Where do you fall within GNS theory? Do you even follow it all? No one is ever going to be all of one, but with the three categories being Gamist, Narrative, and Simulation what do you find more important? I tend to place more importance on running a game, then narrative, and frankly I don't care for simulation.
>>98041713The Forge and it's consequences has been a disaster for gaming..
>>98041784Sure, I guess you disagree with those three archetypes for ttrpgs?
>>98041713I don't ascribe to GNS theory.
I believe they're just excuses for half-assing design.When a mechanic is nonsensical except in a meta-sense, the cope is calling it gamist. When a game has bad/incomplete mechanics, the cope is calling it narrative. If something is labored, the cope is often to called it simulationist. A good game will balance and work on its fluff/mechanics until they do not have glaring weaknesses that require the cope of "well, it may be weak in that regard, but it's strong in another!"And, there's far more than just those three, and those three often have components that blend together or otherwise obfuscate the differences between them, making analyzing games or mechanics under that triangle about as smart as trying to categorize paintings according to whether they're Blue, Orange, or Purple. For example, Theatric is an important consideration, ie. if the mechanic lends itself not necessarily to story, but to the players ability to realize the situation as their character. This doesn't necessarily mean actual, literal acting, but even just something as letting players roll their own attacks vs. the GM rolling them for the players is an important part of having players be able to connect with their character. Having an ability that inspires his allies and actually encourages the player to say a quick "A day may come when the courage of men fails, but it is not this day" line or the like also falls under the Theatric, which is almost ironic because 4e is often considered an incredibly gamist example of a system while it also throws plenty of powers that are named in a way like they're begging players to announce them in-character, such as Leave It Dead or End This or how a full half the powers sound like something an anime character would shout.Many GNS theorists will just roll that up in "Narrativist" (because they often involve fluff) or possibly even "Gamist", but it's more of making the actual "mechanics" of the mechanics feel intuitive and natural to the player.
>>98041713I reject your typology outright. Its stupid and reductive, they're trends at best
>>98041865>a full half the powers sound like something an anime character would shout.Exalted has a similiar thing with Charm titles. Heaven Thunder Hammer, Crack the Sky, Wounds Mean Nothing.
>>98041794Because it confuses player motivations, and there's no real empirical evidence that "gamist", "narrativist", and "simulationalist" actually express player desires with system design motivations. As far as I'm concerned, it was a masturbatory theory based on nothing that set back RPG design for a decade, while game design in the board game, war game, and video game space evolved into theories that are useful for both game designers and profiling players.While it's far from the be all, end all, MDN is a battle tested theory of game design, unlike GNS which is based on the idiosyncrasies of a guy and his sycophants.
>>98041713I don't know what you're talking about so I'm just gonna call you a faggot.
>>98041713I agree they're qualities that games can exhibit to varying degrees, but I don't think the classification is particularly useful because it doesn't get to the heart of why people play.
>>98041713GNS theory is nonsense.
>>98041865>When a mechanic is nonsensical except in a meta-sense, the cope is calling it gamist. When a game has bad/incomplete mechanics, the cope is calling it narrative. If something is labored, the cope is often to called it simulationist.See the problem with this categorization is that it's highly dependant on the player. Some people have a much easier time ascribing in-world consequences to the most disconnected mechanics, whereas others need it spelled out for them 1:1. I actually enjoy the former, in fact, and I doubt I'm alone. Some people would consider Lazers & Feelings a "complete" game, with any more mechanics being extraneous, while others need their spreadsheet of stats. Some find calculating THAC0 easy, and others are normal people etc (is joke, but you get my point). Putting GNS aside, there's an actually real trifecta in tabletop design that goes deep > simple > fast. And you can only really have two of them at a time in any given system, and definitely can only excel at one. You're advocating for the idea of a "good" game to be a kind of middling sludge, trying to please all preferences without being a standout in any particular taste.>TheatricI've never seen someone call immersion that before. Maybe that's why you've seen it get confused with narrative?
>>98041713>Simulation This is how you can always see how dated GNS theory is. Simulation is just a blip in the larger field of Emulation. Which is to say, writing rules to encapsulate a genre or maybe even a specific videogame/show. It's why there's a mecha and superhero general on this board. And why we occasionally get threads asking for the best system to run a Zelda/Bloodborne/FotM campaign. It's why we have a star fox thread on /tg/ right now.
In academia your first model only exists so you can tear it- and all your preconceptions- the fuck down and start working on your second model, which only exists so you can tear it down and work on your third model which only exists to- etc. In pseudo-intellectual hobbyist circles someone comes up with a demographic from whole cloth and people take it as gospel for decades later, regardless of evidence showing that the model is faulty, because ultimately only what exists in a blogpost is considered "true".>>98041899This.
>>98041713Have you actually read the article? Has anyone here actually read it?
>>98043152Gimme your evidence then. Whenever GNS comes up niggers here start foaming at mouth and strawmanning like crazy.
