Example Games to help me learn GNS
Vladius:
Quote from: Ayyavazi on August 11, 2009, 10:28:46 AM
Thanks for your comments Adam,
I am in agreement with you that oversimplification causes a lot of distress with GNS.
Vlad,
I appreciate your opinions and thank you for your input. However, being that your post does not actually address the topic, I kindly ask that you refrain from espousing further in this one. I have my own problems with the GNS, but I hardly think it is a crackpot theory that facilitates people feeling elite or superior or holier than thou. Some people might use it that way, but I am not planning to. I do agree that all of GNS is present in every game, which many of my topics are attempting to argue.
If you want, feel free to contribute meaningfully in those. They can be found in the actual play forum. Thanks again, and cheers!
--Norm
I'm not saying that, I just think that taken to its logical extreme, it's a bunch of people who came up with the theory thinking they can psychologically pander to particular groups of players by focusing on combat, having lots of rules, or having not very many rules (and replacing them) with lots of talking. (G-N-S respectively.)
I thank you for being polite, and I apologize if I offended anyone.
What I'm trying to say is that maybe Norm doesn't really need to have anything to do with GNS theory, and that he would probably have a lot more fun without it and just playing whatever he thinks is the most fun.
Adam Dray:
I'm pretty sure Norm is interested in understanding GNS as a thing all on its own. He can correct me. I've been working under that impression. Really, I'm not here to evangelize anyone. If they don't want to talk about GNS, that's fine. I'd rather people post interesting stuff in Actual Play, or post cool new ideas in First Thoughts. ;)
Quote from: Vladius on August 11, 2009, 12:21:02 PM
Say I play a "Simulationist" game. (Or "S" game.) While playing an S game, I want to experience being an ultra powerful wizard type, and this is possible within the rules. Does this make me a G person, or does this mean that the game is split between G and S since magic is unrealistic? Or is it split in its "creative agenda" because I can actually talk to people as said wizard in a very N fashion? GM (or player contract or whatever it is these days) willing, I can do pretty much anything I want inside the rules of the game, so I can be a roleplaying thespian, a swashbuckling min-maxer, and an economized survivalist all at once.
A game focusing on combat is still a game simulating combat, challenging players to win the combat, and a story about the combat.
Since G, N, and S are not terms that apply to people, under the current Big Model theory as accepted by people here, asking if it makes you a "G person" is /meaningless/. That's what I tried to explain above.
The things you're talking about are Techniques and Ephemera, which exist at a low level of the Model, and they have little to do with creative agenda, which is a thing that nails all the Model's layers together. Creative agenda is best understood as concerted group behavior that starts with a shared (but often unstated) goal in the Social Contract ("let's play this game together in this way"), the Exploration that makes up their play, the Techniques they use to explore, and the Ephemera or moment-to-moment interactions that comprise those Techniques or represent them "in actuality." If you can see how Creative Agenda connects all those things together (as defined in the Model), then I think our other points make more sense.
A "game focusing on combat" doesn't say anything about creative agenda. Combat is probably a Situation (part of the Exploration layer) and possibly you also mean System (rules for combat) and maybe some specific Techniques (roll initiative, roll to hit, roll damage, did the enemy die?). Those components can be arranged in different ways using a host of different Techniques to help players accomplish different kinds of play. When everything lines up right, it can produce Gamist play, Narrativist play, or Simulationist play. If the main point of play is challenging the players and it's realized through all of the layers of the Model as described above, you can call that Gamist (Step On Up) play. The main point of play might be addressing a premise though, and if that address of premise is realized through all the layers of play, you can call that Narrativist (Story Now) play. If the main point of play is celebration of source material through "constructive denial" (affirming among the group what is "right" and what isn't), and if that constructive denial is realized through all the layers of play, you can call that Simulationist (Right To Dream) play.
Does that help you understand The Big Model?
Vladius:
Quote from: Adam Dray on August 11, 2009, 12:38:40 PM
I'm pretty sure Norm is interested in understanding GNS as a thing all on its own. He can correct me. I've been working under that impression. Really, I'm not here to evangelize anyone. If they don't want to talk about GNS, that's fine. I'd rather people post interesting stuff in Actual Play, or post cool new ideas in First Thoughts. ;)
Quote from: Vladius on August 11, 2009, 12:21:02 PM
Say I play a "Simulationist" game. (Or "S" game.) While playing an S game, I want to experience being an ultra powerful wizard type, and this is possible within the rules. Does this make me a G person, or does this mean that the game is split between G and S since magic is unrealistic? Or is it split in its "creative agenda" because I can actually talk to people as said wizard in a very N fashion? GM (or player contract or whatever it is these days) willing, I can do pretty much anything I want inside the rules of the game, so I can be a roleplaying thespian, a swashbuckling min-maxer, and an economized survivalist all at once.
