The place for Design Mechanism and Mythras news and discussions
Welcome to designmechanism
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!
nDervish wrote:I've been told that GNS is intended to describe games, not players. To the extent that this is true, I suppose it explains why your "Socialist" type doesn't appear, since that's solely a characteristic of the people playing the game, not of the game itself.
Thalaba wrote:The Gamer Motivation Model
Thalaba wrote:The social player is definitely a thing, but that kind of person falls outside of the model because they don't really have (or never express) preferences, so you can never really see how they fit in. You could add a 7th 'social' category to the model, but it wouldn't really tell you anything about what kind of roleplaying games you'd like to play. It might be an indicator of whether you like to play with a lot of people. or prefer computer games to tabletop.
nDervish wrote:Icefield wrote:Anyway I see it as a way to understand each other and myself, what do you guys think?
1) Even before Edwards laid finger to keyboard, I was describing RPGs as "alternate reality simulators" and it greatly annoys me that he's co-opted the term "simulation" in the context of RPGs to mean something else. Particularly when it seems to have been used as the undefinable catch-all for everything that he couldn't understand the appeal of because it was neither what he personally liked (Narrativism) nor straight-up powergaming (Gamism).
2) Online discussions based on GNS or GNS-derived terminology have a strong tendency to end up being worse than useless because everyone understands Edwards' jargon to mean different things, leading to them talking past each other at best or the entire conversation devolving into an argument about what "Narrativism" really means at worst.
3) I hear that even Edwards himself has disavowed GNS theory in favor of his new theory of three creative agendas: "Story Now", "Freedom to Explore", and "Step On Up". Which map roughly to Narrativism, Simulationism, and Gamism, respectively, but are somehow not the same thing at all in some way that I don't claim to grok.
4) I'm not sure whether it's a part of GNS theory itself or just something that happens to come up a lot in the same conversations, but Edwards seemed to take it as axiomatic that games should focus on only one mode of play ("coherent") and that it was a bad thing for games to support multiple modes ("incoherent"). I disagree with that assumption and tend to prefer "incoherent" games both on grounds of personal preference (sometimes I want to get deep into character, sometimes I just want to throw dice, and I don't want to have to change game systems every time I switch from one mode to the other) and social practicality (a game which supports all three modes can satisfy players with all three preferences; if it only supports one, then you're limiting yourself to only players who enjoy that specific mode).
So I'm not really a fan, although I've picked up quite a bit about it by watching other people argue over it in forums. I think it could potentially have been (more?) useful if Edwards hadn't grabbed on to terms that were already being used in RPG-related discussions (and, worse, explicitly redefining them - I'm told that, prior to GNS, the main RPG theory was GDS, but GDS-Simulationism and GNS-Simulationism are two completely different things) and if he hadn't polarized discussions around his theory by trying to push his own gaming preferences while in the purpose of developing it. As it stands, though, the terminology is confusing and the theory has been embraced primarily by people who share Edwards' preference for highly-focused storygames, both of which are severe limitations.Matt_E wrote:Personally, I think I'm mostly a Narrativist, with some Simulationist and a little (but definitely some) Gamist to round it out. I used to be much more of a Gamist and less of a Narrativist.
I think there may be categories other than these three. Consider, for example, the Socialist (?!), who doesn't really care much about strategy and winning, or about telling a thematic story, or about creating the Matrix, yet shows up to every session anyway. Rather, this individual sees roleplaying as one of many fun ways to hang out with his mates.
I've been told that GNS is intended to describe games, not players. To the extent that this is true, I suppose it explains why your "Socialist" type doesn't appear, since that's solely a characteristic of the people playing the game, not of the game itself.
Icefield wrote:Thank you for posting this! I guess you were part of that original discussion and so If I could ask you did you mean for Alternate Reality Simulator to apply only to the game and not the person enjoying it?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests