There was a huge debate this last week on the yahoo group RPGcreate. One particular person was quite vociferous about his opposition to GNS theory (and included standard rants about Forgite snobbiness and hyper-intellectualism), but at one point he expressed what he found to be wrong with GNS theory quite clearly.

Of course, his definition included points about intuitive group understandings ("I just know") and tendencies to use GNS for pigeonholing, as well as complaints and ad hominem attacks based on our (GNS supporters) observation that he's got major misunderstandings of the theory happening. In the process of the argument, I noticed two things that might be useful to ongoing debates about GNS theory, and it's prpagation (such as it is).

First, some people seem to feel disempowered by the idea that GNS describes instances of play without _them_ - that they were not consulted about GNS theories, and thus feel left out. Given that the Forge is a public board, I don't think there's much we can do about this. From what I could tell, this one vocal detractor actually had thought about the phenomenon quite a bit, and apparently wrote an essay on the topic (never forthcoming, though). The interesting thing is that comments he made avarious points seem to me top point to a _very_ similar model, which seems to indicate that he's peeved that his non-published (in the loosest sense of the term 'published') theories weren't accounted for. As I said, I don't think there's anything we can do about this until he opens up and shares his own theories.

Secondly, and more importantly, he made some comments that indicated to me that the problem is not with GNS per se, but rather with the development of Social Contract, and the influence GNS has on that establishment. In particular, he felt the GNS theory was flawed for lack of evidence, and his idea of evidence consisted of taking random players at a convention and seeing what happened. In such a case, it seems that GNS is not the issue, especially since any given mode of play can present itself at any time throughout the game - it isn't "evidence" that's presented, but merely instances which can be sorted via GNS.

It seems more important to him (based on what I read, and these are likely entirely my own perceptions unrelated to what he actually felt) to provide evidence of how GNS is worked in play. Given a random group of gamers, 3 who tend towards Gamism, 4 towards Simulationism, and 2 towards Narrativism, how is the Social Contract regarding acceptable modes of play established? Now, obviously this commits the sin of pigeonholing he was railing against (one of the reasons I'm fairly sure he doesn't understand the theory, despite his protests that he does), but in terms of the 3D model, the Beeg Bloorny Horseshoe model, and other mode-models out there, I wonder if this is something worth delving into.

Would a discussion of how modes are prioritized be useful in terms of explaining and elaborating the model? Could such a discussion shed light on issues with Simulationism and its non-challenge description (I mean that Simulationism is often described as a lack of Challenge-based or Theme-based decisions)? Could it help in explaining the complexities of the model, and illuminate where people often get confused?

I don't know, but the idea that he was confusing the model with it's application in the establishment of Social Contract really sparked for me. Has anyone else noticed such a pattern among detractors?

Aidan

Given a random group of gamers, 3 who tend towards Gamism, 4 towards Simulationism, and 2 towards Narrativism, how is the Social Contract regarding acceptable modes of play established?

taalyn wrote: First, some people seem to feel disempowered by the idea that GNS describes instances of play without _them_ - that they were not consulted about GNS theories, and thus feel left out.

taalyn wrote:
he felt the GNS theory was flawed for lack of evidence, and his idea of evidence

Actually Taalyn, I'd like if you'd not put words in my mouth. I was using GNS to examine /trends/ in my own gaming group--trends in /types of decisions being made/ and how that can be used to better my /current play for the current game/. This isn't where GNS breaks down. Where it breaks down is in trying to create /games/ that cater to only one mode of play, ever. You see by creating a game that only supports G, or N, or S--you /force/ people to make decisions based on the presumptian of the game, rather than on making decisions based on presumptian of the /best mode/ for the group at a given point.

Well, I know we haven't done statistical studies - but a theory can also be tested by the results of its application. I would suggest he test the theory by playing a game designed with the GNS theory in mind.

Sidhain wrote:

Well, I know we haven't done statistical studies - but a theory can also be tested by the results of its application. I would suggest he test the theory by playing a game designed with the GNS theory in mind.

