Are you a gamist, narrativist or simulationist?

[mondblut]

GNS theory is the most retarded fucking thing imaginable. It was created for one reason: for Ron Edwards to go "SEE SIMULATIONISM IS STUPID" and then declare himself teh winnar.

Well, while its author is a self-admitted narrativist, it can be used to trash them larpers just as easily :D The only alternative would be to exile these latecomer narrativist RPGs from the genre outright, which would be a pointless self-delusional denial. I mean, you can hate games like VTM but you can't neither ignore their existence nor convince anybody they should be thrown out of our sandbox.

Where's the poll option for "It's all a bunch of psuedo-intellectual bullshit?"

Can't see any. See "The big model" which followed GNS theory - now THAT is pseudo-intellectual bullshit. "Creative agenda" my ass

 

[Hory]

'Cuz everybody recognizes the gamist and to lesser extent simulationist RPGs were there first and are therefore more true than narrativist ones by definition :D

Except that it doesn't work that way. The first poems, the first movies, the first paintings and so on aren't the best representatives of their art form / medium. Take your munchkin blinders off. It takes time to refine them and get to the peak experience. Is a cave painting better than a Picasso? The few innovations that a few wargaming pioneers brought to the table are clumsy and insufficient. It would be ridiculous to claim that they instantly and single-handedly achieved the best and highest point in RPGs.

Thanks. Those are better descriptions. It's all about peoples' goals and desires. But I'm not convinced that those are the only reasons people play RPGs though.

What about escapism and other higher motivations?

What about lower more base motivations like comaraderie, or the use of simulated violence to release anger?

What about the self-satisfaction of solving a problem (without the need to prove it to anyone else)?

The classification seems too artificial and limiting.

I'd say that these elements are present in all three GNS categories, and pretty much unexcludable from what RPGs are. GNS attempts to categorize the distinct parts of the "creative agenda", which may exclude or hinder each other.

 

[mondblut]

Is a cave painting better than a Picasso?

You mean this? Quality is about the same, but cave paintings are more honest.

 

[Hory]

Your inability to appreciate art might be at the heart of your disregard for narrative in RPGs.

 

[Lurkar]

GNS theory is the most retarded fucking thing imaginable. It was created for one reason: for Ron Edwards to go "SEE SIMULATIONISM IS STUPID" and then declare himself teh winnar.

Well, while its author is a self-admitted narrativist, it can be used to trash them larpers just as easily :D The only alternative would be to exile these latecomer narrativist RPGs from the genre outright, which would be a pointless self-delusional denial. I mean, you can hate games like VTM but you can't neither ignore their existence nor convince anybody they should be thrown out of our sandbox.

Where's the poll option for "It's all a bunch of psuedo-intellectual bullshit?"

Can't see any. See "The big model" which followed GNS theory - now THAT is pseudo-intellectual bullshit. "Creative agenda" my ass

You're not grasping what I'm saying.

I'm saying there's no such retarded line of "Gamist," "Simulationist," and "Narrativist." It's all bullshit made up in an attempt to discredit things Ron Edwards hates. You can have all three in a game. And the GNS theory states that you can't even have TWO. It's all bullshit. And yes, the GNS theory is psuedo-intellectual bullshit - which isn't surprising, since that covers pretty much anything vaguely related to the Forge. If you think the Codex is filled with smug, self-righteous pricks, you haven't seen the worse.

 

[Hory]

I'm saying there's no such retarded line of "Gamist," "Simulationist," and "Narrativist." It's all bullshit made up in an attempt to discredit things Ron Edwards hates. You can have all three in a game. And the GNS theory states that you can't even have TWO. It's all bullshit. And yes, the GNS theory is psuedo-intellectual bullshit - which isn't surprising, since that covers pretty much anything vaguely related to the Forge. If you think the Codex is filled with smug, self-righteous pricks, you haven't seen the worse.

Maybe you can have games which are strong in all three areas (though the fact that there are so few games which do raises doubts) but, the way I see it, this is not what the theory is about. It's about categorizing players based on their preferences and expectations from the RPGs they play. In this regard, I don't find it "all bullshit" at all: if I think of where some of the RPG players that I know would fit, I think G/N/S can characterize them sufficiently well.

 

[mondblut]

I'm saying there's no such retarded line of "Gamist," "Simulationist," and "Narrativist." It's all bullshit made up in an attempt to discredit things Ron Edwards hates.

I can't see any discredit towards gamism or simulationism in there. The mere fact I, as non-narrativist as it gets, find this theory plausible and fitting, speaks about its supposed bias.

You can have all three in a game.

