Hi folks,

I see the "Game Design" forum is closed, so I apologize if this post shouldn't be here. I haven't posted much on the Forge but am keenly interested in RPG design since myself and buddies are building one of our own. I'd like to post a link to an article that deals with game design (of a sort), and also suggests ways to tilt games towards a healthier balance (or in the case of pen-and-paper RPGs, one more suitable for the player-group you're with). Such "tiltings" can be incorporated a game design itself, to better orient the game towards it's target audience.

Please note: the article was NOT written by me, the theory is NOT mine, nor was it written about pen-and-paper RPGs. I do not propose it as being better or worse than GNS, just different, although highly related it seems. In fact, I would say that the two theories are virtually the same, but in my opinion Bartle's theory is more encompassing of playstyles. If you disagree, don't shoot me; I'm quite happy to agree to disagree.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

The article itself is about online MUDs (multi-user dungeons, as if y'all didn't know the term!), and suggests that the motivations of all players' actions fall within a two-dimensional space. The dimensions are:

• Player- versus World-oriented, as the extremes of one axis
• Active versus Interactive play, as the extremes of the other axis

These two dimensions lead to four quadrants:

• Achiever (world-oriented action)
• Explorer (world-oriented interaction)
• Socializer (player-oriented interaction)
• Killer (so-called; player-oriented action)

As with the three categories of GNS, a player usually doesn't fall into one and only one category. Instead, virtually all players will participate in each of the categories from time-to-time, but they will most definitely have a preferred mix. For example, Bob might favour a game balanced heavily towards Social play, while Sue might prefer a game balanced heavily towards Action (both player- and world-oriented action).

By reading Bartle's article, you may discover, as I have, some strong parallels with the GNS theory. The gamist category very closely associates with achiever domain, and the simulationist category with the explorer domain. The narrativist category and socializer domain are less-closely associated, with the narrativist category being more balanced towards both player- and world-oriented interaction. The "Killer" domain doesn't fit all that well into GNS theory, but most likely fits in the gamist style of play since it involves competition. (In my humble opinion, D&D 4th Edition was built to pander directly to achiever-style play, but also to killers who were unhappy with existing RPGs and satisfy themselves by being better achievers than their teammates, ie by min/maxing.)

Ta,
   ShallowThoughts

Very interesting article, I'm gonna need to think on that for a bit, but so far it sounds good.

Here, Here!  I'm glad I'm not the only one that finds 4th ed to be panderous to the "killer" or gamist player.    Character creation is very similar to WoW online, with different "Class Powers" to choose from, different types and numbers available at intervals, all the way down to different ways to "spec" your character and options at different levels to "re-spec" from earlier variations. 

Minimalist alignments, with no penalties for disobeying them I could find ('cept for men in dresses).  The combat system is like something out of Mortal Combat (the video game).  Only passive saving throws and a spare two dozen catch-all skills.  The entire character sheet (much like 3rd ed) looks like the RPG equivalent of a 1040EZ form.  It's like sombody decided to make D&D for dummies. 

The color & background section of the PHB is about the size of a comic book, and shares the same de-compressed storytelling style.  All I leared was the things suck, and they used to suck not as much, but it's going to suck worse, soon.  Now thats OK for Ravenloft, but not of the main world.  Did no one learn anything from the fall of the Dark Sun line?

I will admit, it's kinda fun, but it's more about roll-playing than role-playing y'know?  I'm not certain it's actually an RPG, but it is definately not D&D (oh Gary, why did you abandon us?).

Sorry, that rant has been building for a while now.

Hiya,

The categories remind me a lot of Robin's Laws, a treatise on role-players by Robin Laws. What these analyses, and the earliest one I know of (Strike Force, a thoughtful supplement for Champions based on late-70s and early-80s play) all share is a focus on individual preferences that can be satisfied in the context of diverse or general approaches.

That makes them fundamentally different from what GNS (or Creative Agenda, or most broadly, the Big Model) is about, which are desired ways to enjoy role-playing that require group buy-in, over time. With the categories like "Explorer" or whatever, all you need is a little tolerance for the other guy doing his thing as you do yours, and things will mostly be OK. Differences in Creative Agenda preferences (or better, expectations at that particular time) are much, much harder to deal with in the same group, and the resulting play is diminished even if people don't quit.

So yes, the categories are worth talking about and discussing in terms of actual play, but they aren't the same as Creative Agenda (GNS). More like how a particular person decides how to apply himself to play, and expecting others to put up with or even like it. If we talk about whether and how that expectation occurs, among everyone and in the long run, then we'd be talking about Creative Agenda.

Rauðbjørn, your post actually provides a perfect example.