I have. I've not seen improvement/change in play with any given group using a game that hijacks their current mode of play to fit its preceptions. Now /some/ games encourage certian modes, without eliminating others---this allows for broader play, and smoother dilemmas when a given groups current interest /isn't/ the mode the game is encouraging.

Alan wrote:
Are you saying that making players take part in a game designed for a GNS preference they don't like produces poor results? That would be expected and a verification of the GNS theory.

Hello Sid,

First I'd like to acknowledge that taalyn, DID start this post clearly stating that he was working from his interpretation of what you said. So, he didn't "put words in your mouth."

I think I understand what you're talking about. If I'm not mistaken you're talking about something like this: Assume you have a group of players with slightly diverse gaming interests but who have worked out a Social Contract that permits them to game together comfortably. Now take a game that was designed with one specfic mode of play. Yeah, if you give it to this group it's probably going to create some problems but then I would say that the game wasn't designed for them. They need something that speaks more to their Social Contract.

And that's fine. Remember nobody said Incoherent == Bad. At most I think it might have been suggested that Incoherence makes a game less accessible to a newbie because it doesn't clearly define how this new and alien thing is supposed to be played. It might be suggested that Incoherent is probably unhelpful for the group that is already GNS dysfunctional because they have no have basis on which to get past their dysfunction because each player will point to a different portion of the text to prove that the game is really about what they claim it's about.

GNS coherent games are for people like me. BEFORE I even heard of GNS I used to get very angry at the texts of RPGs because they refused to tell me how to play them. I'd turn to the Gamemaster section and I'd read all this wishy-washy text about how you could do this or you could do that. I'd throw the book across the room and I'd yell, "I know what I COULD do why don't you tell me what YOU do." Why did you write this? What is this game about to YOU. How do YOU play this game and why is that cool for YOU. If I agree, I'll play your game. If I don't, I'll play something else.

As for switching GNS priorities in actual play, again when I do that I like to switch games along with it. When I want to address a deep complex issue about power I play Sorcerer. When I feel like just sitting back and running a dungeon crawl, I play D&D3E.

I think what you're suggesting is that there are groups who go through phases of GNS priority within a given campaign. Such that in Session A this player is all about just wanting to see if he can beat the bad guy, and in Session B he just wants to chat in character, and in Session C he wants to show of his characters ethical standard. When you get into this territory you start getting in that whole thing about "Instance of Play." It may be that all three sessions are really leading up to ONE BIG payoff moment where the REAL priority shines through and it's matter of whether the system is going to stand by him or against him in that moment of truth or perhaps this person really needs a game that will address their ever shifting priorities based on their mood of the day in which case, I again say Incoherent design != bad as long as it is RECOGNIZED as such (whether it's articulated or not) and properly drifted into a satisfying flavor the day then it's perfectly fine and workable.

Hope that was clear.

Jesse

jburneko wrote:



GNS coherent games are for people like me. BEFORE I even heard of GNS I used to get very angry at the texts of RPGs because they refused to tell me how to play them. I'd turn to the Gamemaster section and I'd read all this wishy-washy text about how you could do this or you could do that. I'd throw the book across the room and I'd yell, "I know what I COULD do why don't you tell me what YOU do." Why did you write this? What is this game about to YOU. How do YOU play this game and why is that cool for YOU. If I agree, I'll play your game. If I don't, I'll play something else.

Sidhain, as was already pointed out, I did try not to misrepresent your ideas, and was clear (I thought) that this concern about social contract was my interpretation, and what _I_ got out of your comments. Please do not assume I'm out to get you - I wasn't.

That said, it seems that the issue is more about Drift, then. Can any game be purely a single GNS mode? And even if it is, does that necessarily prevent anyone from drifting it in play? Personally, I'd say no to both.

The question isn't whether it works for you or not - anyone can reject anything they'd like, for whatever reasons. I can choose not believe in gravity for example, and explain why I don't float away in some other way. Everyone else will probably still see gravity's effects on me, however. This is a little over the top, but I think the analogy holds - whether you agree with GNS theory or not does not mean it isn't applicable to your instances of play. It's _applicable_ (regardless of whether it's correct or not) to everyone - the question is whether you accept it or not. It seems that you're very cautious about it at the moment, which is perfectly acceptable, of course.