Even disregarding the non-unlimited budgets and development cycles, this is highly unlikely. The purpose of each of the three is strongly undermined by specific aspects of the other two. Dramatic larping, Monty Haul fun and rolling lots of eye-gouging criticals do not belong to a single gaming session well.

And the GNS theory states that you can't even have TWO.

ORLY? On the contrary, it doesn't deny a pure case of any of the three is a rarity, and most games are a mixed breed which only lean towards one of the styles at the expense of the others.

And yes, the GNS theory is psuedo-intellectual bullshit - which isn't surprising, since that covers pretty much anything vaguely related to the Forge. If you think the Codex is filled with smug, self-righteous pricks, you haven't seen the worse.

OK, how about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_Model ? It preceeds GNS, was according to wiki mostly developed by simulationists and preaches exactly the same.

 

[Unradscorpion]

Pretty much GS, roguelikes all the way.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

Gamist-Narrativist. Good story, good presentation, fun game, please. Realism can fall by the wayside.

Agreed. Realistic games usually tend to be the least fun, with a few exceptions like Operation Flashpoint.

 

[Lurkar]

The threefold method is just as retarded as GNS Theory. To quote someone else, "GDS was a theory pushed by people who were, to the person, hardcore simulationists arguing that simulation was the one correct way to play. GNS was a theory that redefined gamism and simulationism as bad and narrativism as the One True Game. Both need to be taken into the backyard, put down, and buried."

Both theories are entirely dependent on you buying into the same psuedo-intellectual bullshit. And quite frankly, if you read the actual theory, you soon grasp that it's complete babbling that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[MaskedMartyr]

GNS theory?

What the fuck is this I don't even

Seriously what the fuck? I'm assuming this wasn't written by anyone involved in actual game development.

 

[Wyrmlord]

The few innovations that a few wargaming pioneers brought to the table are clumsy and insufficient.

Depends on which innovations you are talking about.

Here is one gaming innovation that I think is quite worthwhile.

Wizardry 6's skill system.

Now, I was once reading the Gamespot review of Arcanum (haven't played it), which said, "experience in Arcanum is gained not from defeating enemies, but just from hitting them". That's a very bad system. The incentive given to the player here is in just attacking the enemies, and not actually beating them.

But I think I understand the reason for it. They want to give you an incentive to use the skills that you use in killing enemies. Not in killing enemies themselves. Whatever they were trying to attempt, Wizardry 6 had handled it better 10 years earlier.

In Wizardry 6, if you have atleast one point in a skill, then using that skill frequently allows you to increase it. But the increase in skills only come after you level up. And to level up, you need the experience that you get from actually killing the enemies.

Voila! Problem solved! Except the solution was there before Arcanum created the problem.

Here we have a game that already strikes the balance between use-based and point-buy systems. And unlike Arcanum, where quickly gaining experience using just one skill allows you to level up, and hence increase ALL skills, you have a system where the most majour increase in a skill comes from using it, with only 1-10 skills points given during level up (this is based on your attributes), for you to spread in your skills on your own. So if you think that you can just use your rogue to do direct fighting, avoid using his stealth abilities in combat, and then up his stealth skill when he levels up, you can't. His stealth skill will not increase at all that way.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Now, I was once reading the Gamespot review of Arcanum (haven't played it), which said, "experience in Arcanum is gained not from defeating enemies, but just from hitting them".

Bullshit. You get xp for both hitting and killing.

Doesn't make getting xp for hitting in Arcanum any less stupid though.

 

[mondblut]

To quote someone else, "GDS was a theory pushed by people who were, to the person, hardcore simulationists arguing that simulation was the one correct way to play. GNS was a theory that redefined gamism and simulationism as bad and narrativism as the One True Game. Both need to be taken into the backyard, put down, and buried."

So, the quoted individual is displeased by the perceived bias of both theories, but doesn't deny the existence of "hardcore simulationists" and "those who define narrativism as the One True Game" as an objective factor. And that is the whole point really. All this "social contract" and "nested boxes" and "color" and "stance" bullshit doesn't interest me in the earnest, but you can't deny different people look for different and often conflicting things from an RPG, these things can be grouped in loose generalizations (such as "overcoming challenges", "interacting with a living imagined world", "being a protagonist in the story"), and these things aren't comfortable being together in a single game.

And quite frankly, if you read the actual theory, you soon grasp that it's complete babbling that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

The details, yes. The primary generalization, however, does work. Any computer RPG can be described pretty well by a "GNS" (GDS, specific synonyms do not not matter) sum of 100. I wish people would use it in evaluating RPG reviews instead of subjective and meaningless characteristics like "interest".

