Hi,

I have recently read Ron's article on the GNS model. What an eye-opener! Having played one RPG (Chivalry & Sorcery) in one campaign setting (Middle-Earth) for nearly twenty years now it was quite amazing to read an article that showed not only how far game designers and players had taken the hobby but also explained why each of the players in our group find certain aspects of our game irritating and other aspects wonderful (and seldom agree on which bits are which). I must say I found it all rather clever.

Then again, I wouldn't say I understood all of it. No fault of the article there, mind you, I think it is just taking me a while to absorb the concepts. In an effort to improve my understanding of the GNS model I'm trying to apply it in a concrete exercise.

A few months ago I acquired The Riddle of Steel RPG. It is an interesting game, one that I feel has a lot of potential. Recently, I read a review of the game at RPG.net (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10177.phtml). I want to know if this negative review can be explained through an understanding of the GNS model. In other words can the GNS classification of the reviewer be inferred from the review and compared to the GNS classification of the game? This might help a review reader understand where the reviewer is coming from and who the game is best suited for.

I'm hoping that someone familiar with the GNS model and with the game might be willing to read the review and express an opinion on this.

Many thanks for your help.

Cheers,

In specific response to the TROS question:

Reading that review and others, I come to the conclusion that the reviewers came to the game expecting a certain mood, and TROS delivers a different mood very effectively. It's not a GNS thing, as far as I can tell; something more along the line of "genre expectations" might be closer to the mark.

Double post.

Hi Ian,

Whether one can see GNS preferences in someone's response to a game design is an interesting question. As I start this message, my answer is: I don't know. Maybe I'll have an opinion by the end.

I will assert that many responses to a game like The Riddle of Steel are the result of assumptions on the part of the reviewer about what role-playing is and how it should be played.

One kind of assumption is synecdoche: mistaking part for the whole. An example is when someone is determined that their way of playing is the only way, and all else is not role-playing.

There are also specific assumptions that arise from the way most RPGs have been played over the past 30 years. The two that show up most in criticisms of TROS are about who directs the course of events and the nature of heroism.

Historically, much RPG play has bought into "The Impossible Thing" - that the GM authors the story and the players author their character's parts. This reflects the high concentration of directorial power in the role of GM in games like D&D in all its incarnations. Many styles of simulationism emphasize this power split, restricting players to playing their characters as a stage actor might, without any other power to contribute to the imagined events. Techniques used for defining character behavior are ramapant in these game designs.

Also, games like D&D, with its surprisingly durable higher-level characters, have skewed what it means to be a hero. Heroism has always had both elements of superhuman capability and the courage to make choices in the face of risk. In many RPGs, the superhuman capabilities are emphasized to the point of eliminating any meaningful risk. After playing such games, some people identify "heroic" with "superhuman."

When these above assumptions meet TROS, they are challenged: First, TROS Spiritual Attributes appear superficially to be behavior traits, so readers can have difficulty understanding that they don't restrict player choices. Second the SAs are actually a means for _player_ choice to direct play - taking some of that directorial power often restricted to the GM. In fact, they're so powerful, that, to run a good game, a TROS GM must completely surrender all ideas of _leading_ the story and instead let the players develop story and take the role of tweaking to increase tension. This can be a very hard thing to give up.

Also, the risky nature of TROS combat and magic challenges the assumption of heroism as superhuman power. And because the reader is already rejecting the idea of SAs as they are intended, they miss the fact that SAs are what alleviate the risk.

As an additional comment: when a reader feels a core belief challenged, they tend to be hypercritical. So a reviewer who might have let a flaw slide in a game they are comfortable with, will attack it in a game that confuses them.

So to answer your question: I think many responses to TROS in particular come from assumptions that are learned from certain styles of simulationist play. I guess answer is yes, GNS preferences do show up in reviews, but not directly. And I would say that a reviewer with more self-awareness about their own preferences will give a more equible review.

Very well said Alan,

you should copy this and keep it handy to post in the RPG.net review forum the next time a carbon copy slam review of TROS comes out.

Hi,

Alan wrote: Whether one can see GNS preferences in someone's response to a game design is an interesting question. As I start this message, my answer is: I don't know. Maybe I'll have an opinion by the end.