The other problem with testing, beyond finding an unbiased audience, is that it is supremely difficult to isolate GNS from Social Contract, Drift, Exploration, and so on, in game. We don't exist in other people's minds, so even with their input (after the fact, presumably, because it would disrupt the game itself otherwise, and therefore be prone to hindsight and misremembering issues), determining whether Drift played a factor, or Social Contract, or trying to hit on the person to the left, or GNS modes on their own are responsible for decisions is exceedingly difficult.

My last question for you - what exactly is it that you want to test? I'm not clear on that - is it that you want to test whether these are the only modes involved in decision making, or whether there are fewer? Or something else entirely? I'm sorry, but the purpose for the testing (beyond the anecdotal experience compiled already) is totally transparent to me.

Aidan

Sidhain wrote: I think that this may be a serious and important part of examining games. Because, I've always enjoyed taking a set of mechanics and going "I can do this, and this, and this" I don't want you to tell me what to do, I've my own ideas thank you very much, and if you go all Synnabar and the rules must be and setting must be, then well BYE! Sorry thanks for playing. I like games that give me /ideas/ on how to play but don't require that being used.

Sidhain wrote: I advocate testing of GNS--I don't think its "all invalid" I just think it needs testing, and not testing by people who believe it works, but testing by people who don't care if it does or doesn't.

Synnibar basically has rules that state "If the GM isn't using this rule you may call him on it, and gain XP for your character" it basically is designed to empower rules lawyers to use the system entirely as presented.



As for GNS and bias: The problem is, how useful is a theory that can only be used by people who already adhere to it as a model to address gaming in general?

Sidhain wrote: As for GNS and bias: The problem is, how useful is a theory that can only be used by people who already adhere to it as a model to address gaming in general?

Sidhain wrote: As for GNS and bias: The problem is, how useful is a theory that can only be used by people who already adhere to it as a model to address gaming in general?

Sid, I think you might be paying too much attention to using GNS for game design. I really don't think that is its strong suit (or its purpose).

Really, GNS is very simple. It says "Look, people have different goals when they play. Sometimes those goals clash, and they disagree and stop having fun. They try to fix the problems but words like 'story' get used by everyone to mean something different, so we need to introduce a vocabulary to facilitate the discussion. With it we can talk about those play styles and help people identify the points of disagreement so that they can find compromises."

You cite a happily-cooperating group composed of differing play styles as an example. Those people don't need GNS because they've already found a way to work together despite their differences. In their case, a game designed to facilitate one GNS mode might be a disservice for them. I for one am not convinced that incoherence is generally a bad thing (in fact, I'd argue that well-done incoherence is a good thing).

People use GNS to classify lots of things. Ultimately, it only works to classify particular instances of play. We can talk about people's preferences (since most seem to prefer certain modes over others). We can talk about game types (since most games seem to reward or hinder certain modes over others). We can use GNS to very narrowly target certain modes during design.

But even if we could prove that GNS-designed games aren't as good as other ones, it wouldn't disprove the theory's validity (because, at its core, it doesn't talk about games or people, but modes of play). What you'd have to prove is that 1) people do not use different play styles or 2) that having a way to discuss those play styles doesn't improve play (for people willing to learn and compromise).

Can GNS be useful to people who don't believe in it? Of course not! Do the laws pertaining to driving in the United States help people in Russia? But the rules of the road help nonetheless, by making sure that people can communicate on the road and drive more efficiently and with greater safety. Like driving laws, there is no one true way - every country (heck, every state) has their own driving laws. It's not the law so much as the presence of any law that helps. Likewise, it isn't GNS so much as the presence of any thing that explains different play styles and aids in a dialogue to find a compromise. This is why some groups stumble onto their own solutions independent of GNS as a formalized theory.

I'm reading this, trying to understand what the argument's about, and failing.

Sidhain, could you tell us what, in your opinion, GNS theory "fails at" -- what it claims to accomplish which it does not really acccomplish, and how?

I must admit I haven't memorized the essays on GNS and I don't read every single thread on this board, and I sometimes wonder what's S and what's N and stuff like that.

But it seems like you've got some very specific ideas about what GNS *tries to be* but *fails to be*. It would be helpful in understanding the thread if you could articulate those clearly.

Taalyn, let me apologise after getting annoyed at certian posters on RPG create , I jumped the gun a bit on you and for that I apologise.

Before I knew about GNS I was a very frustrated gamer. After discovering GNS (and Stances and Currency, etc) and applying this kind of critical thinking both to game texts and my own actual play group my frustration level has dropped to near zero. And when I AM frustrated I can now clearly articulate WHY I'm frustrated and think up possible solutions to the problem or at least know how to formulate an objective question that can be answered in terms that speak directly to my problem and my "creative agenda" without the issue being clouded by a bunch of kneejerk assumptions on the part of others of what roleplaying "is", "requires", "needs" "must or should be."

This doesn't ask for anything. Any theory under the sun can be used by people who already adhere to it - in fact, it's for those people that the theory is useful. That others don't find it useful is irrelevant..

Usefulness does not equal or correspond to validity.

I think you might be paying too much attention to using GNS for game design. I really don't think that is its strong suit (or its purpose).

Really, GNS is very simple. It says "Look, people have different goals when they play. Sometimes those goals clash, and they disagree and stop having fun. They try to fix the problems but words like 'story' get used by everyone to mean something different, so we need to introduce a vocabulary to facilitate the discussion. With it we can talk about those play styles and help people identify the points of disagreement so that they can find compromises."

Thanks for the apology, Sidhain. Fully accepted! Now, on to business...

Reading back through some of your posts, I _think_ I have it figured out what your issue is: Does GNS adequately describe all possible approaches to decision-making in game? This is a valid concern, and now I see how the whole "test it at a con" thing is useful.

BUT...recent speculation (see the Beeg Horseshoe thread) proposes a 3d model. I can't say if it speaks to you or not, but I think it does address issues where the factor in the decision is vague or multivalent. Particularly in vectors.

Simplistically, a player has a region of space in the 3d model, and will accept possible decisions that 1) fall within that bounded space, and 2) lie closer to their preferred vector. If there are many decisions possible, the one that meets their requirements in all 3 dimensions is likely to be chosen, and if there aren't any decisions available within their prefereed space, they will choose one by changing their space, usually along lines which still respect or prioritize their favorite mode (for the moment).

Ultmately, I think what this means is that generally any given instance-of-play doesn't have a particular mode behind it - if it falls within their player's prioritized space, there is no attention to or observable (to an observer or the player) recourse to a particular mode. It is only when available options lie outside of a preferred course of action that GNS becomes active and relevant.

Do your ways of playing fit this idea? Could you provide an example of something that challenges GNS? I know you've done it before elsewhere, but having one example we can discuss, and easily accesible, might be helpful.

Aidan

Sidhain, I'm not clear at what you're trying to accomplish with your criticism.

I would be very surprised if the principals of GNS actually completely do not apply to your group. I suspect you are simply looking for a big neon arrow and aren't finding one. But regardless of whether it does or doesn't, you seem convinced that you don't need it. Not having any reason to disbelieve you, I say that's great. Fantastic in fact. A gaming group that doesn't clash is a rare and wonderful thing.

I would like you to consider for a moment, a few possibilities.
1) that "clash" does not necessarily mean violent arguement at the table. A clash in gaming priorities can simply mean that when three of you walk away from the table ecstatic that 1 of you walks away disappointed. Is it possible in all the years you've played that you've had players walk away from the table disappointed, perhaps even on a regular basis. Just because you don't know of it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Not everyone is quick to bring up their own disatisfaction and may well have just kept it quietly to themselves so as not to spoil someone elses fun...perhaps even blaming themselves for it. Are you sure no one in all of your dozen groups may have been harboring secret disappointment because the game was not what they wanted.

The fact that you can only identify 1 instance and that is an extreme one suggests that you may be looking for something big and flashy when really dysfunction can be something that goes largely undetected.


