The Monochrome Palette

   Let's say that you're an artist, about to paint your masterpiece.  You have your canvas, your tubes of paint, a very good idea of what you want to paint, and your own ideals of what makes a good painting.  Suddenly, a well-respected artist comes up to you and says that what you are about to do is totally wrong.    First and foremost, there is not a myriad of colors, but only three basic colors, your primes.  He further elaborates that there might actually be only two colors, because the third might not exist.

   Then he gives you his "kicker".  You are told that each and every brush stroke that you might want to make has a specific meaning; likewise that the meaning has a name and if you don't call it by that name, you are no artist.  You are then given a structured series of guidelines that will make your painting "worthwhile" and maximize the art on said canvas.  You are further instructed that if you truly want your painting to really be your masterpiece that you should paint in only one color, as people prefer mainly one color over all others.  To make this painting even more of a masterpiece, you are told that the other two colors should be avoided because they are inferior, and the only way that you can truly create art is to paint your vision using one color, and only using formulaic strokes.

   How's your creativity?  Do you feel stifled?  

   Stunned and a bit confused (after all shouldn't art be open and free?) you check with other artists.  Astoundingly, you find a similar reverberation throughout the art community.  You find a keen buzz about using only one color and pre-ordained strokes to paint a picture of any subject.  What's more, if you cannot identify each and every brush stroke by the jargon you are met with ridicule and disdain.  Some even tell you to go back to color-by-numbers and to forget your lofty, but naive, vision of being an artist creating a masterpiece.  You are also warned that if you create a painting that does not follow this monochromatic and stoic scheme, that your painting will be inferior.  And to rub salt into the wounds, you are also shown that if your painting has influences from other great and successful artists, that your painting will be a "heartbreaker".

   Sounds absurd, doesn't it?  It is, however, very unfortunate that just such a thing is going on in an industry that used to thrive on individuality and diversity.  This sad market is the realm of roleplaying games.  Rife with internal ridicule and name-calling to some extent, the creativity of the role playing market is stifling itself in an ongoing debate about GNS theory.  The prophets of GNS speak of those not in their camp with disdain.  Even those that attempt to embrace the outsiders of GNS theory speak in some mystical contrived jargon and make those not acquainted with it feel like exiles at best.  To make matters worse, those opponents of said theory cast redoubled ridicule upon the GNS theorists, but lack any structured set of mantras to give their words weight, and oftimes devolve into four-letter words.

   Just what is GNS theory?  It is a bit complex to explain in laymen's terms, but GNS theory is a "theory" of roleplaying games set forth and formalized by Ron Edwards and a handful of others.  It is supported by a body of works that go into an organized dissertation about role players, roleplaying games, how they are designed, and how they should be designed.  The general essence is that there are three kinds of players: the gamist, the narrativist, and the simulationsit.  A gamist approaches a roleplaying game as they would a game of Monopoly or Scrabble, with the desire to win the game, sometimes at any cost.  A narrativist plays the game from the approach of making up a story, and sets their mind to creating a great story.  The simulationist attempts to submerge themselves into the imaginary world, or historical setting, and they partake their pleasures from the imaginary reality created; and hence the continuity of such.  It has also been argued by the GNS-squad that the simulationism part might actually not exist.


 The theory goes on to claim that games are a social contract in general, meaning that the participants meet to achieve a common goal (the goal is never outright stated, we'll get to that later).  It then leaps to the conclusion that the only way to achieve the goal of a set social contract is to make certain that everyone has the same exact goal.  From there, we are told that the only to make this happen is to design our roleplaying game to satisfy one, and only one, of the facets of GNS...meaning that all participants should know upfront that they should play a certain way.

GNS theory goes on further with a "provisional glossary" to attempt to define and pigeon-hole each and every facet of game play and game design into a catch-phrase of contrived jargon, so that those whom support GNS can talk about it in a lofty manner.


This, in and of itself, is not bad, and no harm has come to roleplaying games in general.  However, the stance that GNS theory then takes is what has alienated the vast majority of game designers.  GNS theory takes the stance that the best, and thusly the only, route is to focus only on the narrativist aspects, ignoring the others even to the point of questioning that they are actual parts of true roleplaying, or questioning their existence altogether.  It is here that we find the lofty mannerisms and the condescending attitudes.  

Also, we find that a pattern begins to emerge.  The pundits of GNS seemingly spend a lot of time discussing the finer points of GNS amongst themselves.  There are only two things that they take more time to do.  They heartily enjoy taking any of those that are not proficient in the convoluted theory and ripping them apart, usually to the point of alienation.  The contempt seems to drip off of the fangs of text as those outsiders whom are not "in the know", and thusly amateurs with nothing to add, are rended into oblivion.  What do you mean that D&D is a good game, its set up for "calvin-balling" and has no focus on the story line!  They don't even let you know where your bangs are kicking and you have no idea of which stance you should take, let alone the massive amounts of GM fiat.  The only other thing that the GNS people do more than to abuse those not having a PHD in GNS is to defend GNS with a vigor that would do any combat soldier honor.  Be ignorant of the cultist ways and you'll be met with more intensity than a roomful of Jehovah's Witnesses gang-saving a Satanist.   Speak out against the theory and meet the wrath of all, with steel and venom in the words.


So what's wrong with being passionate about something that you love, you might ask.  Well....nothing.  However, GNS theory has major flaws.  In fact, the main procreator of the theory has attempted, to no avail, to let it rest. GNS has many flaws.

First and foremost, it attempts to put itself forth as a true scientific theory.  A scientific theory is based upon replicatible circumstances and other observations that are generally relied upon as fact.  GNS is the result of the thoughts of a vast minority of people that feel that there is only one way to make, or play, a roleplaying game.  They have simply organized their thoughts into a coherent body.  There is no factual basis for these assumptions, and the moderate success of a few games hardly stands against the success of even a singular successful game developed without any regard to GNS.

Secondly, GNS theory, as it pertains to designing games, is inherently flawed in the lofty assumptions that it will create a superior game. In formal philosophy this is called begging the question.  It doesn't state this outright, but heavily implies that anything not made through the rigid formulae of GNS, and not focusing on what GNS believes to be important, will be an obviously inferior creation.  By proxy this means that if you create a game that is not of the GNS ilk, that it is inferior.

Thirdly, GNS supports the idea that one type of player, or game tailored to that player, is the best way to go.  Let's count the numbers.  There are three types of gamers.  GNS tells us to cater to only one type, in fact one type in specific.  GNS then tells us that the second type is inferior, and the third type doesn't really exist.  So if we go by GNS theory, we are intentionally alienating two thirds of our potential market.

Fourth, and my big grievance, is that the "goal" of the social contract is stated as being "a common goal shared by all and disclosed at the onset of play".....
(clearing throat)
What?  Here's what I want out of a game that I play...FUN.   GNS theory does not have the word fun in it anywhere.  If it is, it is so buried in jargon and long-winded discussions of a singular facet of design that I missed it.

   Fifth, GNS takes a lofty stance about whom and what it is, and how things should be done.  One must take this a grain of salt.  I am not saying that the few games developed from the devotees of GNS are not cool games, just that there are very few of them (keep in mind that they spend more time defending GNS, and abusing those that are the non-initiated, than actually making any games) and that they are all the same.  I always have to stifle chuckles when a cleric of GNS touts on about the laurels of this or that game designed in synch with the piffle of GNS and condemns anything that Steve Jackson ever did, or D&D in specific.  "My game is fun and superior, and people know it," is the catch phrase I often hear in polysyllables.  Now if you sell enough product of your game in a decade to match a week's worth of one of those "idiots" gross, who's fooling whom?

   So what good is GNS theory, you might ask?  Lots and lots, I'll say.  If you remove the lofty stance and the exclusivity of the main prophets, you'll find a wealth of information.  Firstly, GNS is the first attempt at formalizing the philosophy behind games.  Perhaps the part of fun is implied, and I missed it.  However, if I'm told that I can only paint in one color, and if I don't' I'll have an inferior work of art, I have a hard time seeing fun.  GNS theory has given us a vocabulary to speak out with.  It has given us stances, kickers, bangs, calvin-balling, and , many other lingo's that we would do well, as designers, to learn so that we can clear the table and speak to each other in catch-phrases rather than page-long attempts at defining our questions and answers.  Secondly, it has shown us that we can define a particular style of creation in roleplaying game design.