Frankly Ian, I think your last post is way over the line both in terms of GNS and in terms of polite discussion as in "not speculating what another person may be thinking or be motivated by".
The latter is – in turn – none of my business and moreover not a suitable topic for this thread or the Forge, so I just state my personal preferences/opinions and be done with the matter.
Concerning GNS and it's use for analysing the review:
(a) Game texts, rules as written have no GNS mode. They may support one mode better than the rest or support multiple modes, but CAs become relevant in actual play. As has been observed repeatedly, any game can be played in any CA mode, hence reasoning from one to the other is not actually possible.
(b) A particular person's preferred GNS mode is not necessarily the one the person wants to have or claims to have and people may actually "multi-class" with respect to GNS (though it's one mode at a time only AFAIK). So whatever mode someone seems to come from in a review is a poor basis for judging that persons favourite GNS mode.
(c) Assuming we agree, that bias can the be only halfway reasonable basis for the shaky inference from review to reviewer's GNS mode, it's presumptuous to assume one is able to separate GNS incompatibility from ingrained habits on the basis of one's own interpretation of the text. A person's gaming history will shape their expectations and at times cloud their judgement just fine without any GNS incompatibilities involved.

So, in aggregate: if you feel the need to rationalise, retrofit or explain away a review, you can of course do so using GNS. You might just as well use some tee-leaves, or, to switch metaphors, use a chainsaw to drive a nail through wood. GNS is not a tool for analysing game texts, or reviews, it's about analysing play. And while you can of course apply elements of GNS to an analysis of game texts and reviews, they cumulative loan in terms of presumptions and shaky inferences IMHO makes the whole exercise a fine way to waste your time. You are most certainly not going to arrive at any conclusions which are any more certain than a blind guess or which will stand up to any rigourous scrutiny.
Then again, if it makes you happy .. it can't be that wrong! ;)

Jeez, Montag!

I think basically Ian is just trying to figure out Zoe's 'tells', something we had a post on recently ( http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10261 ).

The goal is to figure out from her tells why she doesn't like the game. However, it does have a bit of a 'why did she write like this' rather than a 'what does she like in play' angle on it, which isn't that great. Other than that, it seems an extension of that tells thread's idea.

Now I'm quite confused. I liked Ian's post a lot, because I thought it amounted to a nuanced reading of a review that was negative because of a strong difference of CA preference. If Zoe had played the game, based on her review, she would not have liked it; GNS would suggest that the reason might be because of incoherence: she wants Gamism, and the game doesn't effectively support that, so if she'd played it with a Gamist group of friends they would have ended up with incoherent play. Doesn't mean she's wrong -- in fact, I don't think TROS supports Gamist play terribly well, nor does it try to do so.

Montag wrote: As has been observed repeatedly, any game can be played in any CA mode, hence reasoning from one to the other is not actually possible.

Noon wrote: However, it does have a bit of a 'why did she write like this' rather than a 'what does she like in play' angle on it, which isn't that great. Other than that, it seems an extension of that tells thread's idea.

Noon wrote: Jeez, Montag!
I think basically Ian is just trying to figure out Zoe's 'tells', something we had a post on recently ( http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10261 ).
The goal is to figure out from her tells why she doesn't like the game. However, it does have a bit of a 'why did she write like this' rather than a 'what does she like in play' angle on it, which isn't that great. Other than that, it seems an extension of that tells thread's idea.

You guys can all agree to disagree and still get along, right?

Right? If I ever get the idea that phrases like "with all due respect" are not being used in the most honest way possible, that constitutes a flame.* And that means that I am going by totally arbitrary judgment calls, with an eye toward over-responding in order to make the point, if necessary.

My current perception is that you guys are being civil - but only barely. Please bring it a little further from the line, and remember that I cannot perceive what you know you really mean. Let's make what you mean absolutely clear.

Best,
Ron

* Example: a while ago, an active poster at the Forge at that time used the words "sir" or "sirrah" to address people he was annoyed with. I confronted him, pointing out that his use of "sir" constituted "you fucking idiot" in my perception, and that he was, in fact, flaming.

