Why (or has and it just never became popular) anyone not come up with an alternative to GNS theory? It seems like everyone buys into its fundamental ideas even if they disagree with which pillar is the best (Simulation vs ...). It's weird because nearly all non-scientific disciplines have multiple models.

This is the best.

http://jrients.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-got-your-threefold-model-right-here.html

Quote from: PencilBoy99 on May 20, 2023, 06:37:15 PM
Why (or has and it just never became popular) anyone not come up with an alternative to GNS theory? It seems like everyone buys into its fundamental ideas even if they disagree with which pillar is the best (Simulation vs ...). It's weird because nearly all non-scientific disciplines have multiple models.

I've never bought into its fundamental ideas.  I believe it's most fundamental idea is wrong. I do not believe the pillars fundamentally oppose each other. They compliment one another, in the sense that one pillar is better satisfied by the inclusion of the others rather than the exclusion of the others. The real edge where tradeoffs happens is in the bandwidth, and there's no reason why you can't cut certain aspects of sim to save bandwidth to enhance other aspects of sim. There's no real evidence that tradeoffs fall along the lines of these or any pillars at all.

So why no alternative? I don't know. Speaking for myself, it's because I also believe models are dumb. Hey, we have a thing called music theory. It's strictly descriptive, though. It's not like it's trying to model a song. Anyone, of course, would be perfectly welcome to come up with their own model or formulation for writing songs. That might even help them write songs more quickly and efficiently. Fine. But the model doesn't really say anything fundamental or significant about music in general.

I don't even view a particular RPG as trying to model anything. I don't read a combat system as though it's trying to model combat. For the games I play, I feel perfectly confident in saying they don't. They don't model anything. It's just a collection of rules that says if you swing this sword at that guy, then here's a procedure. Whether or not you swing is a matter of free form choice. And that's where the RPG in general is rooted, in that free form flow.  There's no model to speak of. Just a collection of rules to help guide us.

Quote from: Lunamancer on May 20, 2023, 08:26:14 PM

Quote from: PencilBoy99 on May 20, 2023, 06:37:15 PM
Why (or has and it just never became popular) anyone not come up with an alternative to GNS theory? It seems like everyone buys into its fundamental ideas even if they disagree with which pillar is the best (Simulation vs ...). It's weird because nearly all non-scientific disciplines have multiple models.

I've never bought into its fundamental ideas.  I believe it's most fundamental idea is wrong. I do not believe the pillars fundamentally oppose each other. They compliment one another, in the sense that one pillar is better satisfied by the inclusion of the others rather than the exclusion of the others. The real edge where tradeoffs happens is in the bandwidth, and there's no reason why you can't cut certain aspects of sim to save bandwidth to enhance other aspects of sim. There's no real evidence that tradeoffs fall along the lines of these or any pillars at all.

I agree. I find the categories useful, but the idea that they're somehow inherently in conflict is where it goes off the rails, and then Ron Edwards goes into the weeds of "brain damage".

Agreed. I think the failure/success of 4e and 5e proved this theory wrong.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/11/d-5th-edition-bringing-balance-to-forge.html

Also, GNS lacks immersion (which was in an earlier or later version I think?), which is an important part of RPGs for me.

Still, it is a good reflection on some of the proprieties of RPGs.

Quote from: PencilBoy99 on May 20, 2023, 06:37:15 PM
Why (or has and it just never became popular) anyone not come up with an alternative to GNS theory? It seems like everyone buys into its fundamental ideas even if they disagree with which pillar is the best (Simulation vs ...). It's weird because nearly all non-scientific disciplines have multiple models.

There have been a bunch of models both before and after GNS. I'm not sure if you're aware, but Ron Edwards' GNS model is a major re-arrangement of the original Threefold Model that I documented starting in 1997. There were earlier models, notably Glenn Blacow's four-way split from 1980 into Roleplaying, Story Telling, Powergaming, and Wargaming.

https://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/blacow.html

In 1990, Richard Bartle had a slightly different four-way categorization of players as Achievers, Explorers, Socializers, and Killers. (These were based on online MUDs rather than tabletop D&D, though.)

https://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

The Threefold Model originated in 1997 on the rec.games.frp.advocacy forum.

https://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/

Inspired by the Threefold Model, Ron Edwards created his GNS model starting in 1999. This had some major differences, especially as it portrayed genre-emulating games as "simulationist".

https://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/evolution.html

Independently, around 2001, Robin Laws came out with Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering - which included seven categories of players: The Power Gamer; The Butt-Kicker; The Tactician; The Specialist; The Method Actor; The Storyteller; The Casual Gamer.

https://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/robinslaws.html

I have a number of other models documented on my page if you're interested.

Quote from: Lunamancer on May 20, 2023, 08:26:14 PM
I've never bought into its fundamental ideas.  I believe it's most fundamental idea is wrong. I do not believe the pillars fundamentally oppose each other. They compliment one another, in the sense that one pillar is better satisfied by the inclusion of the others rather than the exclusion of the others. The real edge where tradeoffs happens is in the bandwidth, and there's no reason why you can't cut certain aspects of sim to save bandwidth to enhance other aspects of sim. There's no real evidence that tradeoffs fall along the lines of these or any pillars at all.

