Topic: Please help check my understanding of GNS
Started by: Andrew Morris
Started on: 7/22/2005
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 7/22/2005 at 2:39pm, Andrew Morris wrote:
Please help check my understanding of GNS
Okay, I think I've gotten my brain around the central concepts of GNS at this point, from reading the articles and following a few of the discussions on the GNS forum. But, as the concepts are in perpetual evolution, I'm not certain my understanding is accurate and up to date. So, here's my summary of major GNS points. Please let me know what is accurate and what is not.
1. GNS can only be identified over an extended period of time. Individual instances are not necessarily indicative of CA.
2. There's no such thing as a "Gamist rule" or a "Narrativist game." There are rules and games that facilitate certain CAs and hinder others, though. Likewise, there's no such thing as a "Simulationist player," but there are players who tend to favor one CA over the others.
3. One CA can support another, or exist in conjunction with another, but one is always dominant.
4. Gamism is defined by the desire to overcome challenges.
5. Narrativism is defined by the desire to address a specific issue, usually one that allows the player to make a statement about morality or the human condition.
6. Simulationism is defined by accuracy to either source material or a specific fictional world.
Does that all seem more or less accurate?
On 7/22/2005 at 2:57pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
Re: Please help check my understanding of GNS
Hi Andrew,
Point by point, I'm afraid.
1. GNS can only be identified over an extended period of time. Individual instances are not necessarily indicative of CA.
Badly stated. An instance is now defined as a reward system cycle. This is usually a substantial amount of time, especially in traditional RPG play. If you change your wording to "instants" rather than "instances" (they are very different words) then you're good.
2. There's no such thing as a "Gamist rule" or a "Narrativist game." There are rules and games that facilitate certain CAs and hinder others, though. Likewise, there's no such thing as a "Simulationist player," but there are players who tend to favor one CA over the others.
As far as rules go, you're absolutely right. As far as games go, you're also right, although recognize that some game designs are astonishingly tightly focused in this regard.
As far as people go, you must be careful. Theoretically, you're absolutely right, but in practice, people are often very strongly identifiable with individual CAs for two reasons. (1) The easy reason, which is merely a strong version of what you're already describing; and (2) the depressing reason, which is that they have never had fun in the way they want, and so are obsessive about achieving it someday (and usually don't know how, creating a cycle of dysfunction).
3. One CA can support another, or exist in conjunction with another, but one is always dominant.
Not quite. The details of a given CA can take on a subordinate role. You don't have Gamism supporting Narrativism in Capes (played as Tony plays it), you have strategizing and competition as supportive features of Narrativism in this case.
I suggest that Congruence, Hybrids, and similar notions are so marginal as to be unimportant. I really wish I'd focused on Incoherence instead, from the beginning.
4. Gamism is defined by the desire to overcome challenges.
No. 100% off the beam. Gamism is defined by prioritizing the common, recognizable behavior of Step On Up. It concerns winning, losing, and status about those things. It may include competition (narrowly defined as direct conflict of interest) and very often does, but does not have to.
"Challenge" in this framework only means the imagined situation in which this agenda is satisfied.
Or to put it differently, when the dragon is a tactical exercise posing great risk to your investment in the character so far, then we're talking about Challenge - the situation is suitable for Gamist play. When the dragon is (for example) a problem which aggravates your commitment to your lover vs. your commitment to your sworn duty as a knight, then we're talking about Premise - the situation is suitable for Narrativist play.
And no, it cannot be both. See #3 above.
5. Narrativism is defined by the desire to address a specific issue, usually one that allows the player to make a statement about morality or the human condition.
"The desire" is not helping your sentence. It's the actual addressing, not the desire to address. Are such statements being posed and made? Then it's Narrativist play. Never mind desires.
6. Simulationism is defined by accuracy to either source material or a specific fictional world.
Absolutely incorrect, but with a fruitful hint of the correct version buried in there. Instead of "accuracy," say "confirmation." This is a big deal - you and I may play Lovecraftian stuff set in the 21st century, which is grossly inaccurate to Lovecraft's fiction ... but in terms of story structure and pre-understood theme, we hit it bang on and thus are happy. In fact, part of that happiness is enjoying how robust our love for the source material is, in the face of possible violation (e.g. the presence of lasers, cloning, etc).
Also, about that source material, I shall be very clear: anything which can be imagined as a starting point (and touchstone) will do. Such material might be a string of fantasy novels, a favorite TV show, a GM's dog-eared notebook, or simply "principles of physics"). Clearly this leads to Sim play being extremely diverse in techniques and detail.
Best,
Ron
On 7/22/2005 at 3:08pm, Andrew Morris wrote:
RE: Re: Please help check my understanding of GNS
Excellent. Thanks for the detailed review. Clearly, I need to be more precise in my wording when discussing these topics.
On 7/22/2005 at 3:09pm, timfire wrote:
RE: Re: Please help check my understanding of GNS
Ron Edwards wrote:Andrew wrote:
3. One CA can support another, or exist in conjunction with another, but one is always dominant.
Not quite. The details of a given CA can take on a subordinate role. You don't have Gamism supporting Narrativism in Capes (played as Tony plays it), you have strategizing and competition as supportive features of Narrativism in this case.
Ron, I understand that Nar and Gam can't support each other, but I thought it was established that Sim could be used to support Nar or Gam?
On 7/22/2005 at 6:00pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: Please help check my understanding of GNS
Hi Tim
Ron, I understand that Nar and Gam can't support each other, but I thought it was established that Sim could be used to support Nar or Gam?
Theoretically yes. In practice, such play is riddled with traps, miscommunications, downtimes full of Zilchplay, and simple Incoherence.
I base my views especially on observing a great deal of 1st-edition Burning Wheel and 1st-edition Riddle of Steel play, both of which seem subject to drastic Drift in practice, especially by their authors, and then comparing them to play-experiences and reports of the revised versions.
Particularly if we refine the definition of Sim to the "confirmatory" angle, which I think is a very good idea, then its potential supportive role is further restricted.
Note that this turns Mike's Beeg Horseshoe into something else - the thing at the "fork" is not Sim at all.
Best,
Ron
On 7/24/2005 at 8:42am, Justin Marx wrote:
RE: Re: Please help check my understanding of GNS
I'm starting to feel like a FAQ of GNS is necessary for us dumb illiterates who cannot grasp the subtleties.... that would make repeated explanations of the points less tiresome (I hope) for the people who crafted the thesis in the first place. Just an idea, not a request or demand.
On 7/24/2005 at 2:09pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: Please help check my understanding of GNS
Hiya,
Justin, I've done my very best with the Provisional Glossary, which despite its name, is not just a list of terms to memorize. The first couple of pages are a description and diagram of the Big Model, and if you have any questions about that material, I love answering them.
When people bring honest, straightforward inquiry to this forum, and especially if they've cut their teeth in Actual Play, then participating here is one of the great joys in my life. When they bring fear, the desire to stake out intellectual territory, and sophistry, then it's a disaster.
To provide some perspective, this past week or two in this forum has been wonderful. So please, ask, read, play, write about play, provide judgments and viewpoints of your own, and ask some more.
Also, I direct your attention to some very suitable blogs: check out the links under Chimera Creative, Lumpley Games, Dog-Eared Designs, TAO Games, and Bob Goat Games to find them. Even more are available through links at these blogs. Tons of great "intro to the Model" stuff is available at all of them.
Best,
Ron