Okay. This is partly inspired by Clinton's axioms. It may seem like an anti-GNS spiel, and it probably is, but hear me out. You see, GNS hasn’t been sitting with me very well pretty much since day one. At first it was just knee-jerk reacting on my part. I admit that much. I later started to get a better handle on it . Something that has been nagging me all of this time continues, and I think I have an idea what that may be.

GNS is kinda like Alignments in D&D, at least in one respect.

example:

A lawful good character finds someone that is mortally wounded. Never mind the how’s and why’s for a second here. A Paladin will probably try to heal the wounded person. Perhaps only doing what they can to make the person comfortable during their last moment or maybe healing magic. A Samurai on the other hand would probably decide that it would be better if the person died with honor and lop his head off. In both cases, the characters behave in a manner that is in the wounded person’s best interests, to try to perserve his life or end his suffering. Both behaved in a Lawful Good manner. But they both took actions that were polar opposites. One healed, the other killed. Therefore, alignments are a broad categorization for behavior which, when it comes down to brass tacks can include opposite actions under similar circumstances.

(And please let's not break this off into a useless alignment or D&D debate)

Now consider a Gamist player, like my fictional friend Ted. Ted likes monster killing in a good old fashioned dungeon crawl. By GNS reconing, he is a gamist player. (By gamist player we naturally mean "a person who prefers playing games in a gamist style" but while I don't mind not offending people, it eventually reaches a point where saying all of that is too cumbersome to be useful and the people who get pissed about such things need to get over it) Mystery and puzzle solving is another Gamist style but Ted hates that style. In fact he loathes them. Ted doesn't have a very analytical mind so puzzles, even simple ones, tend to make him feel stupid.

So, knowing Ted is a Gamist is not enough information. It is more important to know what sort of style he like to play because the gamist concerns in a dungeon RPG are not the same as the concerns in a puzzle-solving RPG, in spite of that both styles fit under the heading of Gamist. It's like buying a video tape simply because it's a VHS tape (a dated analogy since Beta is long dead) or buying a book just because it's published by Dell Rey. Such criteria are no guarentee of enjoyment or even quality.

This goes back to Clinton's axioms. A RPG has its own goal and one can tell what that is by what the game rewards. Several people here and elsewhere have stated that while they have a preference that they can play in any style. This is because a player's motivation is mutable. A narrativist can go into a Gamist session, provided he understands it is a gamist session, and adjust his expectations and playing style and have a grand time.

What I'm saying here is a person's playing motivation is their own and it's probably best to leave it that way. This way, we can eliminate most of the pidgeon-holing complaints some have and focus more on the game itself, because the game as written is an immutable. Only by use of house rules or subsequent editions can a game change its goals.

Perhaps I'm gettig a little off-topic here.

Now, am I saying we should do away with GNS? No. I believe it still has its uses but it also has its limitations. We need to be aware of this or understanding will be even more confounded with GNS than without it.

Hi Jack,

I agree with you. I have always presented the idea that all three modes contain within them an astounding range of diversity, much of which is not compatible even within that mode.

People never believe me about this. Some, thinking they are agreeing with me, say, "A Gamist will do this," and it's nonsense. Others, thinking they are disagreeing with me, say, "But Ron, there are more than three types of play," and I wearily repeat, yes, that is the case.

From now on in this post, "you" is generic, not directed specifically at Jack.

Level-thinking is the key. GNS (in terms of just the three basic modes) is one level, and not the top one, nor the bottom one either. It's a crucial and necessary level for role-playing analysis of all sorts, which is why I discuss it centrally. However, people are forever mistaking it for either the top or bottom levels.

Sure, I could write another essay all about this. Do you want a list of all the ways to play in a Narrativist fashion that I can think of, divided by all manner of Stance distributions and DFK diversity and Balance of Power positions? I could do this.

But you know what? I'd prefer to see someone else try it. I'm a little tired of spelling the issues out again and again, especially since in many cases people have done a really good job without my express help.

So here's the principle: both Gamism and Narrativism contain within them at least as much incompatible or nearly-incompatible diversity as Simulationism. If you can't see why, or you find this weird, then that's an indication of your own misunderstandings. Take that as a challenge, if you want, although I'd prefer to think of it as a topic of discussion. Try and work out some of that diversity.

(Hint: for Narrativist play, contrast The Framework and the Pool in terms of Stance; then contrast Sorcerer and Prince Valiant in terms of setting.) (Hint: for Gamist play, contrast Pantheon vs. Rune in terms of Stance; then contrast Tunnels & Trolls vs. Rifts in terms of group resolution vs. individual resolution.)

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Do you want a list of all the ways to play in a Narrativist fashion that I can think of, divided by all manner of Stance distributions and DFK diversity and Balance of Power positions? I could do this.

But you know what? I'd prefer to see someone else try it. I'm a little tired of spelling the issues out again and again, especially since in many cases people have done a really good job without my express help.