   GNS theory has itself been replaced by the very creators as it has "outlived its usefulness".  This replacement is the BIG model.  The big model describes, visually, more or less, roleplaying design and encompasses everything.  At the very heart, however, the ugly head of GNS looms.  The big model is simply a simplistic concoction that encompasses GNS theory into a larger picture.  The picture is flawed as all lines of construct point towards GNS, and says that even if you look at the big picture, GNS is still the only way to go.

   That aside, GNS theory also gives us a pseudo-scientific outlook at game design in general.  Rather than thwack about at game systems and mechanics in a dark ten-by-ten room, we can take the approach of the GNS-ist and look at our main goal, the steps to achieve that, and then write our mechanics in such a fashion that they support our goal.

   Now if GNS were to treat all types of game play as equals, or if it reduced the narcissistic outlook to the fact that they are merely a single philosophy in a sea of philosophies, then we would have something that the world of roleplaying game design has been needing for quite some time...a foundation to discuss our intentions and actions.

   All this aside, GNS has been bolstered not so much by the sales-figures of the few iconic representative products in the field, but more so by its opponents.  Sadly, but truly, the opponents of GNS generally come off as a rabble of sailor-mouthed miscreants.  I am one of those to a certain degree.  Generally, the counter arguments are along the line of "GNS is a  big, steaming, heaping load of dung," or "Actor Stance?  We don't need no stinking Actor Stance!"

   This, in my opinion, hinders the counter-GNS trains of thought.  Agree or disagree with GNS as you will, but you cannot ignore the reality that the yea-sayers of GNS have their ducks all in a row.  They know what they want, the know how to talk about it, and they have little regard for those that mumble some nonsense at them whilst shaking their middle finger.  I wouldn't either.

   I've already stated that I disagree with GNS, but have not stated why.  Once could argue that I stated as much when I pointed out some of the glaringly obvious flaws with the theory.  However, the main point of GNS theory is something I have not yet relayed.  The liner notes of the Big Model and GNS theory in general, state outright that this is what they believe in, and how they feel a game should be.  It never once attempts to take the stance that this is the only way, or the way that is right for you.  That condescending attitude tends to come from the mindless automatons of GNS, similar to cultists or religious missionaries, that feel because they embrace something that it Has to be embraced by all...for their own good, you know?

   Here's why I don't personally agree with the philosophy behind GNS. It is stifling to the creative flow of fun, art, and imagination.  To most, this is obvious when looking at the games produced under the philosophy.  They all have a distinct style of play, differing from a snowflake as they are, each, alike.  There is a common stamp among them, regardless of genre, setting, or ideas.  Again to compare it to a work of art, a picture of a house done in 4 brush strokes in all blue holds very few notable differences to a picture of a triangle done in three in all blue.  It is the inability of GNS to produce something not falling into the same pattern that is its own main hurdle.

   Do I know and understand GNS will be the retort from the GeNiuSes (see how I used GNS and incorporated it into genius to show not only the theorists but how proud they are of their lofty stance)?  Do you even know that kickers, or bangs, or whatever, aren't actually part of the theory, but of the jargon and you've used the term incorrectly?  Yepprs!  I sure do.  I've studied it.  I understand it, and I can hold my own in just about any discussion over at yonder Forge.  I just think that it is a trifling bit of piffle disguised as profundity.

   There are simply three things that any game must be in order to be a good game.  It must be playable.  It must be affordable. It must be fun.  If you feel that the best way to create a playable and fun game is to follow the same path that has been stamped down into a large road, then so be it.  However, don't belittle the highway to your left as you speak about how superior the earthen path is.  Don't tell me that I am a clod and a barbarian for cruising the highway.  And please don't attempt to close my mind off as well by stating that the highway is inferior, and it might actually not exist.  The fact that the acolytes of GNS choose to embrace solely one facet of the imagination, and hence the game play that springs from it might be well and good for them.  For myself, and for the majority, we simply choose to into limit ourselves into a singular paradigm of thought; for that path spirals ever downward.

