Is G/N/S Valid?

[mythusmage]

Hello.

First, my stance could be called, Adventurist. Why do we play RPGs? From my experience, it's to have adventures. There may be a more socially acceptable reason given, but by and large we play to have adventures.

Then too, as far as I can see, the G/N/S trope starts with assumptions about RPGs that may not be valid. The tendency to view RPGs as much like standard games, or as a type of fiction for another. Then there's the whole thing about simulation, when often people get confused about just what they want to simulate, or should be simulating.

So call me an Adventurist. It's all about the adventure, everything follows from that.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

You're Alan, right? Used to post a lot at the Gaming Outpost?

I'm not seeing anything in your post that refutes or falsifies anything I've presented in my essays. I'll translate your self-description into the vocabulary used in them.

"I enjoy the Situation component of Exploration, and all the other aspects of Exploration feed into that for me, primarily."

However, this might be the case for Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist play. Basically, you're not providing enough information for the theory to work with (which leads me to think you don't really grasp which variables are being addressed by it anyway). Unless you can describe some instances of play, e.g. a session, or a couple of sessions, which really describe for me what pays off for you during play, then I can't take the theory further.

For example, if your examples show that you don't care much about the effects or meaning of the adventure itself, beyond its inherent nifty features that remind you of other adventures in either familiar or novel ways, then I'd suggest that your described mode of play is Simulationist. That doesn't make you just like "every other Simulationist," by the way.

I'm pretty sure you've not read any of the following articles: GNS and related matters of role-playing theory, Simulationism: the right to dream, and Gamism: step on up. If all you're working with is System Does Matter, then there isn't much point to continuing the discussion until you're caught up a bit with the reading.

Best,
Ron

[Gordon C. Landis]

EDIT to note cross-post with Ron, and that what he said makes complete sense to me . . .

Hi mythusmage.  If no one has said it yet (or even if they have) - welcome to the Forge!

Sounds to me like there's nothing controversial in your place to start ("everything follows from that") - "Adventurist" is a reasonable stand-in for "Exploration," the word usually used here to describe one of the big things that you must have, without which there's no RPGing going on.

The question (and where GNS as a possible answer kicks in) is "what exactly IS it that follows from that?"  GNS says that within the specific context of Exploration (as opposed to all the normal social things that might happen when a group of people get together), three things are what follows:  The Dream (of Sim), Step On Up/Challenge (of Game), or Story Now (of Nar).

So - others may have more to say, but I'm not sure I see what you're asking at this point.  My questions to continue discussion from here would be: have you read the stuff on Exploration in the "GNS and other matters" essay?  Does that roughly fit with what you'd see as a place start (again, in your "everything follows from that" sense)?  If so - why don't you think G, N and S fit as next-layer-down descriptions?  If not . . .  well, that's a harder disagreement to reconcile, I think, but - why not?

Gordon

[mythusmage]

I must admit I'm sounding things out here. If the lead advocates for the respective 'stances' could send a precis of same via email, I'll be able to study them and compose an essay detailing my position.

Let's just say (and this falls under theory) that my position vis a vis RPGs is not, nececssarily, the same as most folks.

BTW, I used post over on the Gaming Outpost, but it became too much a one man show for my tastes.

Alan

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Alan,

Welcome to the Forge.

I'm not sure exactly what you were asking for in that last post.

But let me offer this:

At the top this page you'll find a link called "Articles."  Click on it, and you will be taken to a list of articles here at the Forge.  Some of them are the very same articles Ron suggested you read.

No one needs to email you something (as far as I know).  The article link is just due north.

Check it.  You'll probably have a good time.

Christopher

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings,

To answer the question in mythusmage's Title:

Only so far as you, the individual, think it (or any theory) is.

This holds true for the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Relativity.  However, at some point, understanding of the wider context of the issues involved may be required to make an educated decision one way or the other.

The question (and where GNS as a possible answer kicks in) is "what exactly IS it that follows from that?"  GNS says that within the specific context of Exploration (as opposed to all the normal social things that might happen when a group of people get together), three things are what follows:  The Dream (of Sim), Step On Up/Challenge (of Game), or Story Now (of Nar).

