I hear a lot of people bashing GNS theory, and I'm not really sure why. It's a useful tool for understanding RPGs and RPG design, and anyone who wants to get into GMing or brewing needs to have some fundamental understanding of RPG design.
Is GNS theory perfect? No. Nor is the particulate photon model. Is GNS theory useful? Yes. So is the particulate photon model.
>>43839952
>Is GNS theory perfect? No. Nor is my local baker's baguette. Is GNS theory useful? Yes. So is my local baker's baguette.
Look, I can do these useless things too.
When people stop using "Narrativist" to describe games that are better off described as simply "poorly designed," I might stop bashing the stupid "theory."
In practice GNS theory is just a judgement tool in other gamers and games. It's categories are too broad and simple, and doesn't actually help a designer learn anything. The Big Model's slightly better, but the Color Theory and Channel Theory should have more consideration if we want to seriously talk about game design.
>>43839952
>I hear a lot of people bashing Electric Universe theory, and I'm not really sure why.
It's not useful for analyzing RPG design, it's useful for analyzing peoples Psyche about how special and scientific they think their particular hobby is...
>>43839952
When people stop using "gamist" or "narrativist" to say "Games I do not like" and putting "simulationist" on some kind of platform I'll be ok with it.
>>43840004
What're color and channel theory?
>>43840025
I've heard people bashing simulationism for being all gurpy and complex.
>>43839952
>is GNS theory useful? Yes.
Nice empty assertion.
Describe its actual use, not some nebulous vapid triviality.
>>43840003
This
>>43840041
Color theory: Like an old CRT TV, games are made of three "colors": Green (simplicity), Blue (realism), and Red (consistency). The mix of "hues", "intensity" and "brightness" determine the final output.
Channel theory: Games don't have categories, but tune into "channels" which are like traits: "fidelity to setting", "heroic tone", that sort of thing.
There are many other theories, mostly from outside the US, and it's high time we gave them all serious consideration.
>>43840073
That's kinda because they are.
That's because the basic assumption that any game that throws in a plethora of minor random mechanics that don't contribute to the main core of the game is somehow more realistic.
>>43839952
>Is GNS theory useful? Yes.
The only thing it's useful for is for some faggot to get on a high place and start bragging how his way of having fun is better and providing him with an "ism" to back it up.
>>43840116
Congratulations
Those are just as empty and meaningless as any other game design "theory" here
Remember when games were about having fun?
>>43840159
Fun isn't a quantifiable idea to work with though!
It doesn't build onto the discussion nor does it give homebrewers or would be game designers insight into how to build proper games. All it can do is a speak for a handful of people and not in any way that might provide insight.
>>43840159
No
Every good game I have ever played had competition at its core
Fun is a validation of the incompetent, and even they would drop it for validation of competence if they could
>>43840193
... competition isn't fun?
>>43840190
>>43840193
Alright then. What is a good and/or proper game? What makes it that way?
>>43840116
Channel theory is one of the best. There are many games that have completely dissociated mechanics from the setting, while others have many mechanics that are integral and wouldn't work if you changed the setting (like Shadowrun)
>>43840208
No, fun isn't fun, read the post again.
>>43840190
>Why bother looking into what people actually enjoy about the hobby?
ok
>>43840208
Not for sore losers, incompetent mongaloids who try to discount it for "fun" when they fail continuously, nor those who only have those who refuse to improve as opponents
You are just trying to appropriate verifiable "win" into undefinable "fun"
Your kind isn't welcome round here
>>43840147
The point isn't that they're better theories. The point is that the average gamer needs to break out of a GNS only mindset. We need an active discussion and exchange of theory if we want better games.
>>43840214
A good and/or proper game has two things: A design goal, and mechanics that carry out that design goal.
That design goal needs to be something substantial. Something you can hook into and say "okay I'll go with this". It can't be "D&D" for example because that literally says nothing but a marketing assumption made to attract people's perception of a game rather than a game itself.
the mechanics must then be aware of this design goal and follow through on it. If the design often times nets different results than the book is attempting to convey then clearly something has gone wrong.
But those are the more subtle ways a game can fail. Most "game failures" people are aware of are straight up mathematical or narrative failures that're more in the realm of actual incompetence or unfinished products.
