Topic: Defining GNS Through Examples
Started by: Andrew Morris
Started on: 8/16/2004
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 8/16/2004 at 8:03pm, Andrew Morris wrote:
Defining GNS Through Examples
I've been following the New 3D Model thread, and found it very easy to grasp. This reminded me that I (along with others) have difficulty fully understanding GNS. I tend to find that, just as I believe I've "gotten it," someone brings up a point in a thread that makes me realize I don't, in fact, know what I'm talking about, and should study it some more.
So, in the hopes of understanding GNS, could some folks more knowledgeable in the theory post as many examples of games that exemplify one mode or another? I'm looking for quintessentially Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist games, not games that support mixed modes.
I don't know that this will suddenly cause GNS to make sense to me, but hopefully it will at least allow me (and others) to look at it from a different angle. It seems like a good idea from where I'm sitting, at least.
So, to sum up, I'm looking for:
1. Examples of pure (as much as possible) Gamist games
2. Examples of pure (as much as possible) Narrativist games
3. Examples of pure (as much as possible) Simulationist games
If you can also explain exactly what makes it so, that would be great as well.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 12289
On 8/16/2004 at 10:23pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Defining GNS Through Examples
Hi Andrew,
Not to be a real jerk about this ...
... but the three GNS-specific essays are full of examples as best as I could do.
Best,
Ron
On 8/17/2004 at 2:02am, Andrew Morris wrote:
RE: Defining GNS Through Examples
No problem, Ron, I don't think you're being a jerk, just direct, which is always cool by me. Anyway, I was aware of the examples in the essays, but:
1. Things are constantly being debated, refined, and changed, so the current way of thinking might have ruled out some of those examples or added to them.
2. I wasn't completely certain that the examples were (as I stated I was looking for) examples of purely Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist games, but rather pointing out specific elements in games that showed a particular point being discussed in the essay.
So, to be completely clear, I was looking for examples that others consider to be "perfect" examples, not anything hybrid. The kind of games where someone would say, "Oh, yeah, that's absolutely, one hundred percent, no bones about it Gamism/Narrativism/Simulationism."
If that's in the essays, then, yes, my fault. Kill the thread and I'll go back and read the esasys again. If it's not, then I'd still like to see examples of it.
On 8/17/2004 at 2:21am, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Defining GNS Through Examples
Hi Andrew,
Trouble is, I'm not sure what you're looking for exists.
I mean, I can give you an example of a game whose designer worked like a dog, with or without the vocabulary of GNS, to encourage a brand of play which falls very solidly into one Creative Agenda and not the others.
(How would I know? Because I've conducted many extensive interviews, some of which were pretty enlightening.)
And I could give you examples of games which in my experience and observation have done a damn good job of facilitating certain CAs.
But ....
1. No game "is" a Creative Agenda of any kind.
2. No Creative Agenda is so limited as to be archetypally described by a single game. All three are mighty plural, and include modes/procedures of play which are completely incompatible.
So, I guess I'm not gonna be very helpful, ruefully.
Best,
Ron
On 8/17/2004 at 3:40am, Andrew Morris wrote:
RE: Defining GNS Through Examples
Ron Edwards wrote: 1. No game "is" a Creative Agenda of any kind.
Right, I thought saying "Gamist games" was acceptable shorthand for saying "games that tend to facilitate Gamist play."
Ron Edwards wrote: 2. No Creative Agenda is so limited as to be archetypally described by a single game. All three are mighty plural, and include modes/procedures of play which are completely incompatible.
I guess I can understand that. Unfortunately, it means this idea isn't going to work. Ah, well.
On 8/19/2004 at 10:26pm, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Defining GNS Through Examples
Andrew Morris wrote: Right, I thought saying "Gamist games" was acceptable shorthand for saying "games that tend to facilitate Gamist play."That's correct; but the word "facilitate" becomes the problem.
People can and do play nearly all games in all three agenda. Sometimes one person's analysis of a game is based on his perception of what is happening, and misses something. For example, I know Hackmaster players who view it as everything D&D3E should have been, a good solid return to the old days of hack 'n' slash dungeon crawls. On the other hand, somewhere here there's a thread suggesting that Hackmaster may be the first post-modern game, in which the rules themselves aren't the game but a prop for the game, and the real role playing is that players play stereotypical players running characters in a dungeon crawl game--making a statement about who we are. I don't know how that's played, but the fact that what the text intends is open to debate makes it difficult to assess based on reading the rules.
What you need aren't examples so much of games that support one or another agendum, but actual play examples that show them in action. I see a lot of those around here, and I don't even follow the actual play forum.
--M. J. Young