to diagnose where incoherency occurs, and address it in a way that doesn't alienate or value one mode over another. That is, it's a diagnosis tool, and you seem to be trying to apply it to healthy play. That's pointless! ;)

The power and importance of GNS does not lie in analysis of play while play happens (if that's even possible), but in its ability to describe decision points and relate them to one another. GNS is useful in describing games according to the kinds of decisions they are likely to offer (i.e. TRoS offers ways to allow Narrative decisions to be made). It's useful when there are conflicts between players about how to choose when faced with certain decisions - understanding one sort of decision is Narrative, and another is Gamist, you can work with your players to find a solution to the situation that is acceptable to both. You know what's happening in their heads, on a superficial level, and it's unlikely that they do, so you know to find an answer that meets Narrative and Gamist requirements, and can go from there.

At least, that's my understanding. I could have it totally wrong - maybe an expert will speak up and correct me if that's the case.

Aidan

[Sidhain]

1) it applies only to the individual gaming instance. So your Narr-tending player who won't take a Simmy game in a Narr direction isn't "disobeying" GNS - that's a fundamental part of the theory. Note too that describing a game as Narr or Sim is verboten - Games are not Simmy, poeple are not either, only individual decisions

Ah my friend but that is the rub. You see, if the decision doesn't matter--why is there a theory. If /any/ decision in /any/ game is valid. Why are their games that focus on supporting certian elements of GNS decision making? Because if all we can look at is the decisions, then we aren't talking about gaming as a whole at all--but just a single decision point. On the other hand, if we talk about suggesting and enhancing certian decision points with rules, and or providing support for a choice someone makes, then is that game which supports a GNS element got a leaning? If you disconeect indivifual decisions from play, you lose something--the big picture. Perhaps that why I find GNS flawed because, the /big/ picture--the overal acceptable trend of decisions made by a group, and supported by rules creates the experience. I aim to generate fun, fulfilling experiences. Not a /single/ axiomatic choice.

2) You are trying to use a saw as a hammer. GNS is useful in a game as a way to diagnose where incoherency occurs, and address it in a way that doesn't alienate or value one mode over another. That is, it's a diagnosis tool, and you seem to be trying to apply it to healthy play. That's pointless! ;)

I will accept I'm using it in that mode, if you concede that both a hammer and a saw are tools which can be constructive to play, or destructive to play. The problem is, I feel, at its ideal GNS theory is neither. It's more like using a Geiger counter--it detects something, or diagonoses it. But It may be both that and an saw/hammer---for I see it as being possibly destructive to play.

GNS is useful in describing games according to the kinds of decisions they are likely to offer (i.e. TRoS offers ways to allow Narrative decisions to be made).

So how does offering a way to allow G, N, or S, decisions as a singular letter, not qualify the game as leanign Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist?

If a game supports a way to allow a decision to be made, in excess of the other possible directions, is that not a "ist" game?

[Sidhain]

1) it applies only to the individual gaming instance. So your Narr-tending player who won't take a Simmy game in a Narr direction isn't "disobeying" GNS - that's a fundamental part of the theory. Note too that describing a game as Narr or Sim is verboten - Games are not Simmy, poeple are not either, only individual decisions

Ah my friend but that is the rub. You see, if the decision doesn't matter--why is there a theory. If /any/ decision in /any/ game is valid. Why are their games that focus on supporting certian elements of GNS decision making? Because if all we can look at is the decisions, then we aren't talking about gaming as a whole at all--but just a single decision point. On the other hand, if we talk about suggesting and enhancing certian decision points with rules, and or providing support for a choice someone makes, then is that game which supports a GNS element got a leaning? If you disconeect indivifual decisions from play, you lose something--the big picture. Perhaps that why I find GNS flawed because, the /big/ picture--the overal acceptable trend of decisions made by a group, and supported by rules creates the experience. I aim to generate fun, fulfilling experiences. Not a /single/ axiomatic choice.

2) You are trying to use a saw as a hammer. GNS is useful in a game as a way to diagnose where incoherency occurs, and address it in a way that doesn't alienate or value one mode over another. That is, it's a diagnosis tool, and you seem to be trying to apply it to healthy play. That's pointless! ;)

I will accept I'm using it in that mode, if you concede that both a hammer and a saw are tools which can be constructive to play, or destructive to play. The problem is, I feel, at its ideal GNS theory is neither. It's more like using a Geiger counter--it detects something, or diagonoses it. But It may be both that and an saw/hammer---for I see it as being possibly destructive to play. (and constructive as well.)

GNS is useful in describing games according to the kinds of decisions they are likely to offer (i.e. TRoS offers ways to allow Narrative decisions to be made).