2) I cannot address with you how "useful" the theory is because I don't understand what you're expecting to be able to do with it. Is it possible that GNS is in fact a saw, and you're expecting it to be a hammer and after swinging it around a few times you then proclaim that it doesn't drive nails very well and is thus not useful? Without knowing what "use" you think you should be able to put the theory towards responding to your point is impossible.

And by this I don't mean a vague "I'd like to be able to blah". I mean an actual honest to god event that really occured that you attempted to explain with GNS and could not. Not speculation, not an imaginary exercise, an actual use, describable in detail, where it failed. THAT alone will give us something to talk about.


Finally, I'm not sure how or why you expect something (anything) to be equally useful to everybody. You dismiss Jesse's testimonial as just being one person and reiterate some idea that if it doesn't help everyone its just a pet project without a point. I admire your egalatarian spirit, but quite frankly, bollux.

If even one person had their gaming enhanced by the discussions that go on here that's justification enough for the whole thing. And it isn't one, its dozens, possibly hundreds. This site is full of people who to one degree or another found the theory useful...or at least found thinking about the topics the theory discusses useful. I've said before that the process is as important as the destination.

BUT...recent speculation (see the Beeg Horseshoe thread) proposes a 3d model. I can't say if it speaks to you or not, but I think it does address issues where the factor in the decision is vague or multivalent. Particularly in vectors.

Simplistically, a player has a region of space in the 3d model, and will accept possible decisions that 1) fall within that bounded space, and 2) lie closer to their preferred vector. If there are many decisions possible, the one that meets their requirements in all 3 dimensions is likely to be chosen, and if there aren't any decisions available within their prefereed space, they will choose one by changing their space, usually along lines which still respect or prioritize their favorite mode (for the moment).

Do your ways of playing fit this idea? Could you provide an example of something that challenges GNS? I know you've done it before elsewhere, but having one example we can discuss, and easily accesible, might be helpful.

Valamir wrote:


I would like you to consider for a moment, a few possibilities.
1) that "clash" does not necessarily mean violent arguement at the table. A clash in gaming priorities can simply mean that when three of you walk away from the table ecstatic that 1 of you walks away disappointed. Is it possible in all the years you've played that you've had players walk away from the table disappointed, perhaps even on a regular basis. Just because you don't know of it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Not everyone is quick to bring up their own disatisfaction and may well have just kept it quietly to themselves so as not to spoil someone elses fun...perhaps even blaming themselves for it. Are you sure no one in all of your dozen groups may have been harboring secret disappointment because the game was not what they wanted.

2) I cannot address with you how "useful" the theory is because I don't understand what you're expecting to be able to do with it. Is it possible that GNS is in fact a saw, and you're expecting it to be a hammer and after swinging it around a few times you then proclaim that it doesn't drive nails very well and is thus not useful? Without knowing what "use" you think you should be able to put the theory towards responding to your point is impossible.

And by this I don't mean a vague "I'd like to be able to blah". I mean an actual honest to god event that really occured that you attempted to explain with GNS and could not. Not speculation, not an imaginary exercise, an actual use, describable in detail, where it failed. THAT alone will give us something to talk about.

Finally, I'm not sure how or why you expect something (anything) to be equally useful to everybody. You dismiss Jesse's testimonial as just being one person and reiterate some idea that if it doesn't help everyone its just a pet project without a point. I admire your egalatarian spirit, but quite frankly, bollux.

If even one person had their gaming enhanced by the discussions that go on here that's justification enough for the whole thing. And it isn't one, its dozens, possibly hundreds. This site is full of people who to one degree or another found the theory useful...or at least found thinking about the topics the theory discusses useful. I've said before that the process is as important as the destination.

Heya Sidhain,

Here's my take on what's going on - feel free to take it with a small Ukrainian salt mine if you need to.