>>43839952
>>43840003
>>43840004
>>43840116
As someone with an actual degree in games design, my honest opinion about most of the theoretic or analysis models for games design is that they're pretty much like Film Studies.
The people who spend the most time discussing them are without exception people who'll never apply it practically and just enjoy sounding smart when talking about something a lot of people enjoy.
It's a fucking role-playing game, you can talk for 12 hours about the theoretical aspect and design philosophy and it's still not going to matter more than just playing with nice people and having a good GM.
Nobody cares if you can sound really smart when talking about why you made your game a certain way if it doesn't translate into being fun when people sit down and play it, and if it actually plays great you'd just be telling people to play it and see for themselves instead of running your mouth out of some compulsion to try to come off as an intellectual.
I have a fucking bookshelf that's packed with what can basically be described as people spending 400 pages to come to the conclusion that it's good to keep in mind that some players prioritize mechanics or realism, and some players prioritize story or flavour.
I think it's kind of sad though that narrativist games get a bad rep because a lot of shit games designers just wanted to put their name on something and made a shoddy game and try to pass off the responsibility to make anything of it to the players by saying "It's more about the story, just make an effort, herpaderpa"
I also think that it's a shame that some of the biggest game put so much focus on trivial detail and mechanics to pad out a book rather than focusing on making different types of conflict resolution feel mechanically different.
>>43840277
Shouldn't you be screaming obscenities in your MP game of choice youngling? The adults are try to have a conversation here.
>>43840244
>>Why bother looking into what people actually enjoy about the hobby?
>ok
When the fuck did I say that?
I WANT you to look into what people find fun about the hobby. The problem is that when "fun" is thrown out it's typically used to shut down discourse about what people FIND fun and tell people to just enjoy what they like without actually coming to any consensus on mechanics or game design.
It's the /tg/ equivalent of "WELL THAT'S JUST YOUR OPINION MAN".
>>43840335
>A good and/or proper game has two things: A design goal, and mechanics that carry out that design goal.
Spoken like an academic.
A good game has a target audience and mechanics that lead to actual dynamics of play designed to appeal to or interest them.
Everything else is basically wankery to gloss over why nobody ended up enjoying your game.
>>43840229
I feel that I'm looking at the RPG equivalent of this.
>>43840389
>A good game has a target audience
"Good" and "Pandering" are not the same thing.
Unless you're one of those faggots who keeps touting that Pathfinder is great because it has a large fanbase.
>>43839952
GNS: Games can either
>have rules that reflect the setting
>give players logical choices and clear goals
>tell an interesting story
This is a false trichotomy. It's nothing but misleading about what's possible in an RPG.
>>43839952
>Is GNS theory useful? Yes.
What's it useful for, would be my question.
Other than trying to impose a non-existent symmetry on literature using three extremely broad and poorly-defined categories.
>>43840336
Just as some people engage in theory just to sound smart, some people that actually make things also do it to brag about accomplishing something. Both theory and practice can be used to boost one's ego.
As is the case in any field, theories can be made for a range of reasons, from pure academic interest, to attempts at a solution of an actual problem. Game design theories are not any different. A lot of bad design decision can be attributed to the fact that people constantly keep making the same mistakes because they follow the established practice. Theoretical reflection is essential for improving design, and claiming otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
>>43840389
That's like saying that theoretical physics is wankery because physicists don't take into consideration the kind of combustion-engine car the consumers want in a given price range. Their job is to devise theories, not sell product.
>>43840411
>you're one of those faggots who keeps touting that Pathfinder is great
I don't enjoy pathfinder and I find that it clashes with a lot of my personal preferences about where I like the emphasis to be in an rpg. I do have the common sense to recognize that it is successful though.
You're one of those faggots who use completely arbitrary notions of quality that can usually be summed up with "what I enjoy is objectively good, what I don't enjoy is objectively bad"
A game is a product, people tend to forget that when they navel gaze too much.
If it fulfills the intention it was created for (usually to be consumed by a target audience) then it's successful, and your opinions are not very relevant.
The obsession with deconstructing things other people enjoy and trying to ascertain that they are in fact objectively awful is just a personality flaw.
"Design goal" is all well and good, but ignoring the fact that games are meant to be played by people by leaving them out of the discussion is counterproductive.
