A GNS Primer
3/8/02
Based on the GNS Theory created by Ron Edwards, and on the collective work of members of The Forge.


The purpose of this primer is to articulate GNS in direct terms and to clarify the basics of what GNS says and does not say, particularly for the benefit of those who are not regular readers of the Forge. The theory behind GNS has already been recorded in Ron Edwards'; article GNS AND OTHER MATTERS OF ROLE-PLAYING THEORY which can be found at:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/gns/gns_introduction.html.

This article is intended primarily as an introductory interpretation of that work.

The purpose of the GNS theory is to provide a framework and lexicon for the discussion of role-playing; specifically styles of role-playing and the way to identify those styles. The benefits of such a framework are many including: 1) helping players to identify other players who share the same role-playing priorities. 2) helping players to identify which games support and encourage the style of role-playing they prefer. 3) when players are dissatisfied with their role-playing experiences, helping to identify the sources of their frustration. And 4) helping game designers design games with mechanics that explicitly support and encourage a particular style of play.

Before beginning to discuss what GNS is, I will first identify some of the things which it isn't. GNS is not defined by any of the following items:
1) How colorful or imaginative your descriptions of character activities are.
2) How well or how much you play "in-character"
3) Whether you speak for your character in third person or first person.
4) How many or how few dice rolls you make
5) How "heavy"; or how "light"; the rules are
6) Whether you make decisions based on Out-Of-Character or In-Character knowledge.
7) How much or how little combat there is.
8) How much or how little interaction with NPCs there is.
9) How much or how little intrigue or politicking there is.
10) Whether you use dice, or cards, or tables, or simple comparisons of highest number

To be perfectly clear: none of the above items have anything to do with how things are categorized by the GNS theory. Many of these items are discussed at the Forge under the broader category of RPG theory in general, but they have no specific tie to a GNS position.

It will also be helpful to clarify the meaning of the word "Story". Often times great arguments have ensued over the use of this word. Arguments that could have been avoided if either side realized the other was not using the same meaning as they were. I will identify two basic ways of viewing story.
The first is perhaps the most basic, and is certainly what story means according to any dictionary. This is simply that any sequence of related events forms a story. By this definition any role-playing experience produces a story. The second, however, is story used in the literary sense. Even on the Forge people have a tendency to simply use the word "story" leaving their meaning unclear except by context. For clarity in this article I will refer to this meaning of story as "Literary Story".
It is not the purpose of this article to serve as a essay on literature or what constitutes a Literary Story. It is sufficient to note that a basic sequence of related causal events may be a story but it is not a Literary Story except by sheerest coincidence. Those wishing to delve deeper into this subject are directed to The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos Egri, which is also a source Ron drew from heavily when fashioning the principles of GNS.
What is imperative for readers of this article to understand is that the key to a Literary Story is Premise. Premise is a question that carries emotional impact. It is through play of the game that the Premise is explored by the players (through the characters), and the ultimate outcome of this exploration is the eventual theme of the story.
For example in the play Romeo and Juliet the Premise could be phrased as "can love conquer all things?" The rest of the play is dedicated to exploring this question by throwing obstacles and events at the characters that focus the audience's attention specifically on the issues raised by the Premise. Because this is a play the events and ultimate resolution and theme are predetermined by Shakespeare. However, when the concept of Premise is applied to role-playing these are not predetermined but rather realized and evolved through the actual play of the players.
It is essential to be aware in any discussion where "story" comes up, which of these definitions of story are being applied. It is also important to note that the Forge has grown accustomed to using "Premise" (capital P, also called Narrativist Premise) to refer to the above sort of Premise and "premise" (small P) to refer to the the more general idea of "what's the reason for playing this game". I dislike this dual useage of the word as it only serves to increase confusion and so I will not use premise (small P) anywhere in this article.


So what is GNS about? GNS is about player decisions. During the course of any role-playing game players will be presented with options and will make choices selecting from those options. How a player prioritizes his options and what rationale and logic he uses to select from them is what distinguishes G from N from S. In other words GNS is all about what motivates a player to make the decisions he does while role-playing.
It cannot be emphasized enough that GNS is about player motivations at the point of decision. There are Gamist decisions, Narrativist decisions, and Simulationist decisions. There is no such thing as Gamist players or Gamist games, or Narrativist players or Narrativist games, or Simulationist players or Simulationist games. There are only decisions.
Often times you will hear, even in the course of a GNS discussion, terms like Simulationist player or Narrativist game. These are not labels. It should be understood that these terms have become widely used shorthand. A Simulationist player simply means a player who is prone to making Simulationist decisions. A Narrativist game is simply a game whose mechanics are designed to encourage and promote Narrativist decision making. Thus, a statement like "A Simulationist player wouldn't like this game because its too Narrativist" should be interpreted as "A player who prefers to make Simulationist decisions will find that this game does not offer mechanics which support him in making those decisions, because this game instead is designed to support Narrativist decision making"

So what then constitutes a Gamist decision, a Narrativist decision, or a Simulationist decision? I shall discuss these out of direct GNS order and instead in an order that I find is easier to follow.