So why no alternative? I don't know. Speaking for myself, it's because I also believe models are dumb. Hey, we have a thing called music theory. It's strictly descriptive, though. It's not like it's trying to model a song. Anyone, of course, would be perfectly welcome to come up with their own model or formulation for writing songs. That might even help them write songs more quickly and efficiently. Fine. But the model doesn't really say anything fundamental or significant about music in general.

I don't even view a particular RPG as trying to model anything. I don't read a combat system as though it's trying to model combat. For the games I play, I feel perfectly confident in saying they don't. They don't model anything. It's just a collection of rules that says if you swing this sword at that guy, then here's a procedure. Whether or not you swing is a matter of free form choice. And that's where the RPG in general is rooted, in that free form flow.  There's no model to speak of. Just a collection of rules to help guide us.

Yeah, the fundamental idea is wrong, but that's not because models are dumb.  That's because GNS is a bad model.  And you are on the right track.  It's a bad model because it's prescriptive.  With GNS, the tail wags the dog.  Music theory is the opposite, and it is also helpful. However, even helpful models are only helpful up to a point, and only in certain ways.  No one can blindly follow what music theory says and produce a good song (though you could avoid some truly awful choices).  Rather, music theory is a way of looking at the thing that can enhance understanding.  It's also rather technical.  Do X, likely to get effect Y. That doesn't say a whole lot about whether you should be trying to get effect Y. 

RPG games are models--in selective limited ways.  They have some of the characteristics of models, and realizing that can avoid some bad choices, and help with certain aspects.  But they aren't only models. 

Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 20, 2023, 08:47:59 PMI agree. I find the categories useful, but the idea that they're somehow inherently in conflict is where it goes off the rails, and then Ron Edwards goes into the weeds of "brain damage".

What is this "brain damage" notion that I've seen associated with Ron Edwards? Is it explained anywhere clearly and in-depth, or is it just a fatuous term somehow associated with him?

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on May 20, 2023, 09:56:44 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 20, 2023, 08:47:59 PMI agree. I find the categories useful, but the idea that they're somehow inherently in conflict is where it goes off the rails, and then Ron Edwards goes into the weeds of "brain damage".

What is this "brain damage" notion that I've seen associated with Ron Edwards? Is it explained anywhere clearly and in-depth, or is it just a fatuous term somehow associated with him?

I explain it all in-depth here:
https://arbiterofworlds.substack.com/p/a-manifesto-in-defense-of-simulationism

That said, we are fortunate enough to have the originator of the Threefold Model on this forum and he can certainly share even more.

My sense is that JH Kim's Threefold Model is fundamentally correct* and that GNS theory is fundamentally incorrect. I think GNS makes two major errors:

1) It treats Stance as a minor or ancillary aspect of RPGs, while I believe Stance is the *defining* characteristic of an RPG. If you are in "Director" or "Author" stance you are not playing an RPG, you're playing a Story Game.
2) It assumes that the three patterns of play are inherently in conflict when in fact they can be complimentary flavors cooked together, and at a minimum can be enjoyed as separate dishes within the same multi-course meal.

*I am persuaded by the writing of Brian Gleichmann that there are two sub-types of Gamism, one the type that Kim proposed and the second the type Gleichmann proposed. That's deep meme stuff, though.

Quote from: Lunamancer on May 20, 2023, 08:26:14 PM
I believe it's most fundamental idea is wrong. I do not believe the pillars fundamentally oppose each other. They compliment one another, in the sense that one pillar is better satisfied by the inclusion of the others rather than the exclusion of the others. The real edge where tradeoffs happens is in the bandwidth, and there's no reason why you can't cut certain aspects of sim to save bandwidth to enhance other aspects of sim. There's no real evidence that tradeoffs fall along the lines of these or any pillars at all.

I agree about the first part regarding tradeoffs, though I'm not sure about the latter part. The point of tradeoffs is exactly what I wrote about the Threefold Model before Ron Edwards created his GNS Model. This is in part what I wrote back in 1998 about the Threefold Model:

Quote2) Which one am I? Drama-, Game-, or Simulation-oriented?

Most likely, none of the above. Your individual style cannot be pidgeonholed into a single word. More to the point, you probably use a mix of different techniques, and work towards more than one goal. You may tend more towards one corner of the triangle, but you probably value a mix.

and

Quote4) Don't those categories overlap?

It is true that these goals are not constantly at odds. On the short term, a given conflict might happen to be both a fair challenge and realistically resolved. However, every game will have problems, including undramatic bits, unrealistic bits, and unbalanced bits. The Threefold asks about how much comparative effort you put into solving these.