There are two things you're getting wrong about GNS theory:

1) it applies only to the individual gaming instance. So your Narr-tending player who won't take a Simmy game in a Narr direction isn't "disobeying" GNS - that's a fundamental part of the theory. Note too that describing a game as Narr or Sim is verboten - Games are not Simmy, poeple are not either, only individual decisions are. The examples you've provided all fit fine within GNS. Coherent, congruent play is what GNS is built out of, but not, I think, what it is built for:

2) You are trying to use a saw as a hammer. GNS is useful in a game as a way to diagnose where incoherency occurs, and address it in a way that doesn't alienate or value one mode over another. That is, it's a diagnosis tool, and you seem to be trying to apply it to healthy play. That's pointless! ;)

The power and importance of GNS does not lie in analysis of play while play happens (if that's even possible), but in its ability to describe decision points and relate them to one another. GNS is useful in describing games according to the kinds of decisions they are likely to offer (i.e. TRoS offers ways to allow Narrative decisions to be made). It's useful when there are conflicts between players about how to choose when faced with certain decisions - understanding one sort of decision is Narrative, and another is Gamist, you can work with your players to find a solution to the situation that is acceptable to both. You know what's happening in their heads, on a superficial level, and it's unlikely that they do, so you know to find an answer that meets Narrative and Gamist requirements, and can go from there.

At least, that's my understanding. I could have it totally wrong - maybe an expert will speak up and correct me if that's the case.

Aidan

taalyn wrote:

1) it applies only to the individual gaming instance. So your Narr-tending player who won't take a Simmy game in a Narr direction isn't "disobeying" GNS - that's a fundamental part of the theory. Note too that describing a game as Narr or Sim is verboten - Games are not Simmy, poeple are not either, only individual decisions

Sidhain wrote:

taalyn wrote:

1) it applies only to the individual gaming instance. So your Narr-tending player who won't take a Simmy game in a Narr direction isn't "disobeying" GNS - that's a fundamental part of the theory. Note too that describing a game as Narr or Sim is verboten - Games are not Simmy, poeple are not either, only individual decisions

Ah my friend but that is the rub. You see, if the decision doesn't matter--why is there a theory. If /any/ decision in /any/ game is valid. Why are their games that focus on supporting certian elements of GNS decision making? Because if all we can look at is the decisions, then we aren't talking about gaming as a whole at all--but just a single decision point. On the other hand, if we talk about suggesting and enhancing certian decision points with rules, and or providing support for a choice someone makes, then is that game which supports a GNS element got a leaning? If you disconeect indivifual decisions from play, you lose something--the big picture. Perhaps that why I find GNS flawed because, the /big/ picture--the overal acceptable trend of decisions made by a group, and supported by rules creates the experience. I aim to generate fun, fulfilling experiences. Not a /single/ axiomatic choice.

2) You are trying to use a saw as a hammer. GNS is useful in a game as a way to diagnose where incoherency occurs, and address it in a way that doesn't alienate or value one mode over another. That is, it's a diagnosis tool, and you seem to be trying to apply it to healthy play. That's pointless! ;)

I will accept I'm using it in that mode, if you concede that both a hammer and a saw are tools which can be constructive to play, or destructive to play. The problem is, I feel, at its ideal GNS theory is neither. It's more like using a Geiger counter--it detects something, or diagonoses it. But It may be both that and an saw/hammer---for I see it as being possibly destructive to play. (and constructive as well.)

GNS is useful in describing games according to the kinds of decisions they are likely to offer (i.e. TRoS offers ways to allow Narrative decisions to be made).

So how does offering a way to allow G, N, or S, decisions as a singular letter, not qualify the game as leanign Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist?

If a game supports a way to allow a decision to be made, in excess of the other possible directions, is that not a "ist" game?

Sidhain wrote:

taalyn wrote:

1) it applies only to the individual gaming instance. So your Narr-tending player who won't take a Simmy game in a Narr direction isn't "disobeying" GNS - that's a fundamental part of the theory. Note too that describing a game as Narr or Sim is verboten - Games are not Simmy, poeple are not either, only individual decisions

Ah my friend but that is the rub. You see, if the decision doesn't matter--why is there a theory.

Lots of discussion going on with very interesting points but I'd just like to add a small point that I think has been missed.

I think where GNS really works is in realizing what it is you like in role playing games and what is the cause of frustrations you have with current games. I think that it's obvious that many gamers have not found a game that perfectly suits there needs and that's why so many keep looking for a new system or trying to design a better one. If you know what some of your base goals in playing a game are it's easier to design towards that.

