I have been reading the articles about the GNS model and a few threads and i have a question regarding the design and play of the GNS model.

Note: if you have already addressed this, please point me to the thread and i will read up. I am still working on catching up to the present.

In the "GNS and other matters..." article Edwards discusses play and design in terms of the GNS model and disfunction resulting for poor designs. The examples given in the article made sense, such as playing the currency exchanges to gain more resource points, but what about the difference between how a game is played v. how it was designed.

For example, it sounds like it is possible to write an RPG with a simulationist stance but have the participants choose a different model while playing. The focus of the writing is on the creation of the character, SIS, and heavily devoted to including "realism" (i will define this in a bit); however, the participants (players and GM(s)) may wish to play narratively (i.e. with a focus on story).

Realism: in my current context I use this term to refer to the RPG's attempt to represent as accuratly as possible the physics of the world. Doing so seems to lead to complex designs (not necessarly heavily layered), which simplify physical properties into usable character resources, or systems. A good example is the equation for kinetic energy ( E=1/2mv^2). With this, it is easy to see that an object's speed has much more to do with its energy than it's mass. Thus, throwing a rock at someone imparts much more energy (damage) to him/her than holding the rock and hitting someone with it.

My question is this: If the design of a game overtly adheres to one of the GNS models, is it a form of poor design or disfunction if the participants play it under a different model?

Hello,

Welcome! That is a brilliantly stated inquiry and I am happy to be able to answer it.

The first idea I'll present is that the only "dysfunction" we should call by that word concerns play which is not fun.

The second is that rules are only text on a page, and that System (as a jargon term) applies only to actual/real play.

Both of these ideas are better, more modern statements of points I was making in that essay. Taken together, they support a concept which I think you'll like: Drift - altering the System so as to accord better with a given GNS-preference.

Let's take a game which, as you say, looks as if it supports Simulationist play very well. A group picks it up, and through their own shared preferences of play, without even thinking about it much, prepare a very Premise-heavy Narrativist-type imaginary situation, characters and all. They play and have a great time, relying mainly on social confirmation and rewards as positive feedback, without much if any mechanical reinforcement for it.

This example is not yet Drift. They played Narrativist and were able to use this particular rules-set without fuss. Perhaps they didn't even notice or care that the rules-set could have been utilized toward Simulationist goals, or (to pick the most negative interpretation) would have thought people who did so were "bad role-players."

Now let's hop, oh, ten months later, and they're still playing. Only now, they've changed the rules a bit. They've decided to permit (say) spending experience points right there in play for an extra dice bonus, and in this particular group, such moments tend to correspond with intense thematic input. Now that's Drift!

It's not the specific mechanic (in this case, "metagame mechanic") which matters, but its usage, and the observation that the group has literally altered their System from the rules they were utilizing, and in their view, probably, improved them.

So to answer your question, I do not think that a game design can be pegged as poor or bad in any way because a given group plays it in (let's say) a non-typical way, in GNS terms. It might work wonderfully for the majority of people who play it (say Simulationist) and additionally just fine for a few folks who play otherwise (say Narrativist). In my experience, typically you will observe some Drift in the latter group, eventually. Not everyone agrees with me about that though.

I do think that many game designs are properly called incoherent, which means that a group is forced to Drift in order to play at all, but that is a more complex topic. Some people consider that to be a positive approach to design; some consider it flawed.

Does that help, or make sense?

Best,
Ron

Astrivian wrote:
My question is this: If the design of a game overtly adheres to one of the GNS models, is it a form of poor design or disfunction if the participants play it under a different model?

Now how did I know you were going to add that point, Marco. It's a good point, certainly.

Astrivian, you seemed careful in your post to qualify "realism" as a term, so I decided to interpret your usage in a "facilitates Simulationist play" context. It seemed necessary to do that in order to answer your question.

Best,
Ron

I think my confusion was in what is "simulated" in simulationist play. Marco, i dig your clarification of "realism" as i was using it in context as a technique not necessarly a feature of simulationism.

Of the GNS model, my problem is still with the idea of simulationism. If players create a 'realistic sense of the imaginary world' in simulationistic play, wouldn't it require the technique of realism (as we are using it in present context)? And, as a technique of play, realism could also include the use of photographs, pictures, audio aids, and other multimedia to enhance the feeling that the participants (GM and players) are part of the SIS.

WAIT!! Let me continue a bit before judging: The way i am seeing the technique of realism is "the most accurate emulation of the situation possible within the design of the game." Thus, if the situation involves, say, magic, the realism would be in describing the "physics" of the magic in the most accurate terms and equations possible given the game design. (I should probably clarify what i mean by "game design." I am refering to the attributes (i know there's a word i am forgetting here) used by the system. For example, if, for some odd reason, the speed of objects was not represented by some quantity (the character component "effectiveness" comes to mind here, but speed does not just have to refer to a character) it would be impossible to figure kinetic energy with the physical formula K=1/2mv^2.).

Therefore, to get the most realistic sense of the imaginary world, even if it contains properties that are totally imaginary, like different physical forces, would not the game require the most realism it can handle?

The how much is too much debate regarding realism techniques is a debate for the participants in my opinion. Too much realism and layering is simply what they will not tolerate.

Also, thank you for describing drift; it answered my issue completely.

thanks again,

astrivian

Hey Astrivian,

Don't beat yourself up or pull too many hairs out of your head because you can't quite figure out what Sim is. The simple fact of the matter is that the issue has not yet been settled. Your confusion is logical and understandable given the confusion that exists here at the Forge regarding Sim. So come right along and join the debate if you wish, just remember there is no solid answer yet! Your input would be as valued as anyone else’s!

Astrivian wrote: I think my confusion was in what is "simulated" in simulationist play. Marco, i dig your clarification of "realism" as i was using it in context as a technique not necessarly a feature of simulationism.

Of the GNS model, my problem is still with the idea of simulationism. If players create a 'realistic sense of the imaginary world' in simulationistic play, wouldn't it require the technique of realism (as we are using it in present context)? And, as a technique of play, realism could also include the use of photographs, pictures, audio aids, and other multimedia to enhance the feeling that the participants (GM and players) are part of the SIS.

astrivian

Hello,

I'm with Marco. As I see it, and have tried to communicate many times, the term "simulation" can apply to anything, with "reality" being simply one of the possible subjects. When I say this, then Ralph (Valamir) gets on my case that the term should be "emulation." And I agree with him about that too.

I disagree with Jay (Silmenume) that any general confusion about Simulationism persists. Strongly. That's a topic for different threads.

Folks, Astrivian is new here and I don't think he or she has read all of the essays yet. Let's keep this thread at the introductory level, please. So far everyone's been good about that, which I appreciate greatly.

Best,
Ron

Hey Astrivian, welcome to Jay and Marco's newest "What is sim?" thread! Drinks are on the house. (Okay, just kidding.)

Seriously, with respect to realism, I think the concept you're searching for is "causality." That is, simulationism is not about "realism" per se (it's not about making the game "like real life") , nor is it even necessarily about representing the physical nature of the imaginary environment mechanically (although this is a pretty common approach). This is an important point. Keep in mind as you read what I'm about to say that freeform games (i.e., games with no writen-down rules at all, where the system consists only of the social interactions of the players) can absolutely represent simulationist play.

The reason is that simulationism is about internal consistency. In the simulationist mode of play, the players are primarily interested in imagining logical cause and effect based on the interactions of some chosen in-game-world structures. This could be the physical properties of the world. Or it could be the nature of the interactions of various social classes. It could be magic. Etc.

It's a lot like hard science fiction. The players postulate that one or more concepts that may or may not be true in the *real* world are in fact true in the imagined world. People playing in the sim mode are getting their kicks from imagining how events might be driven by the logical repercussions of those postulates.

Is this making sense to you?