Simulationist decisions: A Simulationist decision is one that is made according to a cause and effect relationship that logically follows from the nature of the setting or character. The concept of verisimilitude is of primary importance when making a Simulationist decision. What this simply means is that the gaming elements should promote what is reasonably expected within a certain setting. In other words, what is a reasonable outcome for events in a sci-fi anime setting is quite different from what is a reasonable outcome in a realistic modern setting. Simulationist decisions are concerned with selecting the option that is reasonable and expected from the character or situation in the context of the setting, thereby promoting verisimilitude.
For instance: In a modern adventure game a player's character jumps off of a roof. In this game it is up to the GM to decide what happens. There are many options to choose from in terms of how to decide what the outcome for this action is. The GM chooses to roll some dice based on physical abilities of the character and the perceived difficulty of the jump, and evaluates the roll in terms of a range of possibilities from landing safely to suffering various degrees of injury. This is a Simulationist decision because it seeks to account for what is a reasonable and expected outcome given the realistic setting of the game. A player who prefers decisions to be made according to these standards may be called a Simulationist player, and a game which includes ample mechanics promoting this sort of decision making may be called a Simulationist game.

Gamist decisions: A Gamist decision is one where the player selects the option that is most likely to maximize his chance of achieving a desired goal; and where achieving that goal is the primary (though not necessarily only) reason behind play. This is sometimes called competition or a desire to "win", but while Gamist decisions could be made in a competitive manner or one trying to achieve "victory" that is not the sum total of possibilities.
For example: A given game provides several options to players in the form of a variety of modifiers for certain abilities, actions, or equipment choices. If a player chooses from among these options based primarily on what his character would choose or what makes sense for the type of game being played than he is making Simulationist decisions. If a player chooses from among these options based primarily on which are likely to maximize his odds for success even if the choice isn't particularly "in-character" or the most "realistic", then he is making Gamist decisions.

Narrativist decisions: A Narrativist decision is one where the player selects the option that promotes exploring the Premise of the Literary Story. It may not be the most "realistic" choice, it may not be the choice that maximizes "success", but it is the choice that will focus the attention of the audience (the players as a group) on the Premise. This may be in the form of illustrating the Premise, or demonstrating a particular character's choices relative to the Premise, or in displaying the repercussions of those choices relative to the Premise.
For example: The Premise of the game is "Who decides what is in the greater good?". The character is a police man who has just apprehended a suspect. Arresting the suspect at this point in time would be devastating to the suspect's family. The player now has a choice. Does he arrest the suspect, or let him go? If he decides to arrest the suspect because that's what a good cop is trained to do, and the idea of a cop letting a suspect go because of some sob story is very unrealistic, then he is making a Simulationist decision. If he decides to arrest the suspect because otherwise he would have "failed" the mission, or because he knows it will improve his character's chances of getting the commendation he's been after (perhaps with a positive modifier to a reward roll for "number of busts"), then he is making a Gamist decision. If he decides to arrest the suspect because he wants to later go back and highlight the tremendous damage that has been done to the man's innocent family and community in the name of justice in order to illustrate the Premise by asking the question "which choice really would have been to the benefit of the greater good", then he is making a Narrativist decision.



