Hi, All!

A number of recent threads (and my own noodling) over the GNS theory as a whole have lead me to write a description of what I think the GNS theory is saying.

I'm not sure it's right, or that I've understood the nuances. This is not as complete an essay as any of Ron's for example. I'm just trying to get a simple summary I can get my brain around.

It's about 150 lines long in my word processor, which is probably not as 'simple' as it could be, but oh, well.

Please let me know if I'm on the right track with what I've got here, or if I'm missing important details.

Thanks!

--------Cut Here-----------

GNS is a theory, a theory of how people play RPGs. It is an attempt at an accurate description of RPG game play, as opposed to a proscriptive limit. It is an attempt at identifying and quantifying the elements that make up a role playing game in the hopes of improving that gameplay.

GNS stands for Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulation, and describe three mutually supportive modes for game play. They can also be used to describe systems and gamers, insofar as those systems and gamers prefer or encourage play that falls into one of these modes.

The theory does not start with GNS, however.

The foundation upon which an RPG exists is a social one, consisting of communication between players. Historically this has been face-to-face or various sorts of 'play by post/mail/e-mail/etc.', but it can also be computer mediated. The important point is that there is a social context for the game. This is called a Social Contract.

The term Social Contract is a broad one. In some ways, every interaction a person has with another person is a Social Contract. In a Role Playing Game, there is an RPG-specific Social Contract in effect which governs the playing of the game and the conduct of those who are playing.

One specific part of this Social Contract involves the rules of the game. The rules themselves compose a 'potential' Social Contract in and of themselves. Part of the player Social Contract will involve to what extent the Social Contract embodied in the Rules will be in effect -- will the rules be followed exactly, what is the role of the player who is a GM vs. a player who is running a character, will there be house rules, what are those house rules, and how are differences of interpretation mediated. All of these things are defined, explicitely or implicitly, by a group sitting down to play. This is the realm of the Social Contract.

The next stage of play in the GNS theory is called Exploration.

Exploration is the act of playing the game. By playing an RPG, you are doing a number of things. The Social Contract embodies the physical processes involved in undertaking the game. The game itself plays out largely in the imaginations of the players. Exploration of that imaginative landscape using the physical processes defined by the Social Contract is what playing the game is, at it's most basic level.

We now come to the crux of the theory. What sort of Exploration is being undertaken?

There are three sorts of Exploration, as defined by GNS. These modes are not mutually exclusive overall, but only one of them is prioritized at a given time, by a given group of people, playing under a given set of rules and circumstances.

These three modes are Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist Exploration. In Gamist play, the players of the game are motivated by what GNS refers to as Step On Up. This is a kind of social interaction between the players, who are confronted with opportunities to Step On Up and face a Challenge of some sort, where Succeeding or Failing at whatever this Challenge is constituting 'winning', in some sense. The overcoming of these Challenges is what Gamist play is all about.

Narrativist play, by contrast, is involved with generating a narrative of some sort. Interesting events, interpersonal/intercharacter interaction, and so forth are the things that characterize this mode of play. This is generally referred to by the shorthand phrase Story Now. Not waiting for Story to eventually develop, but develop narrative Right Now.

Simulationist play is about creating or recreating a shared imaginitive space. In all cases, of course, an imaginative space is created. Simulationist play differs from the others in that the nature of that imagined space is made a priority. Things happen and player actions are motivitated in certain directions Because That's How They Should Be as opposed to either That Makes a Good Story or That's How I can Win. This as been variously referred to as Emulation, Exploration Squared, and Exploration Now.

It's important to note that these modes of play are present in all instances of play. Very few games do not have all three kinds of play present in one form or another.

For the most part, however, at any given time a single mode has been crowned king by the Social Contract. It is understood by the players that one of these three modes of play is The Most Important Thing, the (Creative) Agenda for play, and that play decisions should be prioritized primarily to facilitate and validate that choice. Other modes are certainly present in this play, but they are subservient to the realization of the mode being prioritized at a particular time.

