So what was the ultimate point of GNS theory (or at least it's Ron Edwards incarnation)? Originally I understood it simply as a broad classification of gamer types (guys who like to get immersive (simulationists); guys who dig systems (Gamists), and fellows who liked their games to have plots (Narrativists).

What I don't get is howsomething that's essentially a one page 80's gaming magazine article is elevated to the status of a "Theory". I mean, in as much as any "Types of Dates" article in Cosmo or Maxim is a "Theory".

What am I missing?

Quote from: -E.;466553To a large extent GNS is dead -- I'm including The Big Model here, as well -- since its creators have ceased to defend it and because its explicit link to concepts like "Some RPGs cause BRAIN DAMAGE" have been widely publicized.

That said, people with only a passing familiarity with it still make reference to it -- usually using the terms in an incorrect manner.

Most of the people who used to champion GNS have largely abandoned it because the whole Brain Damage thing was embarrassing and it eliminated the primary use of the theory: insulting majority gamers with a (somewhat) plausible claim that they weren't really being offensive.

1) GNS was never very good at categorizing players; its concepts were never sharp enough to really distinguish one play style from another
2) GNS was never well-defined enough to be useful for designing games.

GNS / TBM theory was founded on the precept that the majority of gaming was horribly dysfunctional and the theory was the secret to fun gaming. They believed that, ultimately, traditional-model games would be surpassed in popularity by (in their view, much more fun and effective) indie games.

At this point, I think it's clear that that's not the case. The traditional model is alive and well, and remains uncontestedly dominant. Alternative models retain a niche standing for people who like that sort of thing, and the world continues to turn.

My advice is that when someone uses GNS terminology, it's best not to assume anything and just ask them, "what do you mean by that?" -- you usually get a coherent answer.

Cheers,
-E.

all truth. especially the part about the primary use of the theory.

Quote from: TristramEvans;466676So what was the ultimate point of GNS theory (or at least it's Ron Edwards incarnation)? Originally I understood it simply as a broad classification of gamer types (guys who like to get immersive (simulationists); guys who dig systems (Gamists), and fellows who liked their games to have plots (Narrativists).

What I don't get is howsomething that's essentially a one page 80's gaming magazine article is elevated to the status of a "Theory". I mean, in as much as any "Types of Dates" article in Cosmo or Maxim is a "Theory".

What am I missing?

-e covered it pretty well. a *lot* of people used the theory and its pseudo-intellectual jargon as a means to criticize games or play styles that they did not like, while promoting their own chosen play styles or games as superior. it was really just "fuck you" dressed up with big words.

Quote from: ICFTI;466688-e covered it pretty well. a *lot* of people used the theory and its pseudo-intellectual jargon as a means to criticize games or play styles that they did not like, while promoting their own chosen play styles or games as superior. it was really just "fuck you" dressed up with big words.

So then what was that about when Ron closed the Forge and gave that weird Victory "speech"/essay? I thought the "Big Model" had something to do with the design of a couple games by "forgites" like Dogs in the Vineyard?

Quote from: ICFTI;466688-e covered it pretty well. a *lot* of people used the theory and its pseudo-intellectual jargon as a means to criticize games or play styles that they did not like, while promoting their own chosen play styles or games as superior. it was really just "fuck you" dressed up with big words.

Ideally it would have been intended as a way to understand gaming styles so that game designers could better play to the crowd, but it ended up being a navel gazing hate fest alright.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;466667It's worth pointing out that the Forge consistently gives at least one piece of terrible advice due to GNS theory, which is to focus on a singular "creative agenda" - one of G, N or S - and create games that are "coherent", whereas any sort of empirical examination of the most popular and beloved games in all of roleplaying shows that they are "incoherent".

This. The realities of what sells and how people really play dont seem to match the theory. Most big games have broad, not narrow appeal.

Quote from: TristramEvans;466676So what was the ultimate point of GNS theory (or at least it's Ron Edwards incarnation)? Originally I understood it simply as a broad classification of gamer types (guys who like to get immersive (simulationists); guys who dig systems (Gamists), and fellows who liked their games to have plots (Narrativists).