>>43840662
Games designers design games that people play, theoretical physicists are not in the business of designing theories that people find fun.
Your comparison is completely retarded, and the fact that you'd draw the parallel between theoretical physics and games design says a lot about you.
>>43840461
>Guys, we really need to crank up the science talk or people will treat us like all we do is fun and games.
>>43840073
It would help if people even knew what the terms ACTUALLY meant when talking about them.
Simulation is highly experiential, and has nothing to do with trying to be realistic or accurate to real life. If your big thing in gaming is just pretending to be an imaginary person in an imaginary world, that's what Simulationism is. It's like the pure enjoyment of playing pretend.
>>43840411
Now now, PF does have a target audience.
The fact that it's basically copy-pasted from another, extremely poorly designed game just means it didn't make any design choices.
>>43840477
You sound exactly like all the people in my class who aced their games design exam and went on to never make anything that got played by more than 10 people once they left school.
People do themselves an incredible disservice when they separate the theory of games design from any aspirations of making something that people will enjoy and play. It's the wrong field to get into if you just want to write essays.
>>43840159
GNS theory is ALL about having fun, and specifically about identifying things that certain people actually find to be fun, and whether some games provide a framework for having fun in that way.
Have you ever played a game that wasn't fun, at least not to you? GNS Theory came about in an attempt to describe why that game wasn't fun, in the hopes that you can more easily identify what's fun to you and whether or not any given game will end up being fun for you, and why.
>>43840774
>Guys, popular things are bad because I like to make up criteria they didn't meet.
>Those criteria never involve being fun or popular.
>>43840799
Gah, meant to reply to
>>43840753
>>43840336
As someone with an actual degree in biology, I can say there are plenty of > 400 page books that basically come to the conclusion "female choice is real, except when it isn't", or "sometimes kin selection works but sometimes it doesn't." The important part of those books isn't the thirty second summary of the model, it's the deeper understanding that comes from looking at cases where the model does and doesn't hold.
I'm not saying your 400 page books are any good, but knowing that they spend 400 pages to reach a relatively simple conclusion doesn't tell me shit.
>>43840695
Game designers design games based on a number of considerations, which include, but are not limited to whether the game is fun, and whether it would sell. In the process of making a game, a good game designer will look into all relevant material available to him, from psychological theories, to market analyses, from focus test results, to various game theories.
You don't start making a game by simply wanting to make something that people will find fun. You take into account many different things.
>>43840336
as a film major, I confirm you are correct.
>>43839952
GNS is this really badly aged theory from back when we hew our dice from rocks, but is also for some reason the first people will run into when talking about RPG design.
It's actual use in designing games is... zero. Honestly, it'd be negative, because the theory presents false design choices as if they were opposed. but it gets a little plus from me because at least it encouraged reflection when it comes to game design.
For discussing games, it's actually in the negatives though. It's about as useless as saying "works in my group" or "this is fun to me". You slap on simple judgement without reflection and call it a day.
>>43840336
In short I think you're basically correct, though I can't really say anything about the academic design - but I recognize it from most RPGs released I've read and the level of discussion on forums.
>>43840335
>>43840389
Okay, I'm just going to jump in here and say that you can fail in your basic system design (usually math, by not even being arsed to bring up a spreadsheet or fucking AnyDice and running a check) but there's also how systems work in actual play. This second is not merely subjective to good GM and group - the system will encourage or discourage behaviour, and as far as I know play testing is the fastest way to find and adjust those issues. Much like product development, you'll get a idea->concept->test->feedback->reflection->adjust idea/concept loop until you're satisfied with the game.
I will say, though, that personally I find having subsystems mostly complicated for little gain (in addition to obfuscating how a game works long term during playtests).
>>43840424
It would be a false trichotomy, save for the fact that you're listing the three extremes In practice, any given game is going to have elements of all three. What is being discussed is priority.
I think GNS as an end-all be-all is misguided, because people either take it as some kind of gospel, or discard it entirely.. but it's the closest lens I've found so far.
When I'm looking at a design, I'm really wondering the following:
> How concerned is the game with simulating reality?
On the one hand, you have something like GURPS that wants to have stats and simulations for just about everything, and then on the far opposite end you have Fate which isn't really concerned with simulating anything in particular.