   For those that are so poignantly anti-GNS, I propose that you look at the philosophy for what it is.  GNS is simply a singular way to achieve the goal of creating a roleplaying game.  The observation that it is flawed, and is populated with elitists does not assuage the fact that the very formalizing of game design and play ideals is, within itself, a vast treasure.  If you do not agree with GNS, then do so without reverberating comments best left on bathroom stalls.  Do so without bashing the theory.  State your points in a similar vein, devoid of angst, and you shall begin to see a pattern emerge.  GNS is one theory about game play that evolved into a philosophy of game design.  Your ideas are another in facet in the same gem.  It is only through communication of ideas that our industry will survive.  This exchange of ideas will be met with "bravo's" from those that agree, and a strong opposition from those that do not.  This is good and healthy for our art, roleplaying games.


One cannot ignore the cult of GNS, but then again, can one truly adhere to a premise, that by its very own nature obstructs and stifles creativity?  The lieutenants of GNs state that without it 90% of the games develpoed will be worthless...but then again, isin't 90% of everyhting pertty much worthless?  I harken to a different philosophy.  Let's use some of the jargon so that we can comunicate better.  Let's not only use this, but initiate those that aer not familiar with it so that they can pose their questions without 20 pages of rhoetoric...just to get to their point.  I'd rather see a single line of querie that states that "my game" is best for players thast take the director stance, rather than eighty-seven pages of "what I mean is..."

Outiside of that, let's all concede that GNS is a philosophy, not a true theory, that details one way to make games; and not the only way.  For myself, I applaud GNS for their effort and do not chuckle up my sleeve about it.  Rather I embrace the useful terms and continue to create my masterpiece games without any further mental nodding to those that tell me that I cannot create a work of art because my palette has many colors.

About your points: basically that something that has been going on in literature and, yes, even in expressive art (like painting) for years now. You get taught what has been done so far and it gets dissected by some criteria of literary and art theory to see what it is made of. Yes, there are those who find this stifling and uncreative, but then again its a useful system to see what has been done so far, if you want to push the boundaries of art or literature and want to produce something that is genuinely original.

Or you could go the creativity route and just express your ideas without knowing what came before, at the risk that someone has done it before (considering how many people have done it before) and some people are going to say "yeah, his work is basically copying XY...". Not to say this is inherently a bad thing, considering how many successful movies etc. are basically derivative of older, popular stories.

Neither is it to say, that "theory created" (games/literature/art) can only be enjoyed by people who buy into the theory. Quite a few people like the paintings of Richter and Polke, even if they don't know how they got there and why they organized their style the way it is done. And none of the modern artists look down on medieval painting as "crude", because they recognize it as an important movement in art, that must be recognized. Likewise one can enjoy Forge-games, without knowing the theory behind it. And Forgers can really enjoy games that were created without GNS, if they accomplish what they set out to do (Really: they really dig D&D3.5 over there).

QuoteThere are simply three things that any game must be in order to be a good game. It must be playable. It must be affordable. It must be fun. If you feel that the best way to create a playable and fun game is to follow the same path that has been stamped down into a large road, then so be it.

Believe it or not, but that was one of the main reasons the original Threefold theory (and later GNS) were created. There were some games (most prominently the WoD), where the designers wrote a certain pretext of what the goal of the game was, but didn't leave any instructions as how to get there, making the game neither playable nor fun. This wasn't really a big issue, as gamers are a crafty and resourceful lot and eventually found their own ways to get to the goal. However, everyone had their own views of how to get anything done in the game, that players basically constantly bickered about the "right" way to play the game.

Providing clearer instructions as how the games are played was the goal (which some of the designers overshot by making their games extremely focussed, but even from those you can take some lessons about design). To this, of course, many GMs angrily responded "But we already know this!", rejecting the ideas completely, just as many who said "This is wrong!" (while really meaning "I don't do it this way.")