What I don't get is howsomething that's essentially a one page 80's gaming magazine article is elevated to the status of a "Theory". I mean, in as much as any "Types of Dates" article in Cosmo or Maxim is a "Theory".

What am I missing?

1) Your description of what the three letters mean is how they're commonly interpreted, but not exactly what the theory says. I only mention this to underscore how unintuitive the theory really is -- the terminology actually confuses things significantly, since caring about plot can be either a Nar or Sim thing, immersion isn't really covered, etc.

2) The main purpose of the theory was to criticize / insult traditional games and traditional gamers and to advocate highly-focused alternative games. It was also used to blame games for the dysfunction suffered by some people.

I will summarize (and necessarily omit some nuance and detail):

The theory postulates that fun-in-gaming comes from one (and only one) of three (and only three) creative agendas -- G/N/S.

What exactly these means changed over the life of the theory. They were, at one point, codified in three essays, but subsequently the author deprecated the Sim essay (said it was no longer valid)... and the whole thing really fell apart. I'd guess this was a major reason the theory discussion was closed (the theory became untenable)

The theory then said that to be fun, a game should focus on a single agenda, rather than trying to satisfy multiple agendas (games without a clear agenda were called "incoherent").

Incoherent games were said to cause "on-going power struggle" amongst the players and -- in at least one case -- Brain Damage.

Basically the theory is advocating limited-scope games with highly-specialized mechanics.

GNS kinda-sorta claimed you could use it to diagnose play-problems (the solution it proposed was to play games so narrow that disagreements couldn't occur) or to design games (although it offered only the vaguest and most basic / obvious advice on how to do this).

In practice, Narrative gaming and highly-focused Nar games were considered more sophisticated / deep / mature / etc. while popular games were called incoherent, considered puerile, and in the case of Vampire... actually /damaging/.

A lot of people who had social problems with their gaming group blamed the games.

People who wanted to believe that their games / gaming was superior used the theory's bizarre and poorly articulated language to say insulting things about popular games and then claim that anyone taking offense was simply misinformed ("Calling a game Incoherent isn't an insult!") or -- better yet -- "projecting" in some pop-psychology sense.

In most cases the people advocating the theory didn't actually understand any better than detractors did.

I think the theory fails the most-basic reality test: games which support broad play-styles are by far the most popular. The game called Brain Damaging and Incoherent (Vampire) is hugely popular compared to the supposedly superior alternative models.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: TristramEvans;466706So then what was that about when Ron closed the Forge and gave that weird Victory "speech"/essay? I thought the "Big Model" had something to do with the design of a couple games by "forgites" like Dogs in the Vineyard?

It's impossible to be sure what he meant. I think he stopped talking about the theory because

1) The Brain Damage thing meant no one wanted to be associated with it anymore -- it became kind of laughable and embarrassing, and it was no longer useful for insulting people with a veneer of plausible deniability. With the implications of the theory articulated clearly, for once, the cat was out of the bag, so to speak.

2) His best attempt at codifying it (the essays) failed even in his own view, and continuing to use or defend became increasingly untenable

As to games designed "by the theory" -- I think there are some people in the indie game scene who think deeply about games and what makes them work, but drawing lines from any games to the published theory is incredibly subjective. To the extent that a particular designer credits TBM with guiding his design process, you can make your own decision, but as I said above, I'd recommend skepticism.

Cheers,
-E.

Tristram -

Quote from: TristramEvans;466676So what was the ultimate point of GNS theory (or at least it's Ron Edwards incarnation)? Originally I understood it simply as a broad classification of gamer types (guys who like to get immersive (simulationists); guys who dig systems (Gamists), and fellows who liked their games to have plots (Narrativists).

What I don't get is howsomething that's essentially a one page 80's gaming magazine article is elevated to the status of a "Theory". I mean, in as much as any "Types of Dates" article in Cosmo or Maxim is a "Theory".

What am I missing?

Like E said, but more emphatically, this is not at all what Ron Edwards' GNS Theory says.  What you say is much closer to rgfa's Threefold Model, although it does not claim to classify people into those three categories - only games in play.  