> Is the story the goal, or the biproduct of play?
If I'm playing an OSR game, the whole point is to overcome challenges and to get away with the loot. It is very much a game where players want to "win." The story isn't a priority or a goal, it's a biproduct of the events that occurred. This changes some in AD&D2e where things like "story goal" style XP shows up.
If I'm playing Burning Wheel, the focus is much more heavily on intentionally crafting a story. Players are given a lot of tools to help guide the story and influence the directions it takes outside of any abilities their characters might have. It's explicitly not about winning or overcoming any particular obstacle, and the rules are actually designed to encourage players to make rolls they can't succeed at because failure can be used to drive the story forward.
> What level of metagame mechanics are involved?
Directly related to the above, do players solely influence the game through their characters skills, abilities, and choices, or is the player given additional controls through metagame mechanics? Fate points, Bennies, Spiritual Attributes, etc are all meta-game mechanics.
>>43840277
/v/ pls go and stay go
>>43840774
Designing game theories and designing actual games are both perfectly valid things to devote your time to. Someone who makes good games can have terrible theories, and a good theorist can be terrible in practice.
>>43840799
>>43840815
Their smart decisions (at the time) involved:
*Buying D&D
*Keeping it playable at low levels and tolerable at later levels
*Not changing it too much from the original game's mechanics
*Opening up classes a bit
*Marketing the shit out of it
*The OGL, which was a bad idea in the long run
Notice how none of those have much to do with clever game design.
However, we are still at the infancy of RPG game design, and RPG gamers are exceedingly childish and throw a hissyfit as soon as you start discussing pros and cons of their favourite games. You don't see that with boardgames - but of course you don't usually sink years into playing a particular board game.
Look, I don't give two shits what you like to play. This is a design discussion, and it's a truth universally acknowledged that everyone has shit taste in something.
>>43840389
I think you just restated their post in slightly different language mate.
>>43841010
Know of a guy who wrote excellent adventures but couldn't run them for shit.
It happens.
>>43840003
That's just poor implementation by people who don't realize that there's a hidden perpendicular shit axis.
>>43841134
Some people tend towards academic analysis, some towards putting ideas to work. It's to each individual to judge what he values more, but claiming that only theory/practice are important is extremely narrow-minded.
>>43840073
>gurpy
Bitch, please. Do you even Phoenix Command?
I think my problem with GNS theory is that I really can't figure out where the divide between the categories is supposed to be drawn.
Like, FATE and Technoir are obviously, inarguably "narrative driven" games. Players are incentivized to let bad things happen to their characters in order to make the story more interesting, and can control the game in a distinctly meta way.
GURPS is the go-to Simulationist game, because it's a system that aims to mechanically reflect the world of whatever its setting is as closely as possible with little wiggle room.
D&Dfinder and OSR games are obviously "Gamist" because delving dungeons and looting treasure is the most important aspect of the game, with the world and the story being secondary to the combat resolution mechanics
But like, what do you call Savage Worlds, which ostensibly exists as big combat game (Gamist) but has an entire meta economy of "bennies" based around role playing? (Narrativist) What do you call Shadowrun, which has mechanics for security checkpoints, police response times, fake IDs, gear restriction, matrix security, and security zones that all are designed to give mechanical weight to the dystopian setting of the game (Simulationist) but are ultimately in service to providing hurdles to the main goal of the game, which is going on shadowruns for Mr. Johnson and overcoming whatever the mission of the week is? (Gamist) What the hell is Dungeon World, which is touted as a storygame by all the storygamer circles because of its system of partial successes and narrative outcomes for mechanical failure, (Narrativist) but is ultimately only designed to run romps into fantasy dungeons for loot? (Gamist?)
>>43840852
>>43840159
>>43840190
I believe fun is an emergent factor.
As a RPG designer, I personally primarily want fun during the session, and don't care whether you have fun before, between or after games.
However, I could attempt to adjust those, if I chose, because frankly it can give players more investment and GMs more hooks to build adventures from.
Like so:
Before: This is basically character creation. One way is to increase complexity in mechanics - subsystems, classes that work differently, powers/feats.
Another way is to allow more character ideas. You avoid gimping/overpowering builds and have a broad setting that allows for many different characters.