 

[Joe Krow]

What bothers me about "narrative" rpgs is that the dialogue trees are usually scripted larping and only rarely are they reliant on the character's attributes. In terms of player vs. character skill being determinative, dialogue tress are an action mechanic without any action. On top of that, the overall plot in these games rarely depends on these player made choices. Your left with a game that gives the player little input in the plot progression and the character has almost no impact at all.

"Simulation" rpgs may be as much larp based but at least they can put the character's skill center stage. This style most accurately recreates the PnP experience; a collaborative improvisation. Emergent narratives are as close as you can come to doing this on a PC. The player gets a real choice (as opposed to scripted), the character determines his success, and the game reacts. There's room for a plot in there too and it doesn't have to be linear.

The character is the heart of an rpg; not the epic story, not the orchard of dialogue trees. If your character's attrbutes have no impact then you're not roleplaying. I guess that makes me a "gamist."

 

[Wyrmlord]

Best system is the Type In Word system. Hear anything important, ask the right person about it, and just get on with it, instead of perusing through a standardised list of options, and finding which ones are relevant.

Spynote: "Back alley at wespers in Shrunkhaven. Tommorow."

*approach guard*

"Where is Shrunkhaven?"

"It's two clicks down the capital."

It's quick, flexible, and you get exactly what you want.

 

[mondblut]

Typing keywords is very prone to metagaming and divorced from possible social skills. It is fine for games where NPC interactions emphasize information gathering and background fluff (i.e. our favorite dungeon crawlers), but useless for games with narrativist tendency. No wonder this system is all but forgotten in the narrative-leaning RPGs of today.

 

[Wyrmlord]

It can be a cool way to build up the plot.

If the plot is based on lore and mystery, gathering information really is a good way of advancing it.

And then you can connect every bit of info you find, something will reveal itself, and you discover a particular method of finding some place or uncovering some item essential to the plot. It is really fun when it happens in certain games.

Yeah, it's prone to metagaming, but whatever, if we want to enjoy our games, we can simply choose not to read the walkthrough.

Besides, when you type in a query on your own, it feels like you are the one who is doing the thinking. When some option is opened up on its own because of some attribute like INT, WIS, or CHA, it's a bit like your character doing your thinking for you in your place.

 

[Rorschach]

Dramatic larping, Monty Haul fun and rolling lots of eye-gouging criticals do not belong to a single gaming session well.

Then you have never played Exalted!

 

[Ion Flux]

Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist

Because I love all of it. I love narrative [<3 PST], love good gameplay and challenges, and I love games that are as realistic as possible.

What he said.

 

[Kavax]

Simulation is about being realist? I thought it was about simulating a world, not necesarily our's. You could do a Planescape simulationist RPG, but that game would hardly be realistic.

 

[Joe Krow]

Typing keywords is very prone to metagaming and divorced from possible social skills. It is fine for games where NC interactions emphasize information gathering and background fluff (i.e. our favorite dungeon crawlers), but useless for games with narratives tendency. No wonder this system is all but forgotten in the narrative-leaning RPGs of today.

That's true. The keyword dialogue systems are definitely more focused on information gathering. They don't allow the player to larp or dictate his actions through dialogue but the npcs could still present whatever options are necessary to keep the plot moving. The difference would be that the actual choices have to be made outside the dialogue system which is where they belong anyway- the character is free to do what he wants in spite of anything he said.

As far as getting the character involved directly in the dialogue... well there are so many ways to do this but they are almost never used. Anything would be an improvement.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Joe, you try so hard, but you really don't make any sense.

The difference would be that the actual choices have to be made outside the dialogue system which is where they belong anyway- the character is free to do what he wants in spite of anything he said.

Huh?

 

[Joe Krow]

Joe, you try so hard, but you really don't make any sense.

The difference would be that the actual choices have to be made outside the dialogue system which is where they belong anyway- the character is free to do what he wants in spite of anything he said.

Huh?

What I'm saying is that dialogue is just talk. The actual choice that may or may not be based on what is said should come in the form of actions taken outside of dialogue and these should depend on the characters abilities. Basically what I'm saying is that having the actions dictated by player dependent (and completely scripted) dialogue choices is not roleplaying. How can it be when the character was not even involved? I don't know if I can make it simple enough for you. Sorry.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Ahm, how can you make the character decide, for example, whether to do a quest or not? How can decisions be dealt with at character level?

Also, you said that the character should be free to do what he wants in spite of anything he said... which is fucking stupid. Then take dialogue options out completely if they don't matter at all.