I've been lurking here for quite some time, and when I first read the various GNS articles, they didn't make much sense to me. Over time, I think I've started to figure it out, but I difficultly reconciling GNS types with Robin Laws' gamer types (which I understood but didn't find all that useful).

Today it hit me. GNS types are about player motivation. Laws' types are about player behavior. Obviously behavior is much more easier observable than motivation, which is why Laws' types made sense to me on an instinctual level. They matched things I'd seen before. GNS types, on the other hand, are something that give rise to varying behaviors, and really need to be talked about to be understood.

Am I barking up the wrong tree here, or does this actually make sense?

Thanks,

--Paul

Umm, I'm afraid...not really.

GNS is all about player behavior. Motivation enters into it only because motivation is the ultimate progenitor of behavior, but since motivation is impossible to observe and isn't really even that reliable to self analyse, GNS analysis is restricted to actual in play observed behavior.

The difference between GNS and Robin's Laws IMO is that Robin's Laws are pretty darn superficial. They touch only behaviors that are easily recognized and generally do so from a perspective that isn't really interested in doing anything other than sticking people in a box.

They both look at behavior, but Robin's Laws doesn't then actually do anything with the categories other than a pretty non rigorous "here they are, now that you know find a way to play nice" approach. In otherwords it started with a bunch of boxes, found patterns of behavior, that frankly, by and large aren't really that inciteful...most of them are pretty obvious, and then just started sorting.

GNS started with the idea that the behaviors are more than just patterns to be categorized. They say something about play priorities. So GNS attempts to identify those play priorities first and then identify the behaviors that go into them.


Did that make things even more cloudy for you...?

GNS is all about player behavior. Motivation enters into it only because motivation is the ultimate progenitor of behavior, but since motivation is impossible to observe and isn't really even that reliable to self analyse, GNS analysis is restricted to actual in play observed behavior.

Hi, ptevis

Yeah, but you can't see motivation. I mean, right now, what is my motivation for posting this? Can't see it except in observing my behavior. It boils down to what Ralph said. Robin's laws says "here are all the different types of behavior, now that you know, you can get along with each other now." GNS says "here are the different behaviors and this is why you probably should be in differnet groups with a similar creative agenda and then you'll have a better time"

Yeah, but you can't see motivation.

I may not be totally on the mark either, but I'll give you an example.

I was in this game for over a year. We were all Samurai in the Legend of the Five Rings world. Every adventure ended up being about running into a bad-ass monster that was badder than the last one. The GM was really into increasing the difficulty (mechanically speaking), but he didn't make strong connections between the encounters and the characters. Some if the players loved it, stepped up to the plate, and got into beating the challenge. I watched my character shrivel up into a wargaming unit.

I spent a long time wondering why I was playing the game. I got angry, because the game sucked for me. The I felt bad, because I was getting angry at my friend because of a game. Reading about GNS and thinking about things finally got me to realize that the game did not, nor would it ever, satisfy my needs as a gamer. I was out of alignment with the rest of the group.

Thing is, from the info in Robin's Laws I couldn't have come to that conclusion. The solution was: we are too different, stop playing with them. Not, do your best to understand them so that you can work better together.

Even beyond that "Butt Kicker" doesn't necessarily mean anything about play preferences.

You can have a Nar butt kicker who enjoys the power to impact the story and make powerful statements that being a butt kicker gives him. I must admit, this is one of my favorite styles. I like the power to address premise that having the power of life and death over NPCs gives me to choose who lives and who doesn't and what that says about who my character is.

A Gamist Butt Kicker is of course the traditional combat guy we all know and love. But its easy to envision a Sim Butt Kicker too. I'd venture to say that large amounts of group dysfunction comes from Gamist Butt Kickers and Sim Butt Kickers clashing.

In fact, I'd venture that a large number of Nar Butt Kickers evolved from trying to game with Gamist or Sim Butt Kickers and trying to find a route that would give them the power to address premise from within that group dynamic.


So right there you have an example of 3 gamers who are all "Butt Kickers" who probably really hate playing with each other. A term of rather limited use, IMO.

So right there you have an example of 3 gamers who are all "Butt Kickers" who probably really hate playing with each other. A term of rather limited use, IMO.

Hi ptevis,

To a certain extent, we're all running into a terminological problem in this thread. It stems from the fact that the word "motivation" means tremendously different things to different people.

If I'm reading you right, you are using "motivation" very much like I use the word "agenda." The neat thing about an agenda is that, overt or hidden, it is real - it's evident in what the person actually does. Maybe it takes more than a few observations to be sure, but you don't "accidentally" have an agenda - it's there. Even if you never articulate it to yourself.

So if you were to substitute "agenda" in your posts here, then you know what Ralph (Valamir) and Jack would say? They'd say, spot on, you got it.

Can you live with saying "agenda" instead? If so, then we're all golden and your point about the Big Model as opposed to Robin's Laws stands.

Best,
Ron

If I'm reading you right, you are using "motivation" very much like I use the word "agenda."

So if you were to substitute "agenda" in your posts here, then you know what Ralph (Valamir) and Jack would say? They'd say, spot on, you got it.

Can you live with saying "agenda" instead? If so, then we're all golden and your point about the Big Model as opposed to Robin's Laws stands.

Valamir wrote: In fact, I'd venture that a large number of Nar Butt Kickers evolved from trying to game with Gamist or Sim Butt Kickers and trying to find a route that would give them the power to address premise from within that group dynamic.

