Nota Bene: This is more in the nature of random scribblings. Feedback will certainly affect the final thesis and how it's presented.

First to present a description of RPGs.

[description]A roleplaying game is a pastime where the participants assume the role of imaginary characters in a fictional setting, with a set of rules that establish what is and is not possible in that setting.[/description]

Second, to provide the reader with my position vis a vis 'game' and 'narrative'

[position]While 'game' and 'narrative' play a part in RPGs, neither can be considered central to the experience. While a fictional experience guided (in part) by rules, a roleplaying game is more akin to real life than it is to the traditional game or fiction. That is, most anything can happen in RPGs, even events that are dramaticaly inappropriate in a story. Furthermore, while RPGs have rules, these rules are used in a more limited fashion than in standard games.

[sidebar]In this case I'm also referring to the playing area. In a standard game the rules are more than what's written down, what the playing area allows one to do in a game can be considered a different category of rules. Take, as an example, the chessboard. Not only do the written rules limit movement, so does the board itself, and so can be considered a set of movement rules expressed in a different manner.[/sidebar]

On Simulation

In the case of 'simulation' the question needs to be asked, what are you trying to simulate? Real world? A genre? A feel or experience? Pre-D&D the old Simulations Publications Incorporated publish Campaign for North Africa, the ultimate monster game. The core of the game was a system for simulating the problem of supply during the North African campaign. It was comprehensive, and did the job well. But it turns out it wasn't what people had meant.

So SPI tried it again, producing Desert Fox a much smaller simulation with a set of supply rules that simulated the effects of the supply situation during the campaign.

That's what I mean when I ask, what are you trying to simulate?

In addition, is a complex system (much less a complicated system) necessary to for your simulation to work? If have seen some involed hit location systems, the best I've seen comes from Dangerous Journeys and involves four general locations and a bit of imagination.

(For those not conversant with DJ I now present the Strike Location System: There are four general locations, Non-Vital, Vital, Super Vital, and Ultra Vital. Depending on where the target was hit damage is multiplied respectively x1, x2, x3, and x4. Add in damage bonuses for Physical Muscular Power (Strength, in a sense), size, and experience and one could do a lot of damage. Armor in this system protects certain areas, this fact gives one a good idea of what each Strike Location involves, if you really need to know this information.)

In short, what you've got with the Dangerous Journeys Strike Location system is one that does much the same job as more complicated hit location determination systems, but with less die rolling, and a single, short chart that can be easily modified for non-humanoid life forms, and which is soon memorized by those who use it a lot.

Taking a Stance

So now we come to the matter of 'stance'. What is my stance?

To put it in a word, adventure. What do people do in an RPG? They have adventures. What is the goal of any RPG? To have adventures. Without a good adventure any reward gained at the end of a session becomes dross at best, and garbage at worst. If the adventure is a good one even a session where the whole party dies can be quite enjoyable and even provide stories to pass on down to future 'generations'.

True, often there are more 'important' goals in a session, but what happens on the way to fulfilling the goal? You got it, you have an adventure.

That's it for now. Obviously my arguments could be better presented, not to mention better organized. Which is why I present it here at this on-line symposium, to solicit feedback which could change this in unforeseen ways.

Remember, if you can't say anything nice, say something original.

Alan

Hi Alan!

Welcome to the Forge.

I've read several of your posts and they seem to be approaching ideas that have already been given quite a bit of attention here. As others have mentioned, certain articles in the Articles section were developed from these discussions.

I urge you to read three essays in particular, rather than re-invent the wheel. Once you've had a chance to absorb these, I'm sure your perspective will find some new depth to add.

These articles are

GNS and Other Matters, which introduces all the elements of the GNS theory.

The "back to Exploration" section of Gamism: Step on Up is a great clarification of GNS theory, but I would suggest holding off on reading the rest of the Gamism essay, until you've read

Simulationism: The Right to Dream

I am guessing at what you mean by "Adventure" but I think you'll find in corresponds to the term "Exploration" as it's used in these essays. Exploration - the creation of imaginary people, places, things, and events - is taken as a given, within which the preferences of Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism exist. So you can see that GNS draws deeper distinctions from Exploration, rather than superceding it.

Hope this helps.

Alan, welcome to the Forge.

Here's my guess: Conflict is the meaningful heart of what you're calling Adventure. Adventures, as such, can be cool or lame, engaging or dull, and the difference is the conflicts that they embody. Good conflict = good adventure; bad or missing conflict = bad or missing adventure.

You're absolutely right that every rpg has a game, a narrative, and simulation, the way you're using them, and that "adventure" -- what I'd call conflict and meaning -- arises from their combination in action. (Or fails to arise, sometimes.)

Much maybe most of the stuff here at the Forge is about identifying and creating good conflicts (thus good adventures). Gamism and Narrativism aren't about "the game" or "the narrative" at the level you're describing; they're about the conflicts that drive the in-game events. My guess is that if you have that in mind, what you read here will make more sense.

