The peripheral community that is a f*cking pox on our hobby

[Sweeney]

No, if you're going to make a plot-driven game work, you've got to involve the players from day one, and you've got to manipulate the circumstances of character generation, and you've probably got to be very, very flexible in the story that eventually gets told. I think if the GM just makes up a story in his head, and thinks the players will naturally walk down this path, he's probably going to make a terrible abomination of a game. I think plot-driven games can work [well, I know they can], but I agree there's a billion ways for them to not-work, too.

Hey, you know ,nobody punch me in the nuts for even using the "N" word, but I think you just stated what the fuck Narrativism is supposed to be better than anybody. Good on ya.

(Yes, GM-driven plots can very easily suck, player-driven plots are the bomb if you enjoy that kind of play. I'm one of those who thinks "PCs hose themselves and have to pick up the pieces" can end up being a plot, so in practice those are pretty damn common. )

[Engine]

I really ought to read this theory - GNS, yeah? - that Narrativism comes from, so I'd stop being so ignorant when people mention it. Does anyone have a good - neutral - primer on it, that's not on RPG.net or storygames or the Forge or wherever it is this comes from, so I can laugh or nod, depending on how absurd or correct I feel it is?

[Blackleaf]

I really ought to read this theory - GNS, yeah? - that Narrativism comes from, so I'd stop being so ignorant when people mention it. Does anyone have a good - neutral - primer on it, that's not on RPG.net or storygames or the Forge or wherever it is this comes from, so I can laugh or nod, depending on how absurd or correct I feel it is?

This is probably as neutral as you're going to get:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory

[Engine]

Thanks, Stuart. Based on that brief but reasonably neutral article, my thoughts are that someone described fairly accurately the different types of roleplaying, and then drew utterly the wrong conclusions from that description.

Hey, I'm a Simulationist/Narrativist/Gamist, in that order! I think that means I'm impossible!

[Grimjack]

Well, they were laughing, which I usually take as a good sign... Ideally the player would come up with all of this, it's his character's contact after all, but that particular player usually GMs so he probably wants to slack off when he games, plus not everyone is comfortable with that collaborative sort of thing, it can be a bit communist after all.

Now see to me that is the level of detail and roleplaying that makes for a great game.  You can get a plot from a book, comic, classic, whatever, but you need a good GM who can improvise rather than slavish adherence to a script.

[gleichman]

Hey, I'm a Simulationist/Narrativist/Gamist, in that order! I think that means I'm impossible!

No, you're quite possible- indeed common. Rather you're just simply incoherent*.

But we knew that already


*in GNS terms

[Engine]

I cannot imagine a game that did only one of those things. Bo-ring. [For me.]

[Blackleaf]

Thanks, Stuart. Based on that brief but reasonably neutral article, my thoughts are that someone described fairly accurately the different types of roleplaying, and then drew utterly the wrong conclusions from that description.

Hey, I'm a Simulationist/Narrativist/Gamist, in that order! I think that means I'm impossible!

There are other approaches to RPGs that the theory doesn't account for.

Here's the other big problem:

Narrativist refers to decisions based on what would best further a dramatic story or address a central theme.

Gamist refers to decisions based on what will most effectively solve the problem posed.

When the problem posed is "Tell a dramatic story as best you can" then it's *both* 'Narrativist' and 'Gamist'.  In fact all games are 'gamist' whether it's get the most points, or give a great performance, or weave an interesting story.  This is a serious flaw in the theory.

But if you like it and it makes you happy, then groovy.  Personally, I think it has no utility in designing games.

[Engine]

When the problem posed is "Tell a dramatic story as best you can" then it's *both* 'Narrativist' and 'Gamist'.  In fact all games are 'gamist' whether it's get the most points, or give a great performance, or weave an interesting story.  This is a serious flaw in the theory.

I don't see that as a flaw in the theory, because the "problem" being solved by gamist thought ["what will most effectively solve the problem posed"] would be the problem in game, not the metagame consideration of most points, great performance, interesting story. Or am I reading it wrong?

I can see how understanding that all three types of players exist would help you write games, but the idea that you should only use one in each game seems absurd to me, and runs completely counter to my experience in roleplaying. It's like saying a car - seriously, the only kind of metaphor I know - can be fast, comfortable, or economical, but any attempt to do any combination of them will fail; it's just not true, and is patently untrue to anyone who has ever spent any time at all looking at cars.

[gleichman]

When the problem posed is "Tell a dramatic story as best you can" then it's *both* 'Narrativist' and 'Gamist'.  In fact all games are 'gamist' whether it's get the most points, or give a great performance, or weave an interesting story.  This is a serious flaw in the theory.

As much as I hate GNS, that line of debate doesn't carry water. By definition a Gamist never attempts to tell a story as best as he can, that's not his interest.

GNS sucks because of the conculsions (and poor and unclear wording in the defintions), not because of word games such as you attempted here.

[Engine]

GNS is a pox on our hobby!

[gleichman]

GNS is a pox on our hobby!

GNS is the natural result of the acceptance of post-modernism by Western institutes of higher learning. Edwards was nothing but the result of that mindset.

And yes, it's pox on everything.

[Pseudoephedrine]

I really ought to read this theory - GNS, yeah? - that Narrativism comes from, so I'd stop being so ignorant when people mention it. Does anyone have a good - neutral - primer on it, that's not on RPG.net or storygames or the Forge or wherever it is this comes from, so I can laugh or nod, depending on how absurd or correct I feel it is?

Wikipedia's the best summary. The thing to keep in mind with GNS is that the Wikipedia article states it very mildly, but the actual proponents are very extreme with it. Wikipedia also makes it seem relatively coherent, but "narrativism" in use means "Game I like" rather than picking out a distinct feature that those games share and no other games share. Or sometimes a playstyle. No one every really decided whether GNS was about playstyles or games.

[Blackleaf]

As much as I hate GNS, that line of debate doesn't carry water. By definition a Gamist never attempts to tell a story as best as he can, that's not his interest.

If your interest is winning the game, and you win the game by telling a good story, then your interest during that game is telling a good story.

For example:

We each take turns passing the story stick around the campfire.  When you get the story stick it's your turn to add to the story.  After we've all had a turn, we write down the name of another person in the game that we think did the best job telling a story.

If you want to be declared the winner, you need to try and tell a good story.

Then to approach that from a "gamist" perspective is exactly the same as a "narrativist" perspective.

Edit:

GNS sucks because of the conculsions (and poor and unclear wording in the defintions), not because of word games such as you attempted here.

It sucks because it doesn't recognize that all games involve challenges and win conditions.  That's not a word game I'm attempting, but it's a point of view I know isn't accepted by everyone -- particularly RPG designers and "theorists".

[Settembrini]

GNS is the natural result of the acceptance of post-modernism by Western institutes of higher learning. Edwards was nothing but the result of that mindset.

And yes, it's pox on everything.

I´d like clarify. Orthodox GNS is a direct result of the unreflected spread of  pseudo science: evolutionary psychology.