Example Games to help me learn GNS
Vladius:
I would actually recommend that you ignore the GNS model, because it forces people into arbitrary categories. It's pretentious silliness that ignores the fact that most people who play RPGs play D&D, and that they enjoy doing it and probably won't switch to anything too dissimilar.
"Gamist" is supposed to mean that everyone is a min-maxing Munchkin who enjoys violence too much.
"Simulationist" is too vaguely defined to mean anything, seeing as simulating an environment is a natural byproduct of roleplaying anyway.
"Narrativist" is portrayed as the most pure, holy, and chaste form of roleplaying, when really it refers to a game that you could easily just play over the phone or around a campfire, and doesn't really have that many rules.
If you were to actually develop a roleplaying game without too much focus on just the setting, you would discover that these three elements come in naturally - "Gamism" is required to have any form of rules, "Simulationism" is required to have any playable characters, and "Narrativism" is required to have something to play through, or a GM.
Nobody, save the people who are rabid "Narrativists," actually endorse an "agenda" like one would politically and push for fundamental change toward their preferred type. They just play what is fun, which, more than often, is either "Gamist," or can't be categorized altogether because it depends on the GM.
Adam Dray:
Hey there, Vladius.
In fact, the Big Model in its current form does not at all use GNS (creative agenda) to categorize players. Your premise for why people should ignore GNS, therefore, is founded upon false "facts."
Creative agenda is a property of a group of players over a specific period of play. You get Bob and Chan and Dinesh together and you play for a couple evenings, and then you can look back at that play and say, "That was Gamist play" or "That was Narrativist play" or "That was Simulationist play." The theory says nothing at all about player motivation or categories, or personal "agendas." You're really, really wrong there.
Certainly players might enjoy a specific kind of play, but The Big Model doesn't really go there. I personally have enjoyed Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist play in my gaming past.
Further, I find your portrayals of the GNS types totally off the mark, even if I try to make sense of them by abstracting them to types of group play. Gamism is about enjoying challenge, not about being a violent min-maxer. Narrativism is about addressing human issues during play, not about "pure, holy, and chaste," rules-light play. Simulationism is about celebration of exploration (source material, system, characters, etc.) and getting it "Right," and it's pretty well understood here, I think, though there are disagreements about bits and pieces of it.
There are people who, like you, get it wrong and misrepresent the Big Model as it's accepted and understood around these parts. Some of them might have an Internet politics agenda. You seem to. If you don't like the theory, how about posting some actual play and discussing your ideas that way? What purpose does nay-saying serve in a conversation among people who want to understand each other better? Other than thread-crapping, I mean.
Ayyavazi:
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
Selene Tan:
Norm,
Another Sim-focused game you can look at is Geiger Counter. The game's stated purpose is to give you the experience of both watching and starring in a survival-horror movie.
Vladius:
Quote from: Adam Dray on August 11, 2009, 10:23:33 AM
Hey there, Vladius.
In fact, the Big Model in its current form does not at all use GNS (creative agenda) to categorize players. Your premise for why people should ignore GNS, therefore, is founded upon false "facts."
Creative agenda is a property of a group of players over a specific period of play. You get Bob and Chan and Dinesh together and you play for a couple evenings, and then you can look back at that play and say, "That was Gamist play" or "That was Narrativist play" or "That was Simulationist play." The theory says nothing at all about player motivation or categories, or personal "agendas." You're really, really wrong there.
Certainly players might enjoy a specific kind of play, but The Big Model doesn't really go there. I personally have enjoyed Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist play in my gaming past.
Further, I find your portrayals of the GNS types totally off the mark, even if I try to make sense of them by abstracting them to types of group play. Gamism is about enjoying challenge, not about being a violent min-maxer. Narrativism is about addressing human issues during play, not about "pure, holy, and chaste," rules-light play. Simulationism is about celebration of exploration (source material, system, characters, etc.) and getting it "Right," and it's pretty well understood here, I think, though there are disagreements about bits and pieces of it.
There are people who, like you, get it wrong and misrepresent the Big Model as it's accepted and understood around these parts. Some of them might have an Internet politics agenda. You seem to. If you don't like the theory, how about posting some actual play and discussing your ideas that way? What purpose does nay-saying serve in a conversation among people who want to understand each other better? Other than thread-crapping, I mean.
I was merely suggesting that he ignore the GNS theory. The burden of proof is on you as to why he should go through various games trying to understand something made up on the internet that doesn't make sense to certain people in the first place.
Yes, I have an "internet politics agenda" because I disagree with trying to form a psychological profile of roleplayers and roleplaying games.
What I was saying in terms of "agendas" is that some people here refer to certain games as having a creative agenda for one of the three types, and this certainly isn't true unless it's someone who has actually heard of the theory and has decided to act upon it (or you came up with the theory in the first place, and made Sorcerer.)
You cannot say "That was Gamist play," or "That was Simulationist play," or "That was Narrativist play," because it will always be all three. You cannot separate one from the other. There might be some games that are more rules-heavy than others, but that should be the theory in itself, not merely an axis on GNS. As it stands, I sense a lot of condescension towards "Gamist" people from those who support the theory.
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page