Hi there,

Paul wrote: went for a bike ride today, and while I was out, I thought, "But don't both models couch things in terms what players want?" And in so doing, I further confused myself.

From "Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering", pages 4-5
The Power Gamer wants to make his character bigger, tougher, buffer, and richer. However success is defined by the rules system you're using, this player wants more of it. He tends to see his PC as an abstraction, as a collection of super powers optimized for the acquisition of still more super powers. He pays close attention to the rules, with a special eye to finding quirks and breakpoints he can exploit to get large benefits at comparatively low costs. He wants you to put the "game" back in the term "roleplaying game", and to give him good opportunities to add shiny new abilities to his character sheet.

The Butt-Kicker wants to let off steam with a little old-fashioned vicarious mayhem. He picks a simple, combat-ready character, whether or not that is the best route to power and success in the system. After a long day in the office or classroom, he wants his character to clobber foes and once more prove his superiority over all who would challenge him. He may care enough about the rules to make his PC an optimal engine of destruction, or may be indifferent to them, so long as he gets to hit things.

The Tactician is probably a military buff, who wants chances to think his way through complex, realistic problems, usually those of the battlefield. He wants the rules, and your interpretation of them, to jibe with reality as he knows it, or at least to portray an internally consistent, logical world in which the quality of his choices is the biggest determining factor in his success or failure. He may view issues of characterization as a distraction. He becomes annoyed when other players do things which fit their PCs' personalities, but are tactically unsound. To satisfy him, you must provide challenging yet logical obstacles for his character to overcome.

The Specialist favors a particular character type, which he plays in every campaign and in every setting. The most common sub-type of specialist is the player who wants to be a ninja every time. Other specialists may favor knights, cat-people, mischief-makers, flying characters, or wistful druid maidens who spend a lot of time hanging about sylvan glades with faeries and unicorns. The specialist wants the rules to support his favored character type, but is otherwise indifferent to them. To make a specialist happy, you have to create scenes in which his character can do the cool things for which the archetype is known.

The Method Actor believes that roleplaying is a medium for personal expression, strongly identifying with the character he plays. He may believe that it's creatively important to establish a radically different character each time out. The method actor bases his decisions on his understanding of his character's psychology, and may become obstructive if other group members expect him to contradict it for rules reasons, or in pursuit of a broader goal.

The Storyteller, like the method actor, is more inclined to the roleplaying side of the equation and less interested in numbers and experience points. On the other hand, he's more interested in taking part in a fun narrative that feels like a book or a movie than in strict identification with his character. He's quick to compromise if it moves the story forward, and may get bored when the game slows down for a long planning session. You can please him by introducing and developing plot threads, and by keeping the action moving, as would any skilled novelist or film director.

The Casual Gamer is often forgotten in discussions of this sort, but almost every group has one. Casual gamers tend to be low key folks who are uncomfortable taking center stage even in a small group. Often, they're present to hang out with the group, and game just because it happens to be the activity everyone else has chosen.

Though they're elusive creatures, casual gamers can be vitally important to a gaming group's survival. They fill out the ranks, which is especially important in games that spread vital PC abilities across a wide number of character types or classes. Especially if they're present mostly for social reasons, they may fill an important role in the group's interpersonal dynamic. Often they're the mellow, moderating types who keep the more assertive personalities from each other's throats -- in or out of character.

Hello,

To participate in this one, I think I'll have to start with ...
The GNS paradigm - a polite refute (a bit of an unholy mess, but many individual posts are helpful)
Types of players (which I quoted from in ...)
Robin's Laws? (in which my point about "skewers" is really what I want to emphasize for this thread)

Let me know if these threads provide some insight, and we'll take it from there.

Best,
Ron

Let me know if these threads provide some insight, and we'll take it from there.

Going back and re-reading those previous threads, and turning this over in my head, it does seem to me that the two models (GNS and Laws') are about different things. In particular, I think Emily hits the nail on the head by saying the Laws' classification is, in the literal sense, superficial.

At base, Laws is examining outcome. He's trying to classify the types of play we actually see in practice, on the basis of their effects. He then reasons backwards to some underlying motivations that I, for one, find rather dubious. I also think the classification list is too short and insufficiently precise to be terribly valuable, but I think it's a very useful start (and much better than the previous 4-type models).

GNS, on the other hand, is examining agenda, which is to say cause. The point of the model is to figure out what causes people to act, and then work at that deeper level to provide satisfaction (through coherence, etc.). This is why Ron is so anxious not to classify people in terms of GNS: you can't do that, because people can really only be classified by either the outcome (what we actually see them do) or by their interior motivations, which are inaccessible.

My feeling, then, is that GNS is a more sophisticated instrument. At the same time, it is exceedingly difficult to use it backwards. You can't reason from effect to cause except on the limited ground of "instance," a term that seems perpetually elusive, and which certainly has no one-to-one correlation to particular people.

I do think, however, that GNS could be used to predict a range of player-types, that is to predict how people with different types of CA's and subtypes would end up acting in actual games, under various circumstances. You could in essence create a very lengthy chart of these, and describe what they ought to look like. Then you'd want to see whether the predicted player-types are actually present, and actually consistent, because if they are then you could, given a strong analysis of the games in which you saw them play, infer backwards to GNS preferences.

This would be a very nice diagnostic instrument, so long as it weren't taken as gospel or absolute. A polythetic methodology would almost certainly be required, as well: you're not going to be able to define the predicted types on the basis of a singular "essence."

Or am I totally out in left field?