Between: To improve this you can have for example exploration, kingdom building or factions controlled by players. Usually these are separated from the characters, but maybe they shouldn't be?
... And that's one way of increasing fun. Good GMs can add these things themselves, of course. The whole point of adding things like this to a game would be to codify them to inspire new GMs and take the load of more experienced ones.
>>43839952
It's a good theoretical model, one I use frequently, and useful when used in combination with other theoretical models. It's a lens through which to organize your thoughts and interpret complex phenomena.
People should just chill the fuck out.
One thing to keep in mind, though, with any model like this, is that there's a z-axis called "inefficiency". In those cases, you have design decisions that reduce all three qualities at the same time, to no gain anywhere. Most games have a large proportion of inefficiency.
>>43840396
are you just unfamiliar with technical texts? Design Patterns isn't that dense, with the slight exception of the diagram construction
>>43841349
I think people tend to misuse the notion of theory, and for very understandable reasons. On one hand, there is the push towards SCIENCE!, where the notion of "theory" means something well founded on empirical evidence, and is not a "mere" theory. On the other hand, in humanities/arts/etc., "theory" is closer to what you described, i.e. a means of organizing thoughts/ideas.
>>43840309
The "average" gamer gives not a single fuck about GNS or any other game theory.
Here's the only theory you need
http://jrients.blogspot
.com/2006/02/i-got-your-threefold-model-right-here.html
Pic related is acutally for Elimää's This is Pulp, but I think it applies regardless of RPG.
https://plus.google.com/photos/116235159947041206206/albums/6158015888702026689/6158015892997407442?pid=6158015892997407442&oid=116235159947041206206
>>43841449
There are people between game designers and "ye average gamer", though, and looking into stuff comes with the territory of RPGing.
GNS is simple and symbolic of game design, despite hardly being used. It's too vague to be a good crutch, too, so we'll probably see it phased out eventually.
>>43841304
There are two problems with the use of the word "fun" in the context of gaming in general.
First, fun is treated as a quality of the object (game), where it is actually a quality of the experience of the player(s). A game can be designed in such a way as to elicit the experience of fun in the player, but there is nothing fun strictly speaking about formulas, tables, etc. This is why people can have fun with a badly designed game, or not have fun with a well designed one. It's about the experience, not about some intrinsic structural feature.
Second, fun in the context of gaming is a fairly nebulous term, because it includes all sorts of experiences which would not be described as "fun" in other media, or indeed real life. You can experience sadness at a funeral, dread in an abandoned street at night, fun at a party with friends. But people tend to use the word fun when describing dungeon crawls, horror games, games with a melancholic atmosphere, etc.
These two problems turn any discussion about fun in games into a minefield, where each participant is operating with a different definition , possibly not even being aware of the one he has.
>>43839952
why is did you make gay op?
>>43839952
>>43840004
Even thought if it's written as a such of sneer against 'those' type of games. It really does make a lot of sense.
Most rule system tend to be written with one of those three outlooks in mind. The rule exist either to add the sim aspect, the game or pushing the group story telling.
So know what you want from a game before you pick in up. If you just want to look cool doing dumb shit and be rewarded it it and don't give a shit about charts go play fate or dungeon world coz dnd aren't for you.
>>43840193
In what way is a tabletop game competitive?
>>43845599
The players vs the dm, he just meant to make it a fair fight.
>>43841540
thank you
guys, read that article
pic related is a preview
Why does RPG theory make people so mad? I went on a binge reading blogs and such awhile ago and people are still butthurt about the Forge, even while expanding on the ideas created\refined there.
I guess it comes down to too many people using these theories to define what badwrongfun is.
Personally I find GNS and any RPG theory very useful to analyse how I'm running my games and how I should change to better suit the system\type of game\set of players. Constantly changing, trying to maximise the amount of enjoyment out of each session.
>>43841619
>WHAT
>HOW
Diagrams out of context are hilarious.
>>43841671
>each participant is operating with a different definition [of fun], possibly not even being aware of the one he has
The logical thing to do then is make a game flexible enough that a GM can determine what a player finds fun and then apply the game's mechanics to make that player have fun. Narrativist-inclined games do well at this, as their rules are typically more flexible than simulationist ones.
Of course, one major impediment to fun isn't game mechanics, but instead game intent. If different players are trying to achieve contradictory things you're going to struggle to ever have them both happy. But that's outside the ken of game design, it's more meta social-contract stuff.
>>43840336
I love you.
>>43840336
Pretty much. My go-to for game design at this point is thus:
1. What's the theme your game's going for?
2. How do you reinforce those themes through gameplay mechanics?
3. Make those mechanics at least somewhat balanced and interesting.
4. Test it, run games with it, get feedback, fix whatever's broken, make it better.
That last part is the important one. Ten hours of playtesting and feedback is worth a hundred hours of researching game design.
>>43840396
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qImHuiYnVQ0 Theres a song about that
>>43840159
True, but different people have fun in different ways. You can't say "make the game 43.3% more fun" to a designer.
>>43846955
Sure you can. It just won't do anything.
>>43846317
John Wick pretty much openly uses it antagonises people for liking games such as DND and vampire which he tries to argue are 'objectionably' bad along it's lines. The storyteller system may well be based around an interested in setting and premise but the actual rule structure isn't necessarily any more narrative driven and follows a lot of the same game conventions as Dungeons & Dragons. Therefore it's fan base are just a bunch of delusional pretentious gothic kids who should go play a 'real' narrtive rpg like legend of the five rings (i'm paraphrasing but that's not that that's not far from a verbatim)
I find it useful like >>43846705
Was saying but its own creator uses it to define what badwrongfun is.
>>43848688
I guess like a lot of critical art theory it's good for deconstructing and analysing RPGs but doesn't offer any tools to actually create good RPG systems.
>>43840229
Design Patterns do try to give you tools to create robust systems, but often just fall into cargo-cult emulation without understanding the actual principles behind design.
At least that's how they pan out in software engineering.
I might read the pdf more thoroughly later but on a glance it doesn't look like much more than a taxonomy of existing RPG systems. And pigeonholing design elements kills dead any innovation that might otherwise emerge.
>>43841304
>fun is an emergent factor
And emergent properties are fucking hard to engineer.
>>43840336
>As someone with a useless degree
>>43849189
>And emergent properties are fucking hard to engineer.
Yeah. I really prefer working with tangible design goals, like "what is the game about", "what do you need, barebones, to run this game" and "what mechanics would work well with this sort of game". There is an awful lot of heartbreakers out there, basically just copying old rules without reflection and adding like one cool mechanic.
As it is emergent, you can't guarantee it turning up. I just feel you can improve the odds, by way of clear statement regarding the game's purpose and minimizing things that get in the way of enjoying the game - shoddy maths, obtuse subsystems with no point, systems where none are needed* and so on.
>>43846317
>Personally I find GNS and any RPG theory very useful to analyse how I'm running my games and how I should change to better suit the system\type of game\set of players.
Well personally I think Robin D. Laws Rules of Gamemastering (or whatever it's called) probably cover around-the-table traditional RPG:ing better, basically codifying player types and styles that have been floating around since the early days of gaming.
Talking with players and knowing what stuff to discuss when you're going to run a game is useful, as is reflecting on player preference, play style, flags, adventure design and group interaction. It's just not what I personally feel is covered with GNS and game design level theory. If I misunderstood what you meant, feel free to correct me.
*I'm aware that some people are entertained by system mastery. Generally in my experience these are the same people who will try to break the system inside the rule and sometimes That Guys, who will hide behind RAW. I don't like system mastery, is what I'm saying. I'm aware that not everyone agrees with me on that.
>>43849271
DESU, his argument was pretty much:
>as someone with an useless degree, I can surely say my degree and the research around it are useless
>>43849189
>And pigeonholing design elements kills dead any innovation that might otherwise emerge.
I strongly disagree. By reading design patterns, you're able to take an abstract concept you're trying to implement, and find out the ways it can be inplemented and made to work.
If anything, while not actually giving you a guide on how to be creative in your desing, it enables those with an actual creative idea for something to put them to paper and test them in different ways, exemplifying the kinds of interactions a new rule could have.
>>43849863
Aka: the CoD style of game design.
Do what worked before, with a few minor tweaks to make it kinda feel like something a little bit new.
>>43849900
you haven't read the book, have you?
>>43849900
You're waaaaaaaaaaaay out of hand here anon... what you're suggesting would be on par with compleining that every game nowadays is either on a console, cellphone or computer, and that there are no video games for your condom, or bycicle.
