I've been reviewing some roleplaying theory recently, and I'd like to get the community's views on GNS Theory. Feel free to comment as you like, but if you prefer a little structure, try to answer some of these questions. (Formatted for easy replies)
.
Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist
- My Style - What is your primary play style?
- My Group - What is your group's primary play style?
- Pathfinder - What style is best reflected by Pathfinder's game design?
|
Just a friendly word of warning. GNS Theory is either loved or hated depending on where you go. You will find most people hate being pigeon holed into using it to define their games. The original author of GNS Theory wasn't even really satified with it and developed more advanced theories later, as I understand.
Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist
- My Style - What is your primary play style?
I'm mainly a narrativist as both a GM and player. I have a secondary streak of gamist, and very little simulationist. - My Group - What is your group's primary play style?
My current Pathfinder group is a little more simulationist than me, and a little less narrativist. - Pathfinder - What style is best reflected by Pathfinder's game design?
I think Pathfinder is primarily gamist, with a little simulationist, and only a dash of narrativist sentiment.
I'm with TOZ. Down this road is nothing but pointless anguish.
Just a friendly word of warning. GNS Theory is either loved or hated depending on where you go. You will find most people hate being pigeon holed into using it to define their games. The original author of GNS Theory wasn't even really satified with it and developed more advanced theories later, as I understand.
I agree with Ron Edwards that GNS theory is incomplete, but I still find it to be a useful tool. Much like Newtonian physics, there are more advanced theories, but Newton will still get the ball over the plate.
I don't feel that anyone can be classified as just one category. So it's really meaningless.
I'm with TOZ. Down this road is nothing but pointless anguish.
Thank you both for being so supportive and constructive. I look forward to your insights.
Silly Blueluck that's like asking if I like mint ice cream or if I like caramel. I would like both because they compliment each other. (my personal opinion)
I'm a helper! :D
If you're a helper can you help me think of an idea for a witch under the time domain because I'm stumped.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Put me down as another rebel against the pointless assignment of labels. My gaming style draws of all three elements, in varying amounts. I think that's true of anyone that I'd willingly game with.
Labels are useful if they are descriptive and not proscriptive, i.e you can have more than one label.
I found the GNS theory very useful when I was trying to understand why I disliked another RPG we where trying, and why Pathfinder found a place in my heart.
Is it a complete theory? No - but few, if any, are.
I'm guessing, and I may be putting words in Bluelucks mouth, but I don't think it was meant to be be phrased as you can only be one.
It's the blending that has interesting results.
My personal style is Narrative/Simulationist, with emphasise on the Narrative.
My old group was all over the place and we eventual schizmed half Pathfinder, half the other RPG, the other half wavering each way.
Pathfinder is Narrative/Simulationist with emphasise on Narrative.
I'm pretty sure that my judgment on GNS as Bunkum may be found among these great posts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GNS model is best used as an analytical tool. And then used as a basis for designing games by a game master/designer, based on said analysis.
As TheLoneCleric said, we as players don't usually like to be pigeonholed. And I think that most of us, like TOZ and Umbral Reaver said, can't agree to belong to only one "type", as we will change our style of play according to the game being played and the interactions with our fellow players.
That being said, I always think theory is a good thing, and using tools to analyse and structure the way we think about games, can only be helpful. As Kurt Lewin said; 'There is nothing so practical as a good theory'.
If anyone wants to have a further look at roleplaying theory, check out this Wikipedia article on the nordic conference "Knudepunkt" (Nodal point); Knudepunkt wiki article - scroll down to the list of publications, the books on theory (and more) are all on-line (at least since the one from 2003). Lots and lots of good stuff there.
And here's a link to "The Big Model"; The Big Model wiki article - which is the model Ron Edwards developed after the GNS model.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given the descriptions in that Wiki article:
My Style:
50% Simulationist, 25% Gamist, 25% Narrativist
My Group's Style:
45% Simulationist, 35% Gamist, 20% Narrativist
Pathfinder:
Dunno. Maybe 55% Simulationist, 40% Gamist, 5% Narrativist. If that. (I equate Narrativist to a bunch of those weirdo indie games.)
I don't believe the types exist as they are stated there. Things are far more complex than that, and the types themselves are not exclusive categories.
I don't believe the types exist as they are stated there. Things are far more complex than that, and the types themselves are not exclusive categories.
That's narrativist talk!
But seriously, I agree; at least, on a Venn's Diagram, the area of commonality with be nigh-indestinguishable from a circle.
|
I've been reviewing some roleplaying theory recently, and I'd like to get the community's views on GNS Theory. Feel free to comment as you like, but if you prefer a little structure, try to answer some of these questions. (Formatted for easy replies)
.
Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist
- My Style - What is your primary play style?
- My Group - What is your group's primary play style?
- Pathfinder - What style is best reflected by Pathfinder's game design?
Well this is overly simple as most people are more complex than that. But I get what you are asking and the answers that most closely match are...
My Style - Simulationist
My Group - Simulationist
Pathfinder - Simulationist
Of course the last is just my opinion and for the group that is the view of the majority of the group. We do have one player who is more of a Narrativist and one who is more gamist, he just wants to roll dice and kill stuff most of the time. :)
I have qualities of all three. I am gamist in that I like combat not to roll initiative then have one save or die make the encounter be over as that was sort of building up to a combat that never really happened. I don't only play for combat though I also want to see the story get moved along.
Just a friendly word of warning. GNS Theory is either loved or hated depending on where you go.
Yeah GNS is a lot like alignment that way. I can't count how many times I've seen "I don't feel that anyone can be classified as just one [alignment]. So it's really meaningless." in alignment threads. *Wink at TOZ*
Anyway I don't mind GNS but I find it really hard to describe myself with it. I'm heavy on simming, though not in the way that most people think of simming. I'm probably a gamist second and a narrator third.
One of my groupies would put gamism first, while another would definitely put simming first. By a big margin. The other...ah, I won't even try.
I agree with estergum & Derwalt that systems like GNS are best used descriptively rather than prescriptively.
Also, players and games both tend to represent a mix of these styles. Arnwn's method of using percentages is a great way to describe a player.
I'm probably
Gamist 30%
Narrativist 60%
Simulationist 10%
Just finished reading the GNS article, I'll give The Big Model a read later on. Like a few other posters, I see such archetypes as merely being a useful tool to quickly describe something rather than an attempt to enforce behavior.
For me, the answer varies depending on if it's my PbP or my local game.
.
.
- My Style: Simulationist (PbP), Gamist/Narativist (Local)
- My Players: Mostly Narrativist (PbP), Gamist (Local)
- Pathfinder: Predominantly Gamist with the ability to be calibrated for Simulationist play
At a high level, I find these descriptions handy for the same reason I appreciated the inclusion of "Player Archetypes" in the GMG. They can be useful for trouble-shooting conflicts by acknowledging common tendencies.
For instance, I would say that players who tend to prefer a more gamist environment would probably wind up frustrated in my PbP. I suspect they'd have more fun with the GMing style I use with my local players. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if this difference in preferences has determined why some players have stayed in my PbP and others have gone. If there's one thing these boards have taught me over the past few years, there are enough different playstyles that there's no compelliing reason to stay with a group (particularly a PbP group) that you don't have fun with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just finished reading the GNS article, I'll give The Big Model a read later on. Like a few other posters, I see such archetypes as merely being a useful tool to quickly describe something rather than an attempt to enforce behavior.
For me, the answer varies depending on if it's my PbP or my local game.
.
.
- My Style: Simulationist (PbP), Gamist/Narativist (Local)
- My Players: Mostly Narrativist (PbP), Gamist (Local)
- Pathfinder: Predominantly Gamist with the ability to be calibrated for Simulationist play
At a high level, I find these descriptions handy for the same reason I appreciated the inclusion of "Player Archetypes" in the GMG. They can be useful for trouble-shooting conflicts by acknowledging common tendencies.
For instance, I would say that players who tend to prefer a more gamist environment would probably wind up frustrated in my PbP. I suspect they'd have more fun with the GMing style I use with my local players. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if this difference in preferences has determined why some players have stayed in my PbP and others have gone. If there's one thing these boards have taught me over the past few years, there are enough different playstyles that there's no compelliing reason to stay with a group (particularly a PbP group) that you don't have fun with.
Using the reverse is telling people who have different prefrences they are doing it wrong. That is counterproductive and bad for the game.
I guess I am 75% simulationist, 25% gamist, 0% narrativist.
I'm not going to pontificate about the benefits or negative aspects of the model, I'm just going to bite the hook:
I'm predominantly Narrativist and Simulationist leaning much more towards the Narrative aspect.
My group is very much Narrativist. Each person leans either towards Gamist or Simulationist in their own way, but the core of group leans towards the Narrative aspect.
Pathfinder functions quite well for Gamist and Simulationist play, but that doesn't mean it's solely used for one or the other. I certainly may ignore rules at times to serve the narrative (though not as often as you might think).
|
Much like Newtonian physics, there are more advanced theories, but Newton will still get the ball over the plate.
Off topic physics rant to follow:
The problem with Newton's theory of gravity is that, while it answered the question of "What effects does gravity have?" it didn't answer, or even attempt to address the question of what gravity WAS or WHY gravity existed. Questions that Einstein's general relativity DID address.