GNS and player Goals: The primary purpose of GNS is to help players enjoy their role-playing experience more. If you are a person who is 100% happy with the experience you have role-playing than you might not see the need to spend so much time discussing theory. However, many people realize that they are dissatisfied with their role-playing experience and that this dissatisfaction cannot simply be ascribed to "bad players" or a "lousy game". One beneficial aspect of GNS is that it allows us to stop thinking in terms of another player "not being a good role-player"; and start to realize that they may well be a fine role-player. Its just that their decision making priorities are different from ours. It also allows us to review a new game without concluding that "this game sucks"; but rather that the game caters to people who have a different set of decision priorities than we do. Digging deeper into the theory and practical tools may even allow us to conclude that the game is in fact a great representative of a Narrativist game even though we ourselves might not enjoy Narrativist play.
In order to gain these benefits it is important, once again, to concentrate on decisions: but not simply on what decisions were made but rather on why we made them. The example under Narrativist decisions above clearly shows that the deciding factor is the player's motivation, since the actual decision (arresting the suspect) was the same in each case.
By identifying our decision priorities (our GNS position) we can attempt to seek out players who share those priorities. Often the source of a lot of friction within gaming groups comes down to players having priorities that are incompatible. Instead of resenting the other players for their priorities, players now have a tool to recognize this problem. Sometimes it will be possible to convince fellow players to try playing with a new set of priorities. Sometimes the player can change his own set of priorities to match those of his group. And sometimes a player will be best off seeking a group whose GNS position matches his own.

GNS and game Mechanics: One of the purposes of the GNS theory is to provide a framework by which game designers can write their games to specifically support one of the GNS positions. One of the conclusions of GNS Theory, is that while it is possible (and traditionally common) to include mechanics that support more than one of the positions, that most gaming experiences can be improved if the game focuses on the specific position the players occupy. To see the reason for this one has but to look at the long tradition of house rules for many games. By far the primary reason for house rules is to either add mechanics that support a position better than the base rules did, or to eliminate mechanics that support a position that the players aren't interested in using.
GNS theory encourages game designers to be aware of these positions and to concentrate on developing the ideal set of mechanics that will translate their game into a specific GNS position. For example: When Gary Gygax decided to use Hit Points rather than a more detailed system of wounds and injury, GNS theory would say he was making a Gamist decision. By making consistent decisions throughout a game design, a designer can focus the game much more carefully than with a broader approach.
While the presence or absence of certain mechanics is not, in and of itself, a determinate of GNS, often times certain mechanics are ideally suited for supporting a certain GNS position.

An example of a mechanic that is good at promoting Simulationist decisions are results tables for dice rolls and lists of modifiers. The list of modifiers (what they are and their magnitude) help to define the parameters of the settings' "reality"; and account for various causal factors. Results tables identify a range of possibilities that are reasonable in that setting and assign them a consistent and expected probability. This allows players who are familiar with the game to make decisions based on what makes sense and what is likely to happen with the knowledge that the game itself will reinforce these expectations. players who enjoy this style of play are willing to allow "the dice to decide", because they know that in reality we don't get to choose whether we land gracefully from our jump or sprain our ankle. However, such players will insist that the major factors that would impact the probabilities of these outcomes are accounted for in the rules.
Simulationist games will often include rules that restrict player options. These rules are usually there to force players to make choices that support the verisimilitude of the setting. Since a player who makes Simulationist decisions would voluntarily decide to do this anyway, we must conclude that these rules are there to force players into behaving in a Simulationist manner who would not normally have Simulationist decision making as a priority. It should be immediately apparent that this can be a source of friction for players who hold different priorities.

An example of a mechanic that is good at promoting Gamist decisions includes providing a number of player selected options. These might be called advantages and disadvantages, or feats, or special moves, or specialties, or clans, or schools, or a number of other things. The purpose here is to give the player the capability of choosing combinations that will allow him to maximize his chance of success in a particular arena, often involving making sacrifices in another arena. This process may be derided as "min-maxing" in some circles, but for many players this is often the best part of the game.
Gamist games will also often include rules that restrict player options. Gamist decisions are about selecting options that maximize the probability of success. Gamist players generally want their success to come from how skillfully they make these decisions. If a game is out of balance, success can be awarded to players who make poor decisions and denied to players who make good decisions simply because of the way the rules are written. Thus, many games have rules to enforce "balance". These types of restrictions can cause friction with other players who do not share the same decision priorities. A Simulationist player may prefer to create a character according to an understanding of how that character "should be" within the setting. They are likely to chafe at rules that restrict their ability to do so in order to be "fair" to other players. A Narrativist player is likely to chafe at restrictions that limit their ability to design characters who can be protagonists in the story.