>>43849189
>I guess like a lot of critical art theory it's good for deconstructing and analysing RPGs but doesn't offer any tools to actually create good RPG systems.
Eh honestly it's actually pretty good, because at least when you look at RPG you can get a good idea what the rules are trying to encourage. Very rarely will they be examples of a rule that doesn't conform aspect or the other. And where the intersect and contradict each other is important do what you was the player/DM is gonna get out of the game
John wick just doesn't mince his words. That's all.
>>43839952
First time I've ever heard of that theory. Seems reasonable to me. The three interests of roleplayers are:
- Crafting a plot with intrigues and motives to follow, for the social-minded among us
- Testing out scenarios inaccessible in the day-to-day, for the technical-minded among us
- Testing out skills, strategies and tactics, for either sort among themselves or people who are simply competitive in general
I'd put myself fairly central leaning towards the gamist and situationalist
>>43851828
>>43839952
I'll also add, this theory is possibly flawed but it immediately strikes as more useful than popular staples like DnD's alignments or the Warrior-Rogue-Mage triad.
It's useless as long as you can't even put a finger on what a simulationist, a gamist or a narrativist game is. For fuck sake that's like, high-school tier level of algebra.
>>43839980
>Nor is my local baker's baguette
My local baker is one of the best baker in the country, and the baguettes are delicious.
>>43839952
>Do I have a problem with GNS theory.
No
>Do I actually enjoy learning about game design.
Hell yes.
>anyone who wants to get into GMing or brewing needs to have some fundamental understanding of RPG design.
>Do people actually need this to create fun and workable systems or settings.
Not really. No.
Just clearing that up.
>>43839952
Who the fuck cares? Don't restrict yourself with labels, make whatever you and your group find fun.
>>43848688
Everyone knows John Wick is an asshole. Just don't mess with his dog.
>>43849826
But Anon, he wasn't talking about a BA in Philosophy.
>>43845555
I wonder if this isn't the case in all games, not just rpg's. Such diverse media as comuter games and historical wargames have concerns about the conflict between narrative, nittygritty and gameplay.
>>43852010
It was just a fucking dog.In my defense he did kill my character without letting me roll for anything. Just a "Oh anon, you should your char goes to the inn alone. ...He never arrives there." Then he ripped my character sheet to pieces.
>>43852112
You should've looked him in his eyes straight and make puppy sounds
>>43840159
>chess
>hnefatafl
>go
Games created to ingrain military thinking into heir's brain from a young age
>rock paper scissors
>flip a coin
Games created to decide a pseudorandom result for an external purpose
No, games aren't necessarily for fun. The idea that games should only be for fun is a modern concept. 2000+ years of human history speaks otherwise.
GNS is just an attempt at defining some characteristics of tabletop roleplaying games. Arguing about the usefulness of GNS is like arguing about the usefulness of the terms FPS or RTS or euro game. They're all useful in a sort of basic vocabulary kind of way, but not much further.
If you put them under a microscope they all fall apart, much like most descriptors do. Literally everyone knows what a chair is, but if you ask someone to give a list of necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be a chair you will be surprised at how fucking impossible it is to do. Similarly, when you start trying to define super precisely what gamist or whatever means, you rapidly approach the point of useless pedantry.
So, basically as short-hand for "RPGs that have a certain degree of traits shared with classic games", "RPGs that have a certain degree of group improvisational storytelling", and "RPGs that have a certain degree of internal consistency as it relates to a fictional world" they're pretty nice because those are a mouthful.
It sucks insofar as really specific definitions go, or when people try to use it to talk about why their preferred game is really somehow objectively the best.
>>43851968
I'll stick up for this theory which I've only just encountered.
Your line of reasoning's a bit a like saying that using specific names for different chemicals in a solution is "restricting" yourself with labels, and you should just do what works with the chemicals. Identifying different elements, forces and factors in a system help solve its issues very well. The individual labels themselves can be flawed, as was the case in alchemy for many years but the act of identifying trends and components is not the problem, it's the solution.
GNS theory sounds like a useful way of assessing the interests of the players sat around a table, catering to everyone's idea of fun with precision and sensitivity. For many roleplayers it's common sense, but taking the unspoken and rendering it spoken is a boon for newcomers and those seeking more intriguing experiences.