Just in the above paragraph we see three threads.  1) a 'game' goal orientation dynamic [vix. "exploration"] expressed by a theme structure; 2) a social [potentially socio-pathological, anthropological, and just about any other -ical you can think of ;)] dynamic that revolves not around the game or even the nature of the rules but rather the how's and why's the playes at the table do what they do, and; 3) the attempt to distill the nature of role-playing into codefied aspects.

The only change I would make to what Mr. Landis wrote is "Step On Up/Challenge (of Play)".

Why?

Because the central figure of the Theory is (or should be) the Game, whic in this case is Role-Playing. . .  Alas, for most, the line blurs.  Which is being discussed:  The Game? or Role-Playing?

Role-Playing is multi-faceted.  It has subtle elements that include a game, but is not exclusively THE game.  Thus, for those detractors of the model, the real core issue usually centers upon Gamist/Gamism.

Why?

As mentioned Role-Playing is one dynamic of the game, but it is not GAME, just a game.  A reorientation of the model to place GAME at the center would thus require that Narrativism and Simulation be placed into a new trinary arraingement, at least for those who seek to use the Theory to define GAME as opposed to Role-Playing, which invariable gets distilled into its interactive social aspects as opposed to those rule centric gaming aspects. . .  More or less.

How do I come to these conclussions?

Observations of debate/discussion of the topic in various threads.   Too often those attempting to engage in a civil discourse end up talking past one another, which leads to frustration.

But then you already knew that.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[mythusmage]

I've started a thread over in 'theory' entitled, Understanding Roleplaying Games. I cover G/N/S there as well, giving my take on the matter as I understand it.

My thanks for the heads-up on the articles. When I've read them I'll be commenting on same.

Alan

[permacultureguerilla]

I think the G/N/S model has clear concepts, but sooner or later will be somehow summarized more carefully and with other words. (I'm tempted to try it . . . ) but it's the best in game theory I've read (which isn't much, and I didn't read all of G/N/S) to date.

I would have entitled this "adventurism" (as with "sharks with lazers"), but I shouldn't nitpick. Here's my tack.

My crudely simplified categories would go like this:

1) Some want the game all rules, no room for mistakes in design. It doesn't mean winners & losers (it's easy to organize anyways), and doesn't mean a heavy line of barcodes. But essentially you should be able to convert the roleplaying into a video game if you really wanted to (no reflex-based).

2) Some want it entirely strategic, no fortune. The more fortune, the more they're not actually playing (I remember laughing to myself babysitting, where the entire game was rolling dice and the boy was getting excited winning. Makes me wonder exactly how often there's reason behind our excitement in near-pure fortune).

EVERYONE wants an intense game. Not necessarily "big, freaky." But intensely funny or intense in some way.

All the other elements I'd call more of tendencies than categories. The character could be a plant in a farmyard. It's still "a game." The points are still valid.

Believe it or not, I hate playing role playing games, adventurous or not. But I'm obsessed with the idea of a purely gamist universe that'll let you play anything accurately with very few pages (and motivated to roleplay).

[crkdface]

Hallo,

 "Why do we play RPGs?"

There are lots of reasons why folks play RPGs.

"Then too, as far as I can see, the G/N/S trope starts with assumptions about RPGs that may not be valid."

That may be. I can see lots of problems with GNS, the same as I have problems with the older RGFA Threefold (and I was involved in the discussions that gave rise to that.) The issues you bring up, though, aren't among those and I have to scratch my head and wonder what you see the GNS explaining.

I'll also take this opportunity to ask whether the third supporting article is near finished. I've posted a rough draft of critique of the Threefold on my site and touch on very basic critique of parts of GNS in it (as well as some of the rest applying to GNS the same as Threefold). I will be writing an involved critique of GNS and want to make certain I have all the articles at hand. So, any word on that last article?

Larry

[Mike Holmes]

Larry, can you post a link to the articles you're posting once they're up?

The Gamism article hasn't been out long, and Ron has taken his time with them. So I'm not sure it'll be out any time soon. But who knows? :-)

Mike

Edited: I found Raven's link in the other thread.