Hi,

montag wrote: Frankly Ian, I think your last post is way over the line both in terms of GNS and in terms of polite discussion as in "not speculating what another person may be thinking or be motivated by".

montag wrote: (a) Game texts, rules as written have no GNS mode. They may support one mode better than the rest or support multiple modes, but CAs become relevant in actual play. As has been observed repeatedly, any game can be played in any CA mode, hence reasoning from one to the other is not actually possible.

montag wrote: (b) A particular person's preferred GNS mode is not necessarily the one the person wants to have or claims to have and people may actually "multi-class" with respect to GNS (though it's one mode at a time only AFAIK). So whatever mode someone seems to come from in a review is a poor basis for judging that persons favourite GNS mode.

montag wrote: (c) Assuming we agree, that bias can the be only halfway reasonable basis for the shaky inference from review to reviewer's GNS mode, it's presumptuous to assume one is able to separate GNS incompatibility from ingrained habits on the basis of one's own interpretation of the text. A person's gaming history will shape their expectations and at times cloud their judgement just fine without any GNS incompatibilities involved.

montag wrote: (SNIP)GNS is not a tool for analysing game texts, or reviews, it's about analysing play.

Ian.Plumb wrote: Hi,

montag wrote: Frankly Ian, I think your last post is way over the line both in terms of GNS and in terms of polite discussion as in "not speculating what another person may be thinking or be motivated by".

?!

montag wrote: SNIP

I haven't read all the threads on CA mode. In fact I haven't read any threads on CA mode. I have only read Ron's article entitled "GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory". It doesn't mention CA. If you could post a link to an article that describes CA and its place in the GNS model I would be happy to read it, in an effort to understand where you are coming from.

My objective here isn't to determine someone's GNS mode, but rather to determine how relevant a review is to me and the way I play. For instance, if the opening paragraph of a review stated "My gaming group think I'm a Simulationist and here's my opinion of (the game)", if it told me how many hours were spent playing the game, and if it told me whether the reviewer played and/or refereed for that time, then I might have a better understanding of how relevant the review would be to me.

montag wrote: (c) Assuming we agree, that bias can the be only halfway reasonable basis for the shaky inference from review to reviewer's GNS mode, it's presumptuous to assume one is able to separate GNS incompatibility from ingrained habits on the basis of one's own interpretation of the text. A person's gaming history will shape their expectations and at times cloud their judgement just fine without any GNS incompatibilities involved.

Is the logical conclusion of this that a review of a game is meaningless to anyone but the reviewer? Taking into account the likelihood of GNS differences between reviewer and reader, and then adding on gaming history differences, the chances of the reviewer's perspective being relevant to the reader are minimal?

Ian,

C.A. is for Creative Agenda, the term which has come to replace the (I believe) small p 'premise' in Ron's original essay to keep it from being confused with Narrativist Premise. The best overall view of the model is at this point located in the Narrtivism: Story Now essay. Or in this thread.

I'd recommend reading all the mode essays, it helps clarify the original quite a bit, and there has been some evolution over time.

regards,

Trevis

hmmm, for what its worth, Ian I thought your analysis of Zoe's play habits to be a quite reasonable bit of detective work. Obviously there's the built in caveat of having only a single data point to go on, but I think you had some pretty good observations.

I also don't think its accurate to say that GNS has no value in evaluating game text or reviews. By and large that is a good rule of thumb, because it heads off the sort of analysis that most people would do looking at mechanics and such.

But the written text conveys tells just as personal conversation does. While alot of RPG authors go to some length to purge those from their work using a more formal style, those that use a conversational tone especially carry indicators of their authors thoughts. Games like Burning Wheel, Arrow Flight and TROS actually convey in spots some pretty clear glimpses behind the curtain at what the author considered important (at least at the time of the writing).

Reviews are similiar. This one made no effort at all at any kind of use of formal grammar or structure. In tone it was largely a rant. And that rant IMO does display certain biases and assumptions of the author. In truth a hastily written emotionally felt written work like this review probably conveys a more honest sense of the authors underlying beliefs than actually asking them would.

So while one obviously can't say "the review is gamist". I think its entirely reasonable to suggest that the tone of the review indicates that the reviewer likely has gamist tendencies and that is quite probably the source of much of the disatisfaction with TROS.

I would agree that it would be very nice to have a reviewer state their GNS preferences up front and also that, in the absence of such a statement, you can try to infer these preferences.

But there is a lot more to a person's tastes than just GNS. For example, in the attached forum of the review there's a huge thread where the issue is whether you prefer the a priori or the a posteriori perspective when creating characters. That's a preference that, at least in my experience, is pretty much independent of GNS preference.

SR
--