Quote from: JesterRaiin;896587Any theory assuming there's 100% [anything] human being is wrong.

Yeah, seems kind of obvious, doesn't it?

Still, lots of people buy into it. I suppose if you accept that flawed principle in the first place, then the logical conclusions of GNS theory might seem beyond reproach.

Quote from: Madprofessor;896590Yeah, seems kind of obvious, doesn't it?

Still, lots of people buy into it. I suppose if you accept that flawed principle in the first place, then the logical conclusions of GNS theory might seem beyond reproach.

Ayup.

Still, it's kind of puzzling. I recall no RPG system featuring PCs defined by a single trait/attribute. So, even flawed and limited approximation can't achieve that and yet it's somehow possible to define a living being with a single word only.

Brilliant.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;896595Ayup.

Still, it's kind of puzzling. I recall no RPG system featuring PCs defined by a single trait/attribute. So, even flawed and limited approximation can't achieve that and yet it's somehow possible to define a living being with a single word only.

Brilliant.

Twerps defines all PCs by one attribute: Strength  

Quote from: Madprofessor;896585I think the basic foundation of of GNS theory, that there are three types of gamers, is fundamentally flawed.

That's not the basic foundation of GNS theory. GNS is flawed, but that's not why.

Quote from: Nexus;896606Twerps defines all PCs by one attributes: Strength  

MWAHAHAHAHA! YOU FELL INTO MY TRAP! Ahahhahaha!

(maniacal laughter, one that might suit a prisoner approaching guillotine and desperately attempting to convince everyone, himself included, that he isn't shitting his pants) :eek:

Ahem.

Quote from: Arminius;896609That's not the basic foundation of GNS theory. GNS is flawed, but that's not why.

Well, I may be wrong I guess.  I am familiar with Edwards' article "System Does Matter" and that is what I based my assumptions off of.  I am hardly a student of Forge theory though.  Care to enlighten me?

Quote from: Madprofessor;896619Well, I may be wrong I guess.  I am familiar with Edwards' article "System Does Matter" and that is what I based my assumptions off of.  I am hardly a student of Forge theory though.  Care to enlighten me?

GNS does not claim that there are three types of gamers.  GNS claims that there are three 'creative agendas' for games, and that a game that attempts to service more than one of them simultaneously will be at conflict with itself.

(Which I still think is bunk).

GNS discussion tends to derail threads, and you can always go back and read GNS And Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory, plus the three articles on G, N, S, and a jillion threads of discussion. Then again many of the latter are full of misinformation. So I'll try to keep it brief.

Fundamentally, GNS posits that there are three modes ("creative agendas") of RPG play, and groups will only be playing in one of them at a time--at most. It claims that groups can also fail to play in any of them because of conflicts and misunderstandings about the collective goal of play. Forge theory does admit that people can be classified as (say) Narrativists, but only because they have a strong preference for one of the modes. However the idea that someone could have no preference is also consistent with the theory, since someone could arguably enjoy any instance of play as long as it successfully engages ("expresses") one of the three modes.

GNS claims that game design can and should facilitate the consistent expression of one and only one of the modes,  because if more than one mode is possible, the game is likely to be pulled in different directions ("incoherence") and be both an aesthetically unsatisfying experience and a power-struggle between participants.

The flaws of GNS are both theoretical/structural and practical. On the theory side:

1. It never came up with an adequate definition of Simulationism.
2. Related to that, it refused to address the aesthetic experience of "immersion" (in the sense of "seeing things as if you were your character"). In fact the GNS theorists helped muddy the term to the point of making it useless.
3. GNS alluded to connections between mechanics and aesthetics but copped out on generalizing about the relationship between OOC mechanics, "immersion" (in the above sense), and Narrativism. It had similar problems with the aesthetics of representation of cause-and-effect, in spite of occasional mentions that "internal cause is king" in Simulationism.

Practically:

4. Because of (3) GNS failed to predict or explain the resistance to "narrativist" and "gamist" design among gamers who had some interest in immersion and/or representation. (By "representation" I mean having the world behave as if real, not just "color" painted over bare mechanics or dramatically-motivated action.) The biggest failing here was the Forge's influence on D&D 4e, which directly caused Wizards to lose their leadership to Paizo.

5. More generally, GNS failed to explain the ongoing, general popularity of "incoherent" design and the relative lack of interest in designs focused on one of the modes (typically Narrativism).

Quote from: robiswrong;896626GNS does not claim that there are three types of gamers.  GNS claims that there are three 'creative agendas' for games, and that a game that attempts to service more than one of them simultaneously will be at conflict with itself.

(Which I still think is bunk).

It's absolutely, evidently and provably bunk.

Quote from: robiswrong;896626GNS does not claim that there are three types of gamers.  GNS claims that there are three 'creative agendas' for games, and that a game that attempts to service more than one of them simultaneously will be at conflict with itself.

(Which I still think is bunk).

Thats because it is.

Most often the more enduring RPGs have all three, or more, elements in them. While those without one or more often are the ones that fail in some manner. It is the focused game that ends up incoherent. Certainly you can make a solid game focused on one aspect. But it is going to likely exclude or even repell those not into that one focus.

Forget who. But someone likened A good RPG to a hamburger with bun and tomato *or insert your topping here*. Any one of the three elements is edible on its own or together with another. But all three together forms the best experience. usually...

Of course a game has all elements inside - partially because you can often interpret the same thing as fitting to different styles.

The point is, that at some occasions there seems to be no compromise possible and then you can see where someone stands.
(and which is the point where a game grinds to halt and fiery discussions start)

Quote from: Arminius;896627GNS discussion tends to derail threads...

Well, I apologize for posting casually and accidentally opening such a can of worms.  Thanks for the excellent summary and the clarifications.  I'll know in the future that this is a door to remain shut.

QuoteWhat defines a narrativist game?

I do.

Quote from: Arminius;896627Fundamentally, GNS posits that there are three modes ("creative agendas") of RPG play, and groups will only be playing in one of them at a time--at most. It claims that groups can also fail to play in any of them because of conflicts and misunderstandings about the collective goal of play. Forge theory does admit that people can be classified as (say) Narrativists, but only because they have a strong preference for one of the modes. However the idea that someone could have no preference is also consistent with the theory, since someone could arguably enjoy any instance of play as long as it successfully engages ("expresses") one of the three modes.

the part I highlighted in bold is the fundamental reason why I think GNS is bunk. My experience that is people agendas fluctuate from session to session. While people will often have a pattern to the type of choices they make and what interests them, you can rarely if ever pigeon hole anybody. Moreso most gamers are sane in that they realize that in order for the whole thing to work there is has to be a bit of give and take. So that just mixes it up even more. And finally none of this can be addressed or fixed by the rules. It involves the dynamics of the group and out of game issues. The solution is has been as it for small group interaction, is to fucking communicate and be willing to listen. And that it never just ends, it is an ongoing thing that will continue as long as the group gets together.

Quote from: estar;898053The solution is has been as it for small group interaction, is to fucking communicate and be willing to listen. And that it never just ends, it is an ongoing thing that will continue as long as the group gets together.

Funny, that.

I think a lot of people turn to rules because they just don't have the social skills necessary to handle that fairly basic level of group dynamics.