Hi guys,

It looks like we've fallen into the classic "How useful is theory if...." pit.

Let's try looking at it like this...Physics is a theory, based on observable phenomenon. Everybody has some sense of physics, because people use it every day when they walk, pick things up, shoot a basketball, or drive down the street. Not everyone knows the language or terminology of physics. Does this invalidate physics as a useful theory?

Let's seperate some of the recurring issues here:

-GNS is not easy to communicate

Ok, neither is high level physics. Perhaps there is an easier way to communicate it. Instead of complaining about it, it would be of more use to try to find a better means of communicating the idea.

-Knowledge of GNS isn't necessary to have fun

Um, yeah. No one ever claimed it was the savior to play. What GNS is, is a set of tools for play that does have problems. You can also use those tools to "tune up" play that isn't quite on as well.

-GNS doesn't produce games that are always fun, all the time

Uh, yeah. Someone can make a damn good cheesecake, and if you hate cheesecake, it still won't make you like it. Will you be upset at the cook because this particular cheesecake didn't change your mind?

I'm not arguing that GNS is infallible, what I'm arguing is that folks are tripping up over non-issues here.

Chris

Bankuei wrote: Hi guys,

-GNS is not easy to communicate

Ok, neither is high level physics. Perhaps there is an easier way to communicate it. Instead of complaining about it, it would be of more use to try to find a better means of communicating the idea.

Chris

Hi Marco,

Correct, there are different reasons that GNS is hard to communicate.

At its heart, GNS says, "There are different ways to play, coordinate your preference(singular or mixed) with the group(again, singular or mixed, same or different from your own) to prevent problems" This isn't very controversial. Once you get past that, all hell breaks loose in terms of communication and understanding.

Why? Here's an incomplete, but common list of reasons that GNS becomes hard to communicate:

-The Rorshach test-
Folks read things into GNS that are just not there. Value judgements about one mode being superior or inferior to another, GNS is the end-all be-all "One true way of gaming" etc, etc.

-Denial of Dysfunction-
Dysfunctional situations involve not talking about what is going on. The next step is to go into denial about dysfunction. After years of being conditioned for denial, actively observing and recognizing what's actually happening in play becomes difficult, if not impossible. There's more than a few folks who, if given Inspectres, would instantly declare the game "broken" and "unplayable" despite evidence(of actual play) to the contrary.

-Defensiveness-
Along with the above two, folks have this incredible tendency to take every statement as either a dogmatic truth to provide some sense of identity("D20 rules! All others suck!"), or else something that is an attack on their identity that must be defended against. GNS makes some serious statements that many folks take as a direct attack on their identity.

-Ego-
Some folks just like to argue. They get some sort of self-esteem boost from arguing anything. You could honestly post up, "The sun rises in the east" and get arguments to the contrary.

Now, this isn't to say that GNS is all right, all good, all done. This is to say that its impossible to get any form of constructive criticism or actual understanding going on while operating from one of the above positions.

GNS is actually harder to communicate than physics, because its asking people to observe their own behaviors, and those of the people around them, and to be honest, truly honest with what's going on. You don't have feelings or emotional ties to a proton, while its very hard to honestly say that your best friend was power tripping and picking on someone in an emotionally abusive way during a game.

We are not socially trained to have conditioned responses to atoms, but we are trained to have conditioned responses to ego-assertions, peer pressure, negative remarks, to "read into" things, to not overtly and explicitly describe things.

It is no different than arguing color theory with a blind man, who's arguing with you solely based on either what he imagines color to be, or else someone else has bullied him into believing. Until folks open their eyes, and look at the color first, can any discussion about theory take place.

And no, this isn't just a GNS thing, but pretty much the same issue in any case of observable human behavior. It just happens that this much larger box of the human condition is playing a serious role in hampering the ability of people to correlate personal observable experience with what is being discussed.

If anyone can point to methods that easily bypass the above issues, along with whatever others exist that I haven't mentioned, please let the world know, it will do wonders for the human condition overall.

Chris