We'll examine GNS as presented in the official articles presented at the Forge. Most key in this will be System Does Matter and GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory although I may touch upon other ones if my interest can be maintained (or if readers express interest). Readers may want to read or review my history article as I wish to avoid repeating things stated there if possible.
GNS is the foundation of what is in fact a larger collection of writings reflecting Ron Edward's views on rpg. Some are his, many were taken from the writings of others (such as Jonathan Tweet's methods of resolution).
GNS however is just about the only thing out of that large collection that one ever hears about. It is basically the Face front and center of Forge thought, drawing all attention even from the supporters of Edwards and the Forge. The question thus arises: Why?
I'd like to kick off this critical review of GNS with that simple question. For which I feel there are two answers that in combination explain much of why it had any appeal at all.
The first is that people love to group others and themselves. A quick glance at websites like http://www.quibblo.com/ reveals this quickly. I'm even prone to this and have taken tests to tell me which "Fantasy Writer am I" and other rather silly time wasters.
So we like the idea of labels and groups up front, we're human and that's what we do. We define the world and stake out our ground.
But this by itself doesn't explain GNS for there have been other systems of labels in the RPG world, to name but one- Blacow's Four Aspects. Those aren't a source for flamewars all over the Internet. What makes GNS different?
That is found in my second point, and that's is the nearly instinctive view of what an PnP RPG is. There are those who would differ with this definition, but I think this captures a gut level reaction for what most people consider an rpg to be:
It is a table-top game played by a group of people. That game consists of people role-playing their characters in a continuing series of events set in a self-consistent setting with consistent rules.
That is a simple definition whose basic thrust you'd find in the earliest of RPG designs often as an introduction, these more than a decade before GNS or the Threefold.
Let's rephrase it just a bit.
It is a table-top game (Gamist) played by a group of people. That game consists of people role-playing their characters in a continuing series of events (Story) set in a self-consistent setting with consistent rules (Simulation).
Thus the GNS/Threefold Theories are based at their most simple upon a common definition of an RPG. Its component building blocks as it were. To someone who plays RPGs, there would be an almost instinctive reaction that the theory was correct- for it matches what they feel at a gut level an RPG consists of.
But GNS/Threefold are not about the components of an RPG. They are instead about player goals and requirements. The fact that these theories have made a leap from apples to oranges is easy to miss unless one pays careful attention.
Thus the theories appeal to our desire to group and label (and defend our personal group), and it builds upon our gut instinct of what a rpg is as a springboard.
But what evidence do the presenters of such theories give that all player goals match those components of the RPG definition? None.
Do they tell us why we should make that assumption to begin with? No.
Instead the theory appeals to an unexamined assumption out of the gate, and thus it starts off a fallacy and things only get worse.
So, here's what we have so far in our examination of GNS:
- It mistakes components of an activity for the goals of the activity
- It assumes (without reason) that those are the only possible goals
Posts
5 comments:
Thank you for this! I've been looking forward to reading a compilation of your thoughts after reading them in disparate bits throughout.
I should have already written it.
The chance is excellent that by the time I finish this wave will have passed (here's wishing). And that's fine, but I would have like to have a quick counter-point besides the history to offer people as a resource.
The GNS approach to game theory has some fundamental flaws. First and foremost, they took an observation (Hey there appear to be three elements in RPGs: game, narrative, and simulation!) and decided that observation was their conclusion. Yes, it's the equivalent of observing the sun crossing the sky between morning and night and concluding the sun is circling the earth. No one looked at causes for either "theory"...both take observation as fact without verification.
In order to hold this conclusion, they must ignore or redefine data. GNS advocates do both. Terms are redefined ("Narrative doesn't mean what you think it means any more than Gamist or Simulationist.") and data such as WotC's study is ignored. Worse (from a scientific point of view), both terms and data are obfuscated with an abundance of jargon.
End result? GNS is a belief system not a theory. That's part of why it has staying power, beliefs are seldom subject to logic.
This is exactly what I'm talking about! GNS does a reasonably good job analysing various aspects (components) of roleplaying (albeit in ill-defined and pompous newspeak), but goes wrong by claiming you can have only one of these. You can want only one of these, in fact.
I want it all, and I want to find a good balance. Forgites are actually correct in that a lot of systems don't balance this correctly, or don't balance it in the wat they claim to, but that doesn't mean it can't be balanced. The best games have aspects of all three. They don't focus on one to the exclusion of all others.
Personality assessments are popular because they seem like a handy tool for the definition of our own personal identities.
We all wonder Who am I? What am I? and the answers to those questions are difficult to determine, mainly due to two factors.
One factor is the "internal" perspective from which we attempt to observe ourselves. An objective self-analysis is impossible, and we know it is impossible. And so we seek external aids to help us to see what we’re "really like."
The other factor is that our own personalities are constantly in a state of flux. No one is the exact "same person" as they had been before the point at which they ask themselves ''who'' and ''what'' they are. So any answer to those interrogatories is automatically incomplete, the second after it is determined. The answers are never satisfactory.
Humans are naturally motivated by a "need to know" because information is a requisite for survival, for a species in which self-consciousness has eclipsed the natural response cycle that is initiated by perceptual instincts. And what subject is more interesting than oneself?
Post a Comment