>>43852146
>Chess
>not fun
I agree that games are often made as simulations (it's in the OP) but come now. People enjoy a good test.
>>43852468
The chemical analogy falls flat, since we're not talking about something as volatile and liable to blow up in your face (though it still can, metaphorically). That, and unlike in alchemy, what works for you might not work for somebody else, and vice versa.
The way I see it, if you try to measure your campaign in such a way, you're taking away some of the flexibility. Factors like these aren't something a good GM or player should actively and consciously think about, and I don't believe it's good form to teach new players to think this way, either. Rather than adhering to somebody else's theory, they should go with what works for them.
>>43841265
GN, SG, and NG? This sounds like some sort of alignment system.
>>43852515
The potential for a literal explosion to occur in a situation is not the sole requisite for a detailed and analytic approach. I'm not entirely sure why you'd think this; analysis is not something only done when necessary, it's an optimisations process that allows the most to made from a situation. It's a positive thing to do in all cases except for those where the time and resources required aren't available and a quicker intuitive approach gains merit.
>unlike in alchemy, what works for you might not work for somebody else, and vice versa.
No, that's not how theory works. Ideas are based on observations of reality, and those which align most to consistent replicable phenomena are more true than others. I doubt any theory of this sort has papers published about it but it seems sound to me, and attacking the very principle of creating a system is missing the point.
>if you try to measure your campaign in such a way
That's the problem, you don't. You measure the PLAYERS this way, and sculpt the game accordingly. It's the exact opposite of depriving the campaign of flexibility - it's acknowledging the desires of the players which are not flexible and which must be catered, and adapting the system as much as possible to facillitate this. "Adhering" to labels that reflect signficant distinctions isn't restricting because those distinctions actually exist, and denying them won't make them disappear; but it will leave you unprepared for when they become relevant.
>>43852699
It is, albeit for players (which is a much more sensible system that for fictional characters). I'm an SG-Neutral, which reflects in all my choices of games. (all roleplaying games are Simulationist next to media that don't involve mechanics, but you can measure up Simulationism relative to the over-all medium)
>>43852794
I'd say I'm also SG. The system needs to describe the world in a consistent way (Simulationism), while still being fun to play (Gamism), and the narrative will take care of itself.
Then again, I am also partial to awesome shit happening, but that's not at odds with the S if you're simulating a universe that will warp itself to make neat things happen.
I dunno, my GNS varies by what's going on in-game.
>>43841265
I have some trouble with Shadowrun. Of course the mechanics are detailed enough for nearly everything except real estate and basket weaving, and in the end it's no less a dungeon crawler than D&D, but the fact that your character evolves ridiculously realistically (aka slow as fuck for the crunch, and faster for the fluff) would also tell me that at least in the character-building POV, it's highly narrativist. And that taken into consideration, you could say the opposite for d&d, despite being a basic dungeon crawler, has rules for building a bakery and becoming a baker.
Oh well, not much game design discussion this time around I guess.
>>43853512
Eh, next time someone will start the thread off with something relevant to game design discussion and not badwrongfun discussion.
>>43853540
I don't think starting with a relevant topic will drive away shitposters though.
>>43853563
No, but it will attract intelligent people, who are more likely to not respond to the shitposters.Depending on their mood.
>>43853512
Eh, well the system is really a way of figuring out how to use a game system moreso than a way of tinkering with its attributes. A differeny thread would be more relevant, although I can talk game design here, name a topic.
>>43852863
Yeah we're of a likemind. Most people who are really in it for the narrative will probably pick that sort of video game where most of it plays itself with a few inputs until the last scene where you choose yellow, seagreen or purple.
Those of us who are more narrativey than the rest of us, are still probably less narrativey than the human norm so they wouldn't describe themselves this way. Term usage can evolve however, or certainly develop.
>>43855554
Most people on /tg/ like narrative in the their games, it just most people's definition of 'narrative systerm' seems to consist of 'I get to make up whatever should I want', usually codified in the form of think form drama points or whatever, using acquired by design to give a mechanical reward simply for acting up to a stereotypical character trait.
If the idea of 'story systems' was *a bit* more refined I'm sure people be more open to the idea.