So here's the principle: both Gamism and Narrativism contain within them at least as much incompatible or nearly-incompatible diversity as Simulationism. If you can't see why, or you find this weird, then that's an indication of your own misunderstandings. Take that as a challenge, if you want, although I'd prefer to think of it as a topic of discussion. Try and work out some of that diversity.

(Hint: for Narrativist play, contrast The Framework and the Pool in terms of Stance; then contrast Sorcerer and Prince Valiant in terms of setting.)

(Hint: for Gamist play, contrast Pantheon vs. Rune in terms of Stance; then contrast Tunnels & Trolls vs. Rifts in terms of group resolution vs. individual resolution.)

Hi Jack,

I certainly don't disagree that each of the GNS states contains great diversity. However, when you question whether they're useful descriptions for purposes of dealing with players, I disagree. As a blanket pigeonholing tool, of course GNS isn't appropriate or accurate. As a starting point for assessing individual player preferences, I'm finding it bloody useful.

Take my not-so-fictional friend J. He's a good roleplayer, seeks depth in his characters, and is interested in story. The rules he shows a preference for are what I'd call Simulationist, but the behavior I see in our games leads me to believe J has Gamist priorities. By Gamist I don't mean he wants to kill or wants to solve puzzles. By Gamist I mean J likes to be first, and likes to win. Is this the only Gamist behavior? No. Is it a core Gamist behavior? Maybe. Is he a Gamist? No, but he does have what I'd call Gamist priorities that he brings to the table.

In my view, the GNS theory helps to explain the conflict in J's playing style. He claims a story and character focus, but he reads rules selectively to his advantage, competes with other players, gets miffed if he doesn't get the goodies first or best, and seeks the kinds of edges (rules and in-game) that give him some kind of insurmountable advantage. His behavior has led to conflict with other PLAYERS in the past, as well as derailed more than one game because he broke the system.

On the other hand, when he's good, he's a very pleasant and welcome member of the group. The GNS model lets me put his behaviors in a larger context and (perhaps) use that insight to achieve better, more constructive play with him. There are, I'm aware, other issues about whether to play with J or not, but at the moment, social considerations make the no-J option unpalatable. Whether or not to include him has been an ongoing challenge for awhile now.

Anyway, I do find the model useful for this sort of assessment, both for my own style and that of my players. It's not a cookie-cutter approach, but it's a great first step.

Best,

Blake

Hi Blake,

Well, I'm not especially interested in blowing this up into a full debate, but your troubles with J. are that he claims to be story-orientated but his actions show a focus on Gamist concerned: winning, being first or best, finding edges in the rules and whatnot.

You observed his behavior and thought, perhaps even said "Hey, J. you claim to be a narrativist but your behavior in play is clearly gamist." He says "What are you talking about?" and you then point out all the stuff above.

What happened is you witness his actions, took a step backwards and said, hey he's bringing gamist concerns to the table, and then took a step forward again to address the issue. Maybe GNS helped you recognize the problem. Maybe you just wouldn't have seen it if you didn't have an understanding of GNS. Heck, thinking on it now you probably would have struggled with it or, worse, accused J. of "roll-playing." And all of that. I'm just saying that it is possible to recognize and address this problem without using GNS and GNS doesn't really offer a solution. It's a diagnostic tool, as you've said. What I mean is we need to keep in mind that GNS is not a be-all or end-all to RPG theory and it has limitations for what it says or what it can do.

You problem was something that GNS was a big help but consider a group playing in a gamist style but one player's gamist style conflicts with the groups. This would be where GNS isn't as much help.

Ad I'm tempted to take ROn up on his challenge to map out the various styles of GNS but I don't think that would be worthwhile. Not for me, anyway. Map out 1,000 distinct styles and three more pop up. No thanks, but don't let me stop anyone :)

Hi Jack,

This thread seems to me to be more inwardly-focused than externally-focused. In other words, you aren't saying anything that I haven't already written; what you're doing is coming to terms with it.

I'm not sure how you got the idea that the definitions of G, N, and S at the broadest level were supposed to "explain everything" about role-playing. Clearly that's absurd; not even my original System essay claims that.

However, I would like you to consider that your more recent understanding is not something that "we" have to consider. It's already explicit in the essay - I checked, this morning, and found multiple instances of "within-mode" diversity as part of the argument. So what matters is your understanding, not "the" understanding or "our" understanding as a group. A lot of people are already there, and it's good to have you there too.

Best,
Ron

Hi Jack,

Lemme add a point or two of clarification. I don't see GNS as the be-all, end-all. As you rightly pointed out, it's a diagnostic tool. It happens to work well for me, that's all.

However, I think the model is useful within styles as well. J's style of gamism, if you will, the rules-lawyering, competitive-versus-other-players stuff, is at odds with another friend who engages in Gamist-oriented play. This other guy enjoys the tactical challenge aspect, but is very cooperative regarding group and character issues, even to the point of helping other people take center stage. I still find GNS useful here, because it still lets me map both of these players conceptually in my understanding of roleplaying behavior. It's good for me not just to perceive them as Gamist, but to get a handle on which Gamist priorities they have.

Best,

Blake