benlehman | GNS / Big Model Open House

GNS / Big Model Open House

Hi.

I know that a fair share of RPG theory interested folks read this blog.

I'd like to test my own understanding of GNS / Big Model.

So:

I will answer any questions about the Big Model or GNS that you have, if you ask them in response to this post or in a private e-mail to me.

It would help if you would first read the essays here and here. These other ones won't hurt. Just the top part of the last two is fine.

a few ground rules:

1) I'm going to try to explain a theoretical model to you. I don't want to argue whether it is right or wrong. You can come to your own conclusions about that. If you post, I will assume that you are trying to understand the model, no more, no less.

1a) If you want to destroy the model, may I suggest that understanding it is a good first step?

1b) So no "that's stupid," stupid though it may be. "That doesn't make sense, please explain it a different way" is fine.

2) I will not diagnose GNS goals of games I've never played. I will not discuss any theory applying to LARPs, because they are complicated. I will not discuss books, movies, plays, improv theatre, ballet, or any other artform in the context of GNS, because doing so is stupid. I will discuss games which I have played, as examples, but pretty much only at the request of the GM who ran said game.

2a) If you ask about the GNS of your game, do not take a diagnosis that isn't what you want it to be to be an insult. It isn't.

3) I may add ground rules as things progress.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I am not even going to start trying to write an apologetics for some of GNS's defenders. Suffice it to say that there are a lot of people with a tenuous grasp on the model, a lot of misunderstandings and bitterness about old play, and a chip on their shoulders the size of Belgium.

But.

In the original context, Edwards is right. Synedoche can be a serious problem for a lot of people approaching the model for the first time. People think, say, "Simulationism *is* realism." I've seen it before. And it's wrong.

As far as I am concerned, the model does not need serious defense. What it needs is decent explanation. Anyone who has any concern for RPGs can look at their own play and see if they find it right or wrong.

yrs--
--Ben

Let me add to that, then.

When faced with something outside of GNS theory, Edwards et al describe the problem in terms of the theory, however mangled this makes things, so as to maintain coherence with the theory. People who disagree with this are told that they 'do not understand the theory', or that they are commiting the sin of synedoche. It seems a rather dogmatic approach to take - not a useful attribute to have in a theory, which should be self-evidently supporting, rather than existing via denounciation of all other views.

Can you give a specific example?

From the third page of Ron's article on GNS, where he talks of labels and how one refutes a claim that a person uses "all three".

"For a given instance of play, the three modes are exclusive in application. When someone tells me that their roleplaying is "all three", what I see from them is this: features of (say) two of the goals appear in concert with, or in service to, the main one, but two or more fully-prioritized goals are not present at the same time." etc.

Not that GNS isn't a useful method of discussing gaming styles and design points, but it seems here, at least, that Ron is making a claim that is backed up by claiming that anyone who doesn't understand his point is commiting synedoche.

Well, he's right about the theory. According to GNS theory, you cannot have multiple main goals in play. The theory may not be right about RPGs, but that's neither here nor there.

It's like... let me make a physics analogy.

Someone shows up on a physics forum. "I'm super exciting about relativity. I have this idea about how anti-matter particles have negative mass, and are repelled by gravity." You would need to explain to them that, no, according to relativity theory anti-matter particles don't have a negative mass, and aren't repelled by gravity. Now, they could be right or wrong about their particles with respect to nature. But they are definitely wrong with respect to the theory.

yrs--
--Ben

Or alternatively you could ask them to describe their theory in detail, or give experimental proof, rather than just saying "relativity theory doesn't allow that".

GNS Theory seems to err very much on the "GNS theory doesn't allow for that, so you're wrong" side of things.

But anyway.

Here's a question for you, so I don't completely subvert your intentions of th is post:

My understanding of Gamism vs. Simulationism is thus: A Gamist doesn't care if a game is 'realistic' or 'accurate' or 'internally consistant', so long as they can use the system to their best advantage. A simulationist doesn't care if they can power game, so long as the system is internally consistant and/or realistic (I'd prefer to say 'believable in the context of the game world', but I'm unsure if there's a special GNS term for that). Is that accurate?

The point is that the terminology is used in a specific way. Someone who is clearly misusing it probably doesn't understand the theory. What they've done, in terms of actual play, may or may not invalidate it. But we can't understand what they've done until they do one of these things:

1) Explain it without the theoretical terms.
2) Understand the theoretical terms well enough to explain it.
3) Develop their own set of theoretical terms, explain all of them, and then use those to explain their play experiences.

The fact that theory has been explained, historically, with a lot of hand-waving and "y'know..." probably accounts for some of this.

Right, overall people are ill equipped to convey to each other what's happening on a social level, and even less so especially with regards to roleplaying games. It usually requires a massive jump for people to even get the idea that "everything that happens imaginatively, happens because of the people at the table make it that way"... It is incredibly more difficult to then explain ideas based completely on that premise if that first jump hasn't been made.

Beyond that, most of the misunderstanding usually falls in this format:

"Hi, I played Game X, in a Sim fashion, with red dice"
"But I played with green dice!"
"Uh, you can use whatever color dice you want."
"But I've always gotten Sim play, and I've always used green dice! Now you're telling me red dice will work too?"
"Yes. The dice are irrelevant to the other issues!"
"But, if the color of the dice doesn't matter, your whole theory is bunk!"
"The color of the dice doesn't change what game you're playing, or how you play it..."
"Sez you! You don't know the first thing about roleplaying!!! Next thing you'll tell me is that I can have fun with elves whose ears are only 2.5 inches long..."

Yep.

Hey, Chris? You had said over at anyway that you had some basic misunderstandings? Or something like that? Part of the reason for this post is to try to clear them up, if you're up for it.

yrs--
--Ben

Can I rewrite your Gamism and Sim paragraph so that it is correct according to GNS theory?

If your answer is no, stop reading now.

"My understanding of Gamism vs. Simulationism is thus: A player with a Gamist creative agenda for the game doesn't care if the game is 'realistic' or 'accurate' or 'internally consistent,' so long as they can have meaningful challenge and/or competition during play. A player with a Simulationist creative agenda for the game doesn't care if they experience meaningful challenge and/or competition so long as the elements of exploration are any of internally consistent, realist, or conforming to another clear-cut standard."

I would say that that is accurate.

The elements of exploration (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/2/) are Setting, Situation, System, Character and Color.

Oh. We should also understand character creation and prep as "part of play" for the purposes of both those definitions.

yrs--
--Ben

To clarify:

My understanding of synedoche in terms of GNS learning is totally based on the Misunderstandings of GNS (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/). Anything other meaning you'll have to elaborate on, preferably with an example.

Actually, I think that sums everything up rather neatly.

GNS is Dogma, not theory. And if you don't believe it, than it's clear you just don't understand it. See? It says so, right here. Under the bit labeled "synedoche".

This is no F=ma. This a God says the World is Flat, and if you say otherwise then you need to spend more time with Brother Censure of the Purifying Flames. It's the kool-aid of RPG theory. A tasty beverage that sounds like a good idea on a hot day, until you realise that you won't be allowed to leave the compound until you've had a refreshing glass.

Some neat ideas, and a great talking point, but it's not a theory. Not unless someone has re-defined the meaning of the word as it applies to GNS.

See rule one.

FWIW, it might do some good to understand the difference between a critical theory and a scientific theory. Big Model is definitely a critical theory.

yrs--
--Ben

Hm. Yet Edmunds is a biologist - I'd rather thought, given the presentation, that he intended it to be taken as a scientific theory.

Edwards, not Edmunds. Gah.

Nope! Definitely critical.

Yay! We've patched up some misunderstandings.

I'm curious *why* and *how* you would go about have a theory of RPG play or design that was scientific. I mean, it would be like a scientific theory of literature, art, or drama. What's up with that?

If you have any ideas about it, I'd love to hear them, although this post may not be the best place for it.

yrs--
--Ben

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

GNS / Big Model Open House

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject