GNS Theory

The the last pairings are the horizontal matches and these are the most dangerous. Often they can be presented with good intentions but 95% of the time they are just going to be gimmicks that will come apart and ruin a session.

Combat/Skills: Somebody who doesn't write a backstory or put the time into building a decent character, they just want to do everything and not have to work for it. They work mostly for spectacle but there is no investment in it, they murderhobo and intimidate NPC's and other players simply because they can and want to. Their downfall is that they are boring to play as and with and they don't always have the stats to achieve half of their ass-backwards stunts.

Character/Stats: These people are close to success, they just won't do anything. They have effort put into a character and character sheet but they don't do anything interesting. It can feel frustrating watching due to the fact that they are an interesting, efficient character but all they do is bash dice into a problem until it goes away. Overall, it can make great achievements feel hollow and forgettable.

"Remember that demon we fought?"
"Yeah, I rolled dice until it died then got knighted and my banishment rescinded."

Cont...

The pairings are just general guidelines for what a player's strongest and weakest preferences are. Some people desire to try and fit into 3 or more categories but it creates an imbalance in how they want to play. For instance, I can fall in the Character/Combat/Skills at times where I want a backstory to justify a fighting style and my attitude outside of combat but when I get bored or burnt out