-Vincent

Hi Alan,

Another "Welcome!" on my part :)

You may find with some review that much of your concerns are not contradicting anything that anyone else here is saying, although we may just be using different terminology at the moment.

In GNS terms, they are not saying that "Story" of any sense is excluded from G/S, that Exploration is excluded from G/N, or that any sense of conflict/challenge is excluded from N/S. GNS is simply saying that one may be a focus for a particular person, whether its someone who wants to create a "meaningful story"(Theme), "get into the world" (Exploration), or "Beat the challenge" (Step on Up).

As far as Stances, stances are talking about "how you play" in particular instances, not as goals or motivations as to "what you're doing" or "why you're doing it". So nothing you're saying contradicts Stances as laid out. Adventures happen in all 3 stances, check out Riddle of Steel, Trollbabe and Universalis for games that tend to "push for" one of each stance.

All that said, I'm very interested in hearing what you consider to be the assumptions behind GNS and your differences with them.

Chris

mythusmage wrote: To put it in a word, adventure. What do people do in an RPG? They have adventures. What is the goal of any RPG? To have adventures. Without a good adventure any reward gained at the end of a session becomes dross at best, and garbage at worst. If the adventure is a good one even a session where the whole party dies can be quite enjoyable and even provide stories to pass on down to future 'generations'.

True, often there are more 'important' goals in a session, but what happens on the way to fulfilling the goal? You got it, you have an adventure.

Alan--I do want to welcome you to the Forge; not that my welcome means more than anyone else's, but that it is heart-felt. Before I address your post, I'd like to make a personal comment. Yesterday I saw your first thread, the title, challenging whether GNS was valid in the GNS forum. My reaction was, not this again. Then I glanced over and saw that it was posted by Mythus Mage, and my gloom lifted. I know Mythus Mage. He's an intelligent poster, who contributed much on Gaming Outpost forums. I don't remember seeing him here before, but I know that he's worth reading, and good to have here.

I didn't respond to that thread, because by then several people had already addressed it and pointed you to the articles. I am responding to this thread, because as I read your post something strikes me.

The GNS theory of roleplaying uses certain words as terms of art; that is, people who talk about the theory understand those words to have very narrow and specific meaning. This is the nature of most fields, that they assign a narrow and specific meaning to something which has a general meaning everyone knows. It's why you should have a lawyer at least advise you on your will and your contracts, since if you write "I leave everything I own to my four children equally" that might not mean what you think it means--I'd wager that that would mean joint ownership in the entireties, that is, each of them owns everything and they have to agree on how to dispose of it. You have to know the language to be able to use it properly.

Now, as I read your theory about roleplaying, I see that you're using words that are terms of art in the theory, or at least are related to such words--narrative, game, simulation, goal, stance--but you're using them to mean what they mean to you, as general words, and not at all what they mean within the lingua franca that has developed around the theory, at Gaming Outpost and now here.

You say that neither "game" nor "narrative" can be central to the roleplaying experience; but your use of those words seems to have nothing to do with "gamism" or "narrativism" beyond that they're spelled alike. You make some very good points about "simulation", but nothing about "simulationism". You use the word stance in a way that doesn't seem to have any relation to any meaning of that word that I know (although perhaps I'm just not seeing how you're using it), and certainly no relation to what is meant in GNS theory by the term.

Certainly the use of jargon is a barrier to entry in any field; yet it is also a necessary aspect of the field. I can tell you that I recently installed a CDRW in my PC, and if you're computer literate you know that this means I connected a new device to my IBM-compatible personal computer which is able to use the medium known as compact discs to store and retrieve data. If every time I want to refer to the device I have to explain what it is, our discussions will take a long time indeed; if I can just say CDRW and trust that you know what I mean, we can get on to the business of talking about it instead of defining it.

That's why newcomers to The Forge are so persistently pointed to the articles. When we say Narrativism, we mean something very specific; the same with Gamism, Simulationism, Exploration, Stance, Director, Author, Actor, Pawn--it is incumbent on you to understand how we are using those words before you attempt to argue that our usage is invalid.

I do think that adventure is part of play; but what sort of adventure do you mean? Winning a close-played basketball game is one sort of adventure; discovering the love of a woman or the dedication of a friend is another. And in a game like The Sims, the popular MMORPG (I think it's in that category) in which you play ordinary modern people living ordinary lives, what is the adventure? Or is it not a role playing game if it doesn't include a certain specific kind of adventure?

I think there are narrativist adventures, in which the characters explore deep moral, ethical, or personal issues and come to crises of faith or integrity in which they must overcome or succumb. There are also gamist adventures, in which characters face daunting challenges such as powerful foes or skillful opponents, and must rise to perform well enough to defeat them. Then there are simulationist adventures, such as spelunking in a mine or canoeing through a wilderness, in which nothing ever really happens but you are entirely taken by the wonder of everything around you. Are those not all adventures? Are they not also all different?

I'm one of the odd ducks around here; I bounce around between GNS modes in my play like popcorn in a hot air popper. But I recognize that these are different kinds of adventures, even as I enjoy them all.

Does that clarify things at all?

--M. J. Young