The problem with GNS theory wasn't that it was wrong, it was the fact that it was encouraged as an excuse to remove the G and especially the S, specifically from the original poster of the theory.
The actual discussion of GNS as a reference for game mechanics is fine.
For example: Let's talk about concentration from 5e. I can talk about Concentration in terms of all three aspects of GNS.
Gaming-wise: Concentration brings a much needed balance of spell usage to magic-users in that prior, it was incredibly difficult to strip a magic-user of a spell they had cast, especially the more dangerous ones that could break battles or stack incredibly easy with other effects.
Simulation-wise: Concentration fits well within it's own lore, providing a physical, universal reason for why certain spells cannot stack on each other. It can also bring into discussion how concentration is used and in what way it can be broken, such as when a ship beneath the wizard begins rocking too hard, or when the Sorcerer is trying to maintain a spell while panicked by a monster.
Narrative-wise: Concentration fills the gap that was lacking in previous editions that a wizard must maintain focus on the spell. Previous editions, it was possible to knock a wizard out of the cast itself, but not the spell. This didn't meet up with the general narrative of spell casters having strenuous mental strain. It also encourages fighters and others to protect the one giving them the spell enhancements.
All three elements of this trio should be present in most game design elements, and I feel that if one branch is missing, it might be prudent to go back and fill in some more on the RPG in question. What IS a mistake is using it to encourage and purposefully design mechanics that only adhere to two, or even just ONE of the three.
Kevin Cook
>It doesn't work, the rise of the OSR was pretty much the nail in the coffin.
What the fuck are you on about? How is one thing related to the other?
Robert Scott
>OSR Could you expand on that? I'm not familair what OSR tries to do apart from revive old school games. In general I'd say new games are better at getting players to get along and have more 'effective' mechanics. Effective in the sense of getting everyone to have fun.
>GNS as a tool for Narrative superiority >G N and S are mutually exclusive I'm not sure how these opinions that are commonly held on Veeky Forums came about, since it's really not the case in any of the stuff I've read on it.
I like your picture, it seems to demonstrate the opposite of what you're saying though > it's incredibly hard to pick a portion of where to start You drew a picture is MS paint which is a start, was it particularly hard?
I guess the real problem is when you're talking about one thing when everybody thinks you're talking about something else.
That's one of the benefits of GNS. Whatever it's other faults, at least it gives us a common vocabulary. Now if only we were working with the same definitions...
Anthony Nguyen
>I'm not sure how these opinions that are commonly held on Veeky Forums came about, since it's really not the case in any of the stuff I've read on it. I was pretty much explaining how they're not mutually exclusive except as elements of game design.
>I like your picture, it seems to demonstrate the opposite of what you're saying though I didn't explain it particularly well, and honestly, I'm redeveloping these thoughts as we speak, so some of what I say might just be me rambling through the format of text while I strengthen what the ideas themselves are.
However, to clarify, that picture is meant ONLY in reference to game design elements, and not actual games. If you asked me to put D&D somewhere on that picture, I would not be able to as that's not what the picture represents nor should it represent. Likewise, as I said above, I could put the Concentration rule from 5e onto every pillar on that picture and discuss how it affects the game.
Adam Fisher
The thing people seem to miss about GNS is that is isn't so much about game design as it was about game play. It was used to describe what players wanted out of roleplaying, with that basis it was then used to analyse game design.
It's well and good that Concentration in your 5e example makes sense in all contexts, and I believe you're right that a well-rounded RPG should be fleshed out in all three, but I can bet that the designers of 5e's chief concern was Gamist, making things balanced. This is because of the market, the type of RPGer, that they're appealing to.
It's not a matter of "which box does this fall into?" it is instead "what kind of player is this made for?"
Dominic Gomez
>GNS >Narrative elitists' model underlining that you have to choose, and Narrativism is the only correct choice. I'm not a fan of GNS, but this is pretty cool still, thanks OP. I'm studying vidya and I've written some about TRPG theory but it mostly ends up being my opinions with nothing to go on since there aren't any comprehensive theories that I actually agree with.
Jason Wright
>designers of 5e's chief concern was Gamist, making things balanced. Actually, their game design philosophy was based on three things that they noticed that people really wanted which they call the Three Pillars of Adventure, which was exploration, combat, and Social Interaction. Which aren't wrong either, but I think all three of those apply to the RPG base as opposed to separate branches.
Trying to make things balanced was a very real intention, but that was tried in 4e as well, which was met with disparity from the fanbase. Instead, they tried to focus on all aspects of the game while keeping in mind the failures of 3.PF.
Connor Hughes
I meant just for the Concentration rule, other parts have different focuses.
5e's a game about being adventures who become more powerful over time, facing greater and greater challenges. The "being adventurers" bit is all Simulationist, trying to accurately portray characters, locations, societies; with some Narrative sprinkled on top (Inspiration is a nice touch). Combat (the ever-increasing challenge) is all balanced competition.
The fact DnD is so popular means it has to do everything and do it well, since people want to do so many different things with it. Overall its still appealing to Simulationist-Gamist players.
One thing I wish games would do more is say "this is X kind of game, if you're looking for Y it's not for you". But that's usually a no-no as you want people to buy your book even if they're not going to like it.
Nathaniel Sullivan
>One thing I wish games would do more is say "this is X kind of game, if you're looking for Y it's not for you" Honestly, this doesn't appeal to me too much. Books that are too specific can usually do that one specific thing really well, but nothing else. Meaning I dropped an average of $50 on a book that I might, MIGHT use 1 or 2 times in my life to capture a certain flavor my group might be feeling, and then put it right back up on the shelf to collect dust until I finally decide "who am I kidding" and take it down to the FLGS.
One of the more positive strengths of TRPGs in general is the fact that it is so highly reactive to the player shenanigans. When you start getting more and more dug out into a specific flavor of TRPG, I think eventually you run into road blocks that will make you put it down like I do, or just plain get bored of running the same type of game over and over again.