Even a perfectly simulationist or gamist campaign will have dramatic bits in them. After all, people will tell stories about things that happened to them in real life, or even about what happened in a chess game they were playing. Similarly, a dramatist campaign will have some conflicts that are a fair challenge for the players, and some events that are realistic. But an equally-skilled gamist GM, who doesn't put excess effort into the quality of the story, will be able to make better challenges. Similarly, a simulationist GM, who focusses only on in-game resolutions, will be able to make things more "realistic" for that game-world.

Is it possible you agree with these but disagree more with Ron Edwards' take on things in GNS?

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on May 20, 2023, 09:56:44 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on May 20, 2023, 08:47:59 PMI agree. I find the categories useful, but the idea that they're somehow inherently in conflict is where it goes off the rails, and then Ron Edwards goes into the weeds of "brain damage".

What is this "brain damage" notion that I've seen associated with Ron Edwards? Is it explained anywhere clearly and in-depth, or is it just a fatuous term somehow associated with him?

Take it from the horse's mouth.

http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/marginalia/3777

Warning. Reading Ron Edwards may give you Brain Damage.

GNS was a corruption of the GDS/Threefold Model John Kim documents. IME though 90% of Internet talk that claims to be about GNS is actually using GDS. IME GDS is a perfectly reasonable and functional model, while GNS is a crazy cult thing. Which can indeed cause brain damage and the destruction of what had been fun campaigns and player groups. Reading Edwards has a similar effect to reading the Necronomicon - save vs Willpower or take heavy SAN loss.

I have a fondness for GNS because it was my introduction to gaming theory.  The idea that there are various goals to pursue in gaming design that are to some extent mutually exclusive was an eye opener.  That said, after reading everything available on it, there are some aspects that still don't make sense to me.  Either I'm not as smart as I think I am, or some of it is nonsense.  I'm leaning towards the latter explanation.

As for my personal approach, first I'll echo Amacris's statement above that RPGs are actor stance.  The other stances are story games and generally outside my interest. 

I see a definite tension between verisimilitude and practicality, roughly S vs G.  There are plenty of things that would add accuracy or precision to the game, with benefits to verisimilitude, but are tedious to perform in an actual game.  The AD&D armor vs weapon table is a good example.

There's a tension between player and character activity.  Does the player figure out the puzzle, or do you make a "do puzzle" roll?  Does player conversation resolve social interaction or do you want diplomancers in your game?  I lean heavily towards having the player do things.

Task size is another important element.  Do you want a single mechanic to determine the result of a single attack, a battle, or an entire dungeon?

First person vs third person play is another thing to consider.  So is rules heavy vs rules light, though that's often determined by other decisions.  So is meta (or "dissociated," a la The Alexandrian) rules vs concrete rules,

That's enough to go on with for now.  In any case, when I'm writing a game, it's useful to think about these things and plan a general philosophy for the game first.  Games seem to play better with philosophical consistency between the various components.  These tensions are also particularly useful when I'm having trouble designing a mechanic to my satisfaction, as it often gives insight into why the difficulty is arising.

Quote from: jhkim on May 20, 2023, 10:13:56 PM

Quote from: Lunamancer on May 20, 2023, 08:26:14 PM
I believe it's most fundamental idea is wrong. I do not believe the pillars fundamentally oppose each other. They compliment one another, in the sense that one pillar is better satisfied by the inclusion of the others rather than the exclusion of the others. The real edge where tradeoffs happens is in the bandwidth, and there's no reason why you can't cut certain aspects of sim to save bandwidth to enhance other aspects of sim. There's no real evidence that tradeoffs fall along the lines of these or any pillars at all.

I agree about the first part regarding tradeoffs, though I'm not sure about the latter part. The point of tradeoffs is exactly what I wrote about the Threefold Model before Ron Edwards created his GNS Model. This is in part what I wrote back in 1998 about the Threefold Model:

Quote2) Which one am I? Drama-, Game-, or Simulation-oriented?

Most likely, none of the above. Your individual style cannot be pidgeonholed into a single word. More to the point, you probably use a mix of different techniques, and work towards more than one goal. You may tend more towards one corner of the triangle, but you probably value a mix.

and

Quote4) Don't those categories overlap?

It is true that these goals are not constantly at odds. On the short term, a given conflict might happen to be both a fair challenge and realistically resolved. However, every game will have problems, including undramatic bits, unrealistic bits, and unbalanced bits. The Threefold asks about how much comparative effort you put into solving these.

Even a perfectly simulationist or gamist campaign will have dramatic bits in them. After all, people will tell stories about things that happened to them in real life, or even about what happened in a chess game they were playing. Similarly, a dramatist campaign will have some conflicts that are a fair challenge for the players, and some events that are realistic. But an equally-skilled gamist GM, who doesn't put excess effort into the quality of the story, will be able to make better challenges. Similarly, a simulationist GM, who focusses only on in-game resolutions, will be able to make things more "realistic" for that game-world.

Is it possible you agree with these but disagree more with Ron Edwards' take on things in GNS?

I'm not the one you're asking but this does sounds a lot more reasonable for me.