>>98043477I don't think so.
>>98043152anon there was no need to take a shot at psychologists like that, they're doing their best
>>98043529Alright, but I warn you this evidence is very technical and I might have to break it up over multiple posts, or even create an online document or something. So let's focus now:>"I disagree, I don't think that model applies to me."You with me still? Because this is a model cooked up on the author's preconceptions on why people play games, but all (you) have to do to disprove it is to want to play a game for a reason other than>a) winning>b) creating engaging drama>c) running a simulationI've run a simple statistical model to show this:>>98041784>>98041846>>98041865>>98041899 (This one's my favourite)>>98041963>>98042035>>98042573>>98042990 (I like this one a lot too)As you can see, assuming that there's at least 2 people in this thread, (you) and (me), that's a 50\50 split on if the model even applies to us! If we were to count based on reasonable suspicion of being a person the split gets even more dire with the majority of participants not even believing that the model represents reality at all, much less than it's inaccurate.I hope you enjoyed this mild effortpost as much as I liked making it, personally I play because I like hanging out with my friends and playing make-believe. So I guess I'd be>d) wanting to recreate shit you see in movies that would be cool while solving cognitive challengesI don't care about mechanics, drama, or simulation; all of those are secondary to being able to say things like "You know when in Terminator 3 the terminator has the coffin and turns around to shoot the cops with zero fatalities? It's exactly like that, I turn around and-"
>>98043529>Gimme your evidence theni will. you've classified all games into three parts ->gamismwhere the purpose of the game is just to be beaten for the sake of being beaten. which doesnt adequetely describe design philosophies or implementations, and is true for nearly all games. if the only outstanding trait is "this game is about the destination not the journey" then... okay? but who is intentionally designing or playing games like that? i dont think you can name any without assigning arbitrary extra conditions, which makes the whole category arbitrary doesnt it. >narrativist the use of character drama? those arent design or gameplay concerns, its a GMing and writing style. already thats completely different to what gamism is, and can be done in any system for any number of reasons. in fact, a sufficiently abstract game could make having interpersonal drama a win condition. is that game narrativist or gamist? make it make sense!>simulationistisnt a gamist system simulating gamist systems? isnt a narrativist system simulating narrativist play? this is as broad and meaningless as saying "things designed with a purpose". as opposed to what? things designed by accident, or for nothing? show me one of those, there's no such thing! this is a set of categories created in a vaccumn, with games assigned to them based on vibes. it might as well be called charm strange and spin for all the meaning they carry. a real typology would base itself on some single material characteristic that is present or absent in all examples, and be measurable, and predict behavior of systems based on their category. This does none of those things and has no practical application whatsoever. it's classification for it's own sake with no basis in observed reality
>>98043733>it might as well be called charm strangeAnd now, making their debut at the Apollo: Charm Strange!
>>98043749That special was so artificial. The interaction with the audience was weak, and the humor decayed pretty quickly. It just didnt vibe with me you know? Im pretty picky, i wont react without the exact right energy.
>>98043543>Today I will educate them. 1:8. Lock in chuds time to read a thing like a real nerd.
2:8
3:8
4:8
5:8
6:8
7:8
8:8Okay. Everyone come back with their hot takes when they're done reading. Get a snack too.
>>98043719>(The wholly social issues are real, such as "Wanting to hang out with my friends," but they are not the topic at hand.)Are you unable or unwilling to read?>inb4 what about solving cognitive challenges?Covered in its entirety by gamism.GNS Chads can't stop winning I guess.
>>98041713Personally if i had to restrain myself to GNS as a player, gm, and designer - I'd put myself in gamist and narrativist. The problem i see in gns isnt just the smug attitude that narrativism is the best of the three, but the fact that you can combine G and N, and SORTA G and S, but its impossible to combine N and S.
I've seen people I would call "proceduralist", who want the game to be RAW only with the GM adhering to procedures and following charts to the letter. I guess that might be gamist, but they usually argue it to be more "accurate" to the fantasy world, that it does not revolve around the players and would function without them because it already does. That seems more simulationist to me.I don't think it's a great theory.
>>98044184>underage b&
>>98044714>but its impossible to combine N and S.Realism focused narrative gets close enough ime.
>>98044577>Covered in its entirety by gamismFuck off. I wanna engage with a system, not match wits with another player (the GM).No offense, puzzle gamers, just my preference and I didn't think we should be lumped together like that.
>>98044714>its impossible to combine N and SSomeone's never tried playing Chuubo's (understandably)
>>98041865>A good game will balance and work on its fluff/mechanics until they do not have glaring weaknessesGNS calls this kind of design "inconsistent" and a sign that you don't know what you're doing. Which is one of the reasons why GNS theory is retarded.
>>98044184Why the fuck did i bother reading this? This is the work of a retarded madman. Now I owe the nazis an appology because clearly they were right that some academic writings should be burned.