So how does offering a way to allow G, N, or S, decisions as a singular letter, not qualify the game as leanign Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist?

If a game supports a way to allow a decision to be made, in excess of the other possible directions, is that not a "ist" game?

[taalyn]

1) it applies only to the individual gaming instance. So your Narr-tending player who won't take a Simmy game in a Narr direction isn't "disobeying" GNS - that's a fundamental part of the theory. Note too that describing a game as Narr or Sim is verboten - Games are not Simmy, poeple are not either, only individual decisions

Ah my friend but that is the rub. You see, if the decision doesn't matter--why is there a theory.

But that's the point - it's the decisions that matter, not Social Contract or Exploration or anything else.

If /any/ decision in /any/ game is valid. Why are their games that focus on supporting certian elements of GNS decision making? Because if all we can look at is the decisions, then we aren't talking about gaming as a whole at all--but just a single decision point.

And that's what the theory says. GNS theory is only part of a spectrum of theories and items that together make up the spectrum. I noted some of them above. GNS is only one piece of the puzzle, and one that many people have found useful to look at independently of the others.

On the other hand, if we talk about suggesting and enhancing certian decision points with rules, and or providing support for a choice someone makes, then is that game which supports a GNS element got a leaning?

To be precise, I would say that the game supports certain kinds of decisions, but basically, yes, that's right.

If you disconeect indivifual decisions from play, you lose something--the big picture. Perhaps that why I find GNS flawed because, the /big/ picture--the overal acceptable trend of decisions made by a group, and supported by rules creates the experience. I aim to generate fun, fulfilling experiences. Not a /single/ axiomatic choice.

I see what you're saying, and it's a valid concern. The problem is that GNS is indeed part of a whole scheme (hence the frequent Venn diagrams). All of these things together (Social contract, exploration, stance, GNS mode) create a picture of the whole game experience. No one's contradicting your idea, merely pointing out that you're not seeing the forest for the trees. Or perhaps vice versa. ;)

The reason, as I understand it (standard disclaimers apply here), for GNS is that when deisgning a game (and not playing it), it's important to explicitly consider the kinds of decisions that the designer wants to be made, and how the mechanics support or hinder that goal. For example, I need to look at combat rules and examine whether these rules allow for and encourage narrativist decisions. Not Narrative play - but only Narrative decisions. Since the theory isn't applicable to play (except as a description of tendencies over time, and even that has its pitfalls), how it's played isn't the issue, but how it's designed.

2) You are trying to use a saw as a hammer. GNS is useful in a game as a way to diagnose where incoherency occurs, and address it in a way that doesn't alienate or value one mode over another. That is, it's a diagnosis tool, and you seem to be trying to apply it to healthy play. That's pointless! ;)

I will accept I'm using it in that mode, if you concede that both a hammer and a saw are tools which can be constructive to play, or destructive to play. The problem is, I feel, at its ideal GNS theory is neither. It's more like using a Geiger counter--it detects something, or diagonoses it. But It may be both that and an saw/hammer---for I see it as being possibly destructive to play.

And that's what I'm trying to say - GNS isn't for play, except in the most vague and indeterminate terms. In fact, in play is precisely where it breaks down and causes problems. When GNS is used in play it almost always becomes pigeonholing (which I know you've commented on in other threads), and becomes a tool of social disfunction - Gamism becomes a BadThing (tm), for example. In that case, a model explicitly for decisions only becomes a tool of Social Contract (not its venue at all), and can indeed cause problems.

So far, though, you haven't proposed anything which addresses the problems of GNS theory on the level it is explicitly stated to reside. GNS does not apply on a Social Contract level or on an Exploration level - it applies only on the level of individual decisions.

GNS is useful in describing games according to the kinds of decisions they are likely to offer (i.e. TRoS offers ways to allow Narrative decisions to be made).

So how does offering a way to allow G, N, or S, decisions as a singular letter, not qualify the game as leanign Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist?

If a game supports a way to allow a decision to be made, in excess of the other possible directions, is that not a "ist" game?

The issue is this - while a single letter decision may be supported by the game, this does not account for 1) every decision and 2) play that is not in that mode. Just because a certain kind of decision is supported does not mean that other ways of deciding can't be equally valid. Just because we describe a game as Simulationist or Gamist does not mean that it can't be played Narratively (i.e. with Narrative decisions versus Sim or Gamist ones). That is why it's a slipper slope to describe players or games using the terms - one starts to expect that this mode or that is all the player or game is capable of. This is how GNS is destructive - when misapplied (just like hammers and saws!)

Aidan

[Caldis]

Lots of discussion going on with very interesting points but I'd just like to add a small point that I think has been missed.

I think where GNS really works is in realizing what it is you like in role playing games and what is the cause of frustrations you have with current games.  I think that it's obvious that many gamers have not found a game that perfectly suits there needs and that's why so many keep looking for a new system or trying to design a better one.  If you know what some of your base goals in playing a game are it's easier to design towards that.

[Bankuei]

Hi guys,

It looks like we've fallen into the classic "How useful is theory if...." pit.  

Let's try looking at it like this...Physics is a theory, based on observable phenomenon.  Everybody has some sense of physics, because people use it every day when they walk, pick things up, shoot a basketball, or drive down the street.  Not everyone knows the language or terminology of physics.  Does this invalidate physics as a useful theory?

Let's seperate some of the recurring issues here:

-GNS is not easy to communicate

Ok, neither is high level physics.  Perhaps there is an easier way to communicate it.  Instead of complaining about it, it would be of more use to try to find a better means of communicating the idea.  

-Knowledge of GNS isn't necessary to have fun

Um, yeah.  No one ever claimed it was the savior to play.  What GNS is, is a set of tools for play that does have problems.  You can also use those tools to "tune up" play that isn't quite on as well.

-GNS doesn't produce games that are always fun, all the time

Uh, yeah.  Someone can make a damn good cheesecake, and if you hate cheesecake, it still won't make you like it.  Will you be upset at the cook because this particular cheesecake didn't change your mind?  

I'm not arguing that GNS is infallible, what I'm arguing is that folks are tripping up over non-issues here.

Chris

[Marco]

Hi guys,

-GNS is not easy to communicate

Ok, neither is high level physics.  Perhaps there is an easier way to communicate it.  Instead of complaining about it, it would be of more use to try to find a better means of communicating the idea.  

Chris

Yeah--I've been sayin' this.  The reasons GNS is hard to communicate is not the same as high-level physics.

-Marco

[Bankuei]

Hi Marco,

Correct, there are different reasons that GNS is hard to communicate.

At its heart, GNS says, "There are different ways to play, coordinate your preference(singular or mixed) with the group(again, singular or mixed, same or different from your own) to prevent problems"  This isn't very controversial.  Once you get past that, all hell breaks loose in terms of communication and understanding.  

Why?  Here's an incomplete, but common list of reasons that GNS becomes hard to communicate:

-The Rorshach test-
Folks read things into GNS that are just not there.  Value judgements about one mode being superior or inferior to another, GNS is the end-all be-all "One true way of gaming" etc, etc.  

-Denial of Dysfunction-
Dysfunctional situations involve not talking about what is going on.  The next step is to go into denial about dysfunction.  After years of being conditioned for denial, actively observing and recognizing what's actually happening in play becomes difficult, if not impossible.  There's more than a few folks who, if given Inspectres, would instantly declare the game "broken" and "unplayable" despite evidence(of actual play) to the contrary.

-Defensiveness-
Along with the above two, folks have this incredible tendency to take every statement as either a dogmatic truth to provide some sense of identity("D20 rules! All others suck!"), or else something that is an attack on their identity that must be defended against.  GNS makes some serious statements that many folks take as a direct attack on their identity.

-Ego-
Some folks just like to argue.  They get some sort of self-esteem boost from arguing anything.  You could honestly post up, "The sun rises in the east" and get arguments to the contrary.

Now, this isn't to say that GNS is all right, all good, all done.  This is to say that its impossible to get any form of constructive criticism or actual understanding going on while operating from one of the above positions.  

GNS is actually harder to communicate than physics, because its asking people to observe their own behaviors, and those of the people around them, and to be honest, truly honest with what's going on.  You don't have feelings or emotional ties to a proton, while its very hard to honestly say that your best friend was power tripping and picking on someone in an emotionally abusive way during a game.

We are not socially trained to have conditioned responses to atoms, but we are trained to have conditioned responses to ego-assertions, peer pressure, negative remarks, to "read into" things, to not overtly and explicitly describe things.

It is no different than arguing color theory with a blind man, who's arguing with you solely based on either what he imagines color to be, or else someone else has bullied him into believing.  Until folks open their eyes, and look at the color first, can any discussion about theory take place.

And no, this isn't just a GNS thing, but pretty much the same issue in any case of observable human behavior.  It just happens that this much larger box of the human condition is playing a serious role in hampering the ability of people to correlate personal observable experience with what is being discussed.

If anyone can point to methods that easily bypass the above issues, along with whatever others exist that I haven't mentioned, please let the world know, it will do wonders for the human condition overall.

Chris