History of Post 393
- 2007-05-18 12:34:15
So, let's say you are playing a ship captain in the Birtish navy in 1813, faced with hunting down a personal friend of yours that has defected to the American navy. Is this a Gamist (since you must use naval strategies to attempt to stop him, in theory), a Simulationist (since you are immersed in the role of a specific class of person, in a particular time and place, theoretically trying to imagine yourslef living that person's life), or a Narrativist (because you are exploring the themes of betrayal, friendship, patriotism, and possibly the rights of the common sailor) game?
The GNS Theory is not suggesting different elements can't exist in a single game rather it suggests games are "more fun" if they unapologetically focus on one.
In your example all three modes are clearly present, the big question is when you try to implement your example how well does it work? Does everyone have fun or merely tolerate those portions of play that don't focus on what they like best.
For example, have you ever noticed the player who excels at the naval strategy portions of the game pouting while a different player explores the relationship between enemy combatants? How about the player who really digs how realistically the the tactical rules appear on paper? Does that player fume in righteous indignation when the first player pulls of a risky cinematic feat supported by the rules but on closer examination it seems highly improbable it should have succeeded? Is the result of the clash between player one and player two a never ending stream of house rules to settle the situation - see calvinballist -? If you have seen these behaviors then you have seen evidence that supports GNS theory.
What I take away is not a dogma that insists that different modes of play are mutually exclusive. Instead, I see a declaration that up-ends the traditionalist notions sold to us by TSR and WOTC for decades... that a good game is one that balances all three elements, the more players in a game the better, there is one agreed upon way to play role playing games, if there is a question create a rule, etc.
One of the things you said that I found interesting - I paraphrase - is that Edwards is longwinded and basically stating the obvious. The question everyone should ask themselves is "Is what I like about RPGs what everyone else likes?" I know that when I GM I'm guilty of running a game the way I would like to play it... the players haven't always agreed. Now if you are one of the few fortunate ones who have played for years with the same people since highschool or college... well frankly, I'm jelous and you won't find very useful information in GNS theory because you have moderated your expectations in the interest of friendship. But for the rest of us gamers out there trying to cobble together games with aquantences, or people from work, or people from Nearby Gamers some guidance on "how to make it work" is a breath of fresh air. "Just do it" sort of falls flat.
PS - I would agree the essays are a bit heavy at times. I had to read and re-read several sections of all three essays. I also think its fair to say that as compositions the essays lack focus and many of the examples are too obscure; however, I found them very educational and worth the effort to understand their themes.
- 2007-05-18 12:26:58
So, let's say you are playing a ship captain in the Birtish navy in 1813, faced with hunting down a personal friend of yours that has defected to the American navy. Is this a Gamist (since you must use naval strategies to attempt to stop him, in theory), a Simulationist (since you are immersed in the role of a specific class of person, in a particular time and place, theoretically trying to imagine yourslef living that person's life), or a Narrativist (because you are exploring the themes of betrayal, friendship, patriotism, and possibly the rights of the common sailor) game?
The GNS Theory is not suggesting different elements can't exist in a single game rather it suggests games are "more fun" if they unapologetically focus on one.
In your example all three modes are clearly present, the big question is when you try to implement your example how well does it work? Does everyone have fun or merely tolerate those portions of play that don't focus on what they like best.
For example, have you ever noticed the player who excels at the naval strategy portions of the game pouting while a different player explores the relationship between enemy combatants? How about the player who really digs how realistically the the tactical rules appear on paper? Does that player fume in righteous indignation when the first player pulls of a risky cinematic feat supported by the rules but on closer examination it seems highly improbable it should have succeeded? Is the result of the clash between player one and player two a never ending stream of house rules to settle the situation - see calvinballist -? If you have seen these behaviors then you have seen evidence that supports GNS theory.
What I take away is not a dogma that insists that different modes of play are mutually exclusive. Instead, I see a declaration that up-ends the traditionalist notions sold to us by TSR and WOTC for decades... that a good game is one that balances all three elements, the more players in a game the better, there is one agreed upon way to play role playing games, if there is a question create a rule, etc.
One of the things you said that I found interesting - I paraphrase - is that Edwards is longwinded and basically stating the obvious. The question everyone should ask themselves is "Is what I like about RPGs what everyone else likes?" I know that when I GM I'm guilty of running a game the way I would like to play it... the players haven't always agreed. Now if you are one of the few fortunate ones who have played for years with the same people since highschool or college... well frankly, I'm jelous and you won't find very useful information in GNS theory because you have moderated your views in the interest of friendship. But for the rest of us gamers out there trying to cobble together games with aquantences, or people from work, or people from Nearby Gamers some guidance on "how to make it work" is a breath of fresh air. "Just do it" sort of falls flat.
PS - I would agree the essays are a bit heavy at times. I had to read and re-read several sections of all three essays. I also think its fair to say that as compositions the essays lack focus and many of the examples are too obscure; however, I found them very educational and worth the effort to understand their themes.
- 2007-05-18 12:11:46
So, let's say you are playing a ship captain in the Birtish navy in 1813, faced with hunting down a personal friend of yours that has defected to the American navy. Is this a Gamist (since you must use naval strategies to attempt to stop him, in theory), a Simulationist (since you are immersed in the role of a specific class of person, in a particular time and place, theoretically trying to imagine yourslef living that person's life), or a Narrativist (because you are exploring the themes of betrayal, friendship, patriotism, and possibly the rights of the common sailor) game?
The GNS Theory is not suggesting different elements can't exist in a single game rather it suggests games are "more fun" if they unapologetically focus on one.
In your example all three modes are clearly present, the big question is when you try to implement your example how well does it work? Does everyone have fun or merely tolerate those portions of play that don't focus on what they like best.
For example, have you ever noticed the player who excels at the naval strategy portions of the game pouting while a different player explores the relationship between enemy combatants. How about the player who really digs how realistically the the tactical rules appear on paper? Does that player fume in righteous indignation when the first player pulls of a risky cinematic feat supported by the rules but on closer examination it seems highly improbable it should have succeeded? Is the result of the clash between player one and player two a never ending stream of house rules to settle the situation - see calvinballist -? If you have seen these behaviors then you have seen evidence that supports GNS theory.
What I take away is not a dogma that insists that different modes of play are mutually exclusive. Instead, I see a declaration that up-ends the traditionalist notions sold to us by TSR and WOTC for decades... that a good game is one that balances all three elements, the more players in a game the better, there is one agreed upon way to play role playing games, if there is a question create a rule, etc.
PS - I would agree the essays are a bit heavy at times. I had to read and re-read several sections of all three essays. I also think its fair to say that as compositions the essays lack focus and many of the examples are too obscure; however, I found them very educational and worth the effort to understand their themes.