A game focusing on combat is still a game simulating combat, challenging players to win the combat, and a story about the combat.
Since G, N, and S are not terms that apply to people, under the current Big Model theory as accepted by people here, asking if it makes you a "G person" is /meaningless/. That's what I tried to explain above.
The things you're talking about are Techniques and Ephemera, which exist at a low level of the Model, and they have little to do with creative agenda, which is a thing that nails all the Model's layers together. Creative agenda is best understood as concerted group behavior that starts with a shared (but often unstated) goal in the Social Contract ("let's play this game together in this way"), the Exploration that makes up their play, the Techniques they use to explore, and the Ephemera or moment-to-moment interactions that comprise those Techniques or represent them "in actuality." If you can see how Creative Agenda connects all those things together (as defined in the Model), then I think our other points make more sense.
A "game focusing on combat" doesn't say anything about creative agenda. Combat is probably a Situation (part of the Exploration layer) and possibly you also mean System (rules for combat) and maybe some specific Techniques (roll initiative, roll to hit, roll damage, did the enemy die?). Those components can be arranged in different ways using a host of different Techniques to help players accomplish different kinds of play. When everything lines up right, it can produce Gamist play, Narrativist play, or Simulationist play. If the main point of play is challenging the players and it's realized through all of the layers of the Model as described above, you can call that Gamist (Step On Up) play. The main point of play might be addressing a premise though, and if that address of premise is realized through all the layers of play, you can call that Narrativist (Story Now) play. If the main point of play is celebration of source material through "constructive denial" (affirming among the group what is "right" and what isn't), and if that constructive denial is realized through all the layers of play, you can call that Simulationist (Right To Dream) play.
Does that help you understand The Big Model?
While it may not talk about people directly, it makes constant reference to the "creative agenda" of both the creators of the game, and the players, as far as the way they enjoy the game. It talks about how you should not "waste" your time trying to pursue all three, but one or two instead.
Direct quote from the essay "System Does Matter," the source of your system:
" *
Gamist. This player is satisfied if the system includes a contest which he or she has a chance to win. Usually this means the character vs. NPC opponents, but Gamists also include the System Breaker and the dominator-type roleplayer. RPGs well suited to Gamists include Rifts and Shadowrun.
*
Narrativist. This player is satisfied if a roleplaying session results in a good story. RPGs for Narrativists include Over the Edge, Prince Valiant, The Whispering Vault, and Everway.
*
Simulationist. This player is satisfied if the system "creates" a little pocket universe without fudging. Simulationists include the well-known subtype of the Realist. Good games for Simulationists include GURPS and Pendragon.
Here I suggest that RPG system design cannot meet all three outlooks at once. For example, how long does it take to resolve a game action in real time? The simulationist accepts delay as long as it enhances accuracy; the narrativist hates delay; the gamist only accepts delay or complex methods if they can be exploited. Or, what constitutes success? The narrativist demands a resolution be dramatic, but the gamist wants to know who came out better off than the next guy. Or, how should player-character effectiveness be "balanced"? The narrativist doesn't care, the simulationist wants it to reflect the game-world's social system, and the gamist simply demands a fair playing field.
One of the biggest problems I observe in RPG systems is that they often try to satisfy all three outlooks at once. The result, sadly, is a guarantee that almost any player will be irritated by some aspect of the system during play. GMs' time is then devoted, as in the Herbie example, to throwing out the aspects that don't accord for a particular group. A "good" GM becomes defined as someone who can do this well - but why not eliminate this laborious step and permit a (for example) Gamist GM to use a Gamist game, getting straight to the point? I suggest that building the system specifically to accord with one of these outlooks is the first priority of RPG design. "
I didn't take the time to go through and bold all of the references to players being narrativists, simulationists, and gamists, but I think you see my point.
Adam Dray:
All the articles are a snapshot of the theory at a certain time. The theory has changed and grown since then. I know it sucks, but you can't just read those articles and know the theory /as it stands today/. It's a good representation of where it was 4-6 years ago though.
The Big Model is a work in progress. The articles are not a Bible that we can use to support religious wars. =)
Ron Edwards:
Enough!
This is why this kind of thread topic is no longer supported at this site.
Norm: to learn more about the ideas, post about play experiences in Actual Play and focus on specific questions. There is no other option. Please do not use Site Discussion as a way to get around the forum topic boundaries.
Adam: thanks for conducting a rational dialogue. However, you're being trolled.
Vladius: if you're genuinely interested in critiquing the ideas in my essays, you're welcome to post in Actual Play as well, and your challenges will be taken seriously there. Leaping into another person's topic which has nothing to do with what you may like or not like, is trolling.
This thread's closed to further posting.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page