Probably the most important part of your post, and the part which keeps it from being a mere rant, is when you say, "I will admit it's kinda fun." There. Right there. Why all the bile and resentment and sarcasm, if what you're criticizing is indeed kinda fun? Why say it sucks, and then predict it will suck harder, when the current rules take "kinda fun" and hone them finer to maximize that particular fun?

Those questions aren't for this thread, so please don't reply to them here. The answer is already clear: you wanted something else from D&D, and even more importantly, you wanted the other people playing to want that too.

Shallow Thoughts, do you see my point? The Creative Agenda idea is not talking about what a given role-player "is" in terms of describing how they play, it's talking about what play-priorities he or she wants credit for from everyone else, and what play-priorities he or she is willing to give credit for among everyone else.

For both of you, it would be very useful, and I bet you'd get a lot of thinking responses, if you would present your points as they've applied to your experiences, in the Actual Play forum.

Best, Ron

I don´t know if this is meaningfull in the context of P&P RPGs at all. It relates somehwat to the "Big Model". The concept of SIS (Shared Imaginary Space) however seems to supersede everything Bartle says: It implies that ANY change (action/interaction) in the "game world" is achieved by an interaction between players; what happened in the "world" (the SIS) happened because we agree it happens. There is no acting upon the world without interaction among players in P&P RPG.
In Computer RPGs, of course, SIS is less dependent on the "shared" part; we all somewhat agree that what the computer says is meaningfull, but it is not entirely cocreated through interaction between players.

Summa: BigModel/GNS talks about SIS (thought-world created by interaction), MUDs are not as dependent on interaction amongst players for establishing ANY step in the shared imagination, the "alternative theory" talks about differences in this factor (which is a lot less flexible in P&P then in C). Article not applicable.

Also: Rauðbjørn, GNS doesn´t state that Gamists somehow suck. Actually, I always read it as a defense of gamism; it´s just another way to have fun and it may, as may others, suck or not suck in each concrete case. Any theory where D&D fun is bad fun (because it is less Nar or Sim) is a bad theory. GNS helps us not try having narrativist fun in games better suited for gamism or with players aiming for gamist fun. It also helps us having gamist fun without being bothered by anyone discrediting strategizing as "roll-play", bad fun, wrong, stupid, childish, immature, because come on. Gamism is cool (and I´m so narr it hurts).

Wow I think I wrote what Ron wrote, does that mean I "understood" the Big Model?

...

I want a fancy hat proving my GNS Graduation.

Will a shared imagined hat do? It will have to: GNS graduation hat.

OK, silly's over. If someone else had posted this, I'd have to moderate him. Back to the discussion, and with any luck, further threads in Actual Play.

Best, Ron

Damn, one more thing - Jona, there is one important correction for your post.

Shared Imagined Space, not "imaginary." This is to emphasize that I'm using imagine as a verb's past participle, not an adjective. The imagining is entirely verbal and responsive. So instead of a thought-space being emphasized, it's an attention-space composed of vectors of communication.

Best, Ron

Correction duly noted (I take it as enforcing the idea that SIS is more of a process or a processing mode than an entity).

What I just realize is how in Computer RPGs, the fact that different CAs are a clearly separatable and -separated is accepted not only by theoreticians like Bartleby but by everyone involved, unlike most people not subscribing to GNS see P&P RPGs.
In CPRGs, there is a clear understandment that "Roleplayers" and "others" are playing a different game and having different kinds of fun. Noone is saying that one is the "true" way; roleplayers play in their own enviroment, on their servers, PvPers play in/on theirs (and non-roleplayer PvEers on theirs). Of course griefers get their fun by watching out how others get their fun and destroying it, so they don´t get a dedicated server.

So, at least concerning MMORPGs (which I have admittetly done little "actual play" with), Bartleby has the providers on his side. They agree on the different player types by giving them different serversor realms.

Maybe next time someone doesn´t "get" GNS, I´ll tell him how in the CPRG domain, it is dead obvious and noone would think about disagreeing.

Of course, in the context of a P&P RPG, each and every player is a "provider" and the nature of the game is structured by our interactions, our social contract.
Now, you saw how you struggled with integrating narrativism into Bartlebys model; what I´d like to know about is if there are narr MMORPGs. Sometimes I think most of those gamists and especially those simulationists would be better served by computers... but maybe I´m just thinking that because I haven´t seen the narr CRPGS. Bartleby won´t help us there because he surely doesn´t say how narr fits into MUDs (in GNS terms he sees different types of having sim or gam fun happening).

On the other hand, someone might decide that this isn´t the place to do the opposite of what the original post proposed: discussing how applying GNS to CRPGs works...