GNS / Big Model Open House : comments [benlehman]

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.

[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]

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

[link] [parent] [reply]

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?

[link] [parent] [reply]

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.

[link] [parent] [reply]

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.

[link] [parent] [reply]

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

[link] [parent] [reply]

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.

[link] [parent] [reply]

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

yrs--
--Ben

[link] [parent] [reply]

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14 1	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

benlehman

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

May