I lack the time and energy to answer thorughly, but to put the most important thing first: Ignore GNS. It's ill-defined, unproven, msunderstable and of no more use then other typifications of gaming styles (be it Threefold, Laws, Fivefold or Ye Ole Four Way Split).
It's basic idea is good (differntiate between the unspoken fun sources and actual techniques - i.e. not everyone putting their firearms skill up to 99% is a "gamist"), but as an actual model it doesn't help much, probably even hinder if you accept the much debated assumptions and waste time in understanding such ill-defined stuff as hybrids or what have they.

There are a few gems and truths to be found in Forge theory, but GNS is completely devoid of them.

Thank you for adding a concurrence to my points.  I am 13  months away from print on my current game (provided that the rewrite goes on schedule...it should, I have plenty of time) and I've been trying in vain to find a decent sounding board amongst my peers.  having been bashed and disillusioned by the Forge, and feelign somewhat out of place at Story Games (which is a much less formal forum than the forge, but is still rife with GNS focii), I found this place.

I just wanted to air my views in a coherent string-of-thought essay bedore I decided to plunge into this community. Both of your above comments are intelligent, well-ordered, have kernels of wisdom in them.

Mayhaps I've found myself a home?  I hope so.  I can honestly contribute a large amount of positive input (including the fact that I am a semi-professional author and the owner/operator several businesses) .  However, I have no desire to attempt to force myself into an established group if I do not fit the general philosophy or mindset.

If you'd like to broaden your reading on rpg theory and craft, John Kim has a shitload of links on a page of his. GNS is far from being the beginning and end of people being thoughtful about roleplaying. It's just an example of a particularly poor attempt at it which has nonetheless gained some popularity.

GNS doesn't sell games.  95% of people that buy games don't even know about GNS or any other bs theories used to describe them.  They'll see your book, read the blurb flip through it a bit and maybe purchase it.  So why the fuck do you care about GNS.

Actually to get really technical 95% of people that buy print games will pick it up look to see if it is compliant with D20 or White Wolf and if not put it down.  Make your game, if you love it and can get people excited about what it is, not how it conforms then you have a chance of selling it.

Quote from: kryystGNS doesn't sell games.  95% of people that buy games don't even know about GNS or any other bs theories used to describe them.  They'll see your book, read the blurb flip through it a bit and maybe purchase it.  So why the fuck do you care about GNS.

I agree except for thinking that 95% is too small a number.

I think it's WAY beyond the third standard deviation and well into the tiny tail.

If you put anything like that in a rule book, most people will simply say "qu'est-ce que le futre que ça ?"  ("What is this, the fuck that this is?")

Quote from: Old GeezerI agree except for thinking that 95% is too small a number.

I think it's WAY beyond the third standard deviation and well into the tiny tail.

If you put anything like that in a rule book, most people will simply say "qu'est-ce que le futre que ça ?"  ("What is this, the fuck that this is?")

I actually agree that it's probably more like 99.9995% however for the purpose that this internet thing is actually going to be sticking around from the looks of it.  I'd rather give in for the benefit of the doubt that a best case scenario is 5%.

Exactly my point gentlemen.
Actually I have no oncern over GNS at all.  I find the formalizing of terms to be useful in a tete-a-tete discussion amongst peers, but that is about it.

The attitude i am getting here that everyone else is omre or less of the same ilk, they appreciate GNs, or any theory for that matter, for what it is, but are determined to stick with their visions of creativity.

I merely wanted to find a group more keen to my mode of thought, and it looks like I have.

Yep not a bad lot at all.
I hate fancy tea sipping at noon terms. Makes me wanna gag. Now talking about theroy without having to go all this and that on it. Priceless.

I'll agree.  This seems like a neat little place to discuss games that don't have to be d20 or GNS-ish to get respect.   Look forward to hearing more about your game Gladen.


EDIT:  To add another anology: I don't mind games at all that are called "D&D" clones or "vanilla" settings.  These are usually off the cuff dismissals that rarely look at the details or try to play something for what it is.  The devil is in the details.  

My analogy is to the hamburger.  I'm happy to look at a game that is "just another hamburger" to some because like food, there can be a certain something, in the spices, how it's cooked, and even how it is plated, that brings a synergy of details that make one hamburger dog-food and another a gourmet delight.

Now im hungry.... for some stats & Mechanics! LOL