It's also important to note that hybrid play can occur in a number of ways. It's possible to prioritize more than one play mode on a more granular level -- "combat will be gamist, but the rest of the flow will be Narrative." For the most part these kinds of compromises are uneasy, and in most if not all cases one or another of the priorities will come to dominate the play of a given group. It is difficult, if not impossible, to make two priorities
equally balanced. Generally, one wins out.

Again, this does not mean that other modes of play are not taking place. It also doesn't mean that some of the players are perhaps not enjoying other aspects of the game than the prioritized Agenda. A player who primarily enjoys Narrative style exploration can have fun in a Simulationist prioritized gaming session, although it's possible that she is enjoying the Narrative elements of play more than the prioritized Simulationist play mode.

Finally, each Agenda can be Explored using one or more techniques. Unlike the Agendas, these techniques, called Stances, are fluid, and players rapidly flow from one to another. Although some Stances lend themselves preferentially to one or more of the Agendas, you can and will see instances of all the Stances in play no matter what Agenda has been prioritized.

There are three-and-a-half Stances (I'll explain the 'half' in a moment).

The first is Director Stance. This is the 'offstage', metagame statement of activities and events. For the most part, in most games, this Stance is the one most frequently employed by the player who is GM.

The second is Actor Stance. This is the Stance in which the player is acting out what his or her character says and does. Anything the player says or does is what the character is doing. The player is acting the part of a particular character.

The final Stance is Author, and it has a corresponding half-stance attached to it, called Pawn. Pawn Stance involves "my guy does this" kinds of meta-game statements, while Author Stance involves a bit more Authorial direction of what the character is doing and interacting with -- perhaps involving the reactions or existence of things which have not been specified by the GM in Director stance. Pawn and Author are not different qualitatively, but are different quantitatively in the amount of control beyond the specific character that the player is excercising.

It's important to realize that the mode of play at any given point in time could be any of G, N, or S, and might be made using any of the various Stances. There are Narrative elements present in both Gamist prioritized and Simulationist prioritized games, just as they are present in Narrativist prioritized games. The difference is that in Narrativist prioritized the Narrative elements are, well, prioritized. Agendas and Stances tend to be quite fluid from moment to moment, but the Prioritized Agenda tends to be constant, or only varying over long time-frames (usually only when the player mix shifts, there is a re-orientation of the group due to Social Contract mediated conflict, or otherwise, usually between actual play sessions).

To sum up, the general thrust of this theory is a descriptive one. This is what appears to be happening in Actual Play in (more or less) functional RPGs. It's trying to describe things, not judge their relative worth. The goal is to have fun, and to understand what we are doing, so as to (hopefully) increase that fun. There are a number of failure modes that a game can experience, due to the various mix of elements that are involved, but that's beyond the scope of this quick summary.

----------------Cut Here--------------

So, that's what I'm thinking GNS means, at the moment. How close am I?

Hi Dana,

My first concern is with the word "theory." It is read by many people in different ways. To some, "theory" is the oppositional term to "fact," and is not especially far from the words "lie" or "fancy." To others, it is the oppositional term to "experience" or "application," and by definition insufficient for applied purposes. And to still others, it is the developed or mature version of the term "explanation," which is to say, an explanation that has garnered support from several different directions.

Most of the time at the Forge, people are using the third meaning. That doesn't mean that people elsewhere, or newly arrived at the Forge, or who simply prefer one of the other readings, are going to read it that way. You might want to clarify your use of the term or substitute a less problematic one ("description" is fine) if you'd like to use this summary in discussing the ideas with others.

Your breakdown of Social Contract and Exploration is good. You might consider that "Exploration" is a jargon term and does not connote, necessarily, the characters literally exploring anything or anywhere. Giving a definition would help: "Imagine together" works fine for me.

Instead of calling the GNS modes "sorts" of Exploration, I suggest calling them applications of Exploration. The term "creative agenda" was coined to refer to GNS modes as social and aesthetic priorities, during play.

Your treatment of Narrativist play is hair-raising, and in relationship to Simulationist play even more so. I strongly suggest dropping the word "story" from your description entirely. "Story" is and can be produced by nearly any kind of role-playing. What matters for Narrativist play is that a Premise is demonstrably present and affecting the people's decisions. A Premise is a generalized question, usually problematic in ethical/moral terms. "Can vengeance serve justice?" "Is righteousness always right?" The Premise does not have to be "consciously" present or stated in any way.

Notice that a great deal of Simulationist and Gamist play may enact or develop a "story" in the sense that a conflict and resolution are present. In such play, the Premise's answer(s) is or are not left up to play itself, but rather are treated as given.

It's important to note that these modes of play are present in all instances of play. Very few games do not have all three kinds of play present in one form or another.

For the most part, however, at any given time a single mode has been crowned king by the Social Contract. It is understood by the players that one of these three modes of play is The Most Important Thing, the (Creative) Agenda for play, and that play decisions should be prioritized primarily to facilitate and validate that choice. Other modes are certainly present in this play, but they are subservient to the realization of the mode being prioritized at a particular time.

Ron,

Thanks for the comments -- there were several light-bulb moments for me. I'll mention them in a minute.

I wanted to hit on the "present in all instances" phrase. For me, the two paragraphs you cite are effectively equivalent. The second one is just a more complete statement of the same general thing.

I know I'm muddled on the Story/Narrative stuff. I'm not trying to use Story in the more general sense, but I haven't got a good word to put in yet (I need to go back and reread the Nar essay again, and maybe it'll stick better). I suspect part of my problem here is that while I've read and have real passion for a large number of narrative-heavy games, I've had comparatively little experience actually playing in narrativist games or with a Narrativist prioritized Agenda.

I'll get there =)

The big lightbulb in the later Stance/Technique stuff was the fact that you are limiting the Stance to player/character interrelationship, and not including the 'furniture' like the Orcs, or even that "It's monday". I don't think I have as good a sense of the split between the Stances as I do the GNS split, but I haven't thought about them as much. Again, I think I've had mostly Pawn and Actor stances in the play I've experienced. But then, I think you're right about my view on Actor stance -- it's probably a bit too 'in character' focussed.

Anyway, I hadn't been splitting that level up that finely, although I think I'm seeing the distinction you're making. I was thinking the Stance had more to do with the approach between the player and the Shared Imagined Space, not between the player and the character in the Shared Imagined Space. Hm. I think the former is perhaps part of what you mean by Technique, if I'm reading your post right. I think a lot of that involves 'higher level' Social Contract issue around the mediation between the social contract as defined by the rulebook and the social contract as instantiated by a given play group. I see that as happening more or less embedded in the root Social Contract layer, and therefore not really acting at the same level as the Stances, although clearly the Social Contract issues touch all levels as they are all contained inside it in the Venn Diagram.

I'm going to mull on all this more and try and revise my summary. If other people have comments or criticisms, please let me have 'em!

Anya,

I think your major trip-up in stances stems from trying to tie them to how the players describe things, when the stances really have to do with what elements the player brings together in arriving at the description.

For example, "I go to the tavern" can be arrived at in different ways depending on stance.

Pawn: "I, the player, want my character to go to the tavern." In this case, the player's only concern is what he wants the character to do.

Author: "I, the player, want my character to the go to the taven, and my character likes to have fun, so he'd do that." In this case, the player's main concern is what he wants the character to do, but he justifies it by referencing the character's traits or thoughts.

Actor: "I, the player, think my character would want to have fun now. Time to go to the taven." Here, the character is considered like a real person in his own right, and the player makes the decision based on what that character wants.

Director: "I, the player, would like there to be a tavern in this town, so I'll just announce that I'm going there and we'll see if anyone has a problem with that. My character would certainly want to go there." In this case, the player is going beyond the other stances by creating the tavern as well as the intent to go there. There's no way his character can force a tavern to appear, but the player brings it in to enhance or permit what he wants to do. (Note that this can happen whether or not the rules explicitly support director stance. This example suggests that the rules do not formally support it).

And, like all examples, these simply point to some key traits in each stance but by no means cover all the possible uses of them. In particular actor stance does not have to be first person: "My character goes to the tavern" can be used for this example just as easily as "I go to the tavern."

Hell on Hotwheels, Justin. That was beautiful.

Best,
Ron