There are a number of Narrativist games being designed on the Forge, and many of these share a couple of common features. The first is mechanics that explicitly share game authority among all players. The second are rules that tend to be very focused and limited in scope. Both of these features are driven by the Narrativist emphasis on Premise. Part of the definition of using Premise in a role-playing game is that it must carry with it emotional impact. What better way to ensure that the players are exploring the Premise in a way that carries with it emotional impact to them, then to let them help author the story. For this reason many games designed to promote Narrativist decisions will grant to all of the players authority over aspects of the game that traditionally have been reserved only to the GM. Note: these mechanics are common to Narrativist games but not required. In fact, Narrativist play in games that do not use such explicit mechanics is often referred to here as "Vanilla" (as in "plain vanilla", i.e. Narrativist play without the bells and whistles).
Further, not only is the point to Narrativist play to explore a Premise, but many Narrativist designs focus on exploring a specific Premise. For this reason the game mechanics will emphasize activities that highlight the Premise and deemphasize (possibly even to the point of ignoring or completely abstracting) activities that aren't focused on the Premise. The logic here is that if the point is to explore a Premise, then players interested in making Narrativist decisions will make choices to explore that Premise. They won't make choices (at least not often) that make a priority out of activities that aren't related to the Premise somehow and so there is little need for mechanics to cover those choices in great detail. Note: being rules-focused is not the same thing as being rules-light. It is not a question of how many rules there are, rather it is a question of which aspects of the game require more rules and which require less (or any) based on the priority of the game's Premise. Just as an author of a novel or screenplay will ruthlessly edit out parts of the story that are extraneous to the theme he is presenting, so a Narrativist game designer will edit out mechanics that are extraneous to his Premise. Also note that this technique is not limited to Narrativist design. There are several members of the Forge who would hold the above as being good design sense regardless of the type of game being designed.
It should be immediately obvious where sources of friction can arise with players that don't share Narrativist decision making priorities. A Simulationist player may question the degree of abstraction in certain areas of the rules as not being very "realistic". A Gamist player might immediately note the game as being "broken" because there may not be rules ensuring "balance" between players or their characters. Granting significant authorial power to the players may make it difficult for a GM to maintain verisimilitude, especially with players who aren't as familiar with the setting. For a Gamist player the issue may be the difficulty in ensuring equality in granting GM powers to players whose decision priority is to maximize their chances of success.

Again the whole point to GNS is to realize that NONE of these game designs are inherently broken or inherently better. Rather they appeal to players with a set of priorities that are different, but equally valid. Whether a game design is "good" or "poor" should be evaluated on the grounds of how well it promotes the decision making process of the GNS position it is targeted towards. Comparing the game's features to the preferences of a different GNS position is like using a hammer to cut wood and complaining that it doesn't work as well as your saw.

[edited to get rid of those annoying formatting glitches]

Hi Ralph,

I'm still going through the primer - it's kind of interesting how two different people can work off the same stuff and see different "danger points." In some ways, your goal in the Primer is a lot like mine in the Seven Misconceptions.

I'm thinking of taking the Primer, my Misconceptions, and maybe Jesse's essay on Narrativism for Simulationists and putting them into some kind of threebie ... or at least designating them as linked essays in some way in their taglines. That is, if you and Jesse are willing to have your essays posted here at the Forge.

But give me another day or so to digest the Primer, then we can kick it around here for a while (just like what's happening with the Seven Misconceptions at the moment). So if anyone wants to get that process going, I'd appreciate the input.

Best,
Ron

Valamir,

I thought that was great.

One question. You write:

"6) Whether you make decisions based on Out-Of-Character or In-Character knowledge. "

Now. I might be screwing this up, but I thought that this matter is, in part, a matter of stance (Author vs. Actor). And these stances, and their descriptions, are in the GNS essay. While no stance is frozen into place within any GNS node, they're in the essay and there are certain stance more common to different nodes.

So, is point #6 saying that no OOC/IC knowledge *defines* stance, or that it doesn't figure into GNS theory at all?

Christopher

My understanding is also that IC / OOC knowledge and its use are key to distinguishing between Actor and Author Stance. However, since these Stances can be applied to any of the GNS positions, their use or lack thereof is not part of determining whether a decision is G or N or S.

I left alot of the related and supporting material in Ron's essay (such as Stances) out of the Primer intentionally in order to stay focused on the definition of G-N-S themselves. Stances are an involved enough topic to warrant a Primer all by themselves.

Glad you liked it.

Thanks.

(If only for letting me know I'm getting this stuff!)

I'd make sure to make that explicit in your Primer then, not only because Ron has included them in the essay, and because they are woven in to help explain for what the three nodes are *not.*

Just say, "Aspects of stance, while vital to the over all GNS essay are beyond the scope of the Primer. Briefly, all stances are avaialbe to all three nodes." Or something.

Christopher