Early on (circa 1999), Ron had adopted the Threefold Model but made the further claim that it was a problem if an RPG system tried to satisfy more than one of the three modes.  However, by the time he wrote "GNS Theory" - his version of the three modes was quite different from the rgfa Threefold.  Narrativism is not about liking games to have plots - indeed, most liking games to have plots is part of GNS Simulationism.  

Quote from: TristramEvans;466706So then what was that about when Ron closed the Forge and gave that weird Victory "speech"/essay? I thought the "Big Model" had something to do with the design of a couple games by "forgites" like Dogs in the Vineyard?

Ron did not close down the Forge.  It is still an active forum.  What he did was close down the GNS and RPG Theory sub-forums, and claim that discussion of those topics should be part of the "Actual Play" subforum.  

As far as I can tell, the Big Model was not particularly a response to particular game designs like Dogs in the Vineyard.  He did adopt a suggestion of DitV author Vincent Baker's into the model (as "The Lumpley Principle"), but in general the posts and essays make no reference to recent games.

Its not a thing, it never really was; but now, all but the most absolutely fanatical devotees have utterly surrendered even the attempt to defend it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;466712This. The realities of what sells and how people really play dont seem to match the theory. Most big games have broad, not narrow appeal.

I think that is true from a games sales point of view. And being able to accommodate a wide range of players is also a key skill for a GM, especially if you play at clubs or Cons.

However if you cast you mind back at your own most satisfying gaming experience as a player, I suspect it probably be one of those game session in which all the players around the table subscribed to the same "creative agenda"

Quote from: RI2;466653I'm a game designer, and even publish a few. I've never given a shit about GNS. I much rather play and create games, then put them under the scholarly microscope, and that is what GNS always seemed to be for me.

Richard

+1 from D101 Games

I'm much more interested in looking at games that work in a fun interesting way, and taking best practice from them than GNS theory.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;466712This. The realities of what sells and how people really play dont seem to match the theory. Most big games have broad, not narrow appeal.

I doubt GNS is about creating bestsellers, it is about creating good games. Most of the time good things are outsold by inferior crap.

Quote from: Soylent Green;466866I think that is true from a games sales point of view. And being able to accommodate a wide range of players is also a key skill for a GM, especially if you play at clubs or Cons.

However if you cast you mind back at your own most satisfying gaming experience as a player, I suspect it probably be one of those game session in which all the players around the table subscribed to the same "creative agenda"

In my case my most satisfying gaming experience involved a pretty goid mix of players with varied agendas. Personally i like to see different styled and different agendas at the table. The job of a good gm is to find an approach that keeps everyone engaged.

Quote from: Soylent Green;466866I think that is true from a games sales point of view. And being able to accommodate a wide range of players is also a key skill for a GM, especially if you play at clubs or Cons.

However if you cast you mind back at your own most satisfying gaming experience as a player, I suspect it probably be one of those game session in which all the players around the table subscribed to the same "creative agenda"

If you mean the game is fun when everyone's on the same page... and working together toward a common goal, well yeah.

That's true of any team activity. For me, the most powerful and satisfying gaming experiences have come when I'm highly immersed, and I feel a sense of deep emotional and intellectual attachment to what's happening in the game -- I'm /fascinated/ by the in-game action and experiencing it to such a degree that if it's thrilling, I'm thrilled... if it's suspenseful or tense, I feel anxiety, etc.

That happens best, when everyone's going through the same thing.

... but when you use the jargon term "creative agenda," you lose me.

Those words -- in GNS / TBM theory don't have arbitrary meanings; they define three, and only three agendas... which are, themselves, poorly defined but one thing we can be sure of is that they don't focus on immersion.

The words have all kinds of implications about the kind of games I've played -- those most-fun games? Broad, CA-less games that the theory says are "incoherent." Those absolutely riveting, remember-it-forever-experiences? Neither Nar nor Sim... some... combination of the two? Maybe?

It all falls apart.

And if I look at *campaigns* that were awesome, I see dramatic shifts -- some sessions focused on tactical battles, some on story-without-force, some on exploration or celebration, or whatever Sim is this week... Far from having a narrow focus, over time, they're all over the map.

So, while I can agree with what is maybe the *spirit* of your assertion, when I try to fit the term Creative Agenda into my experience, I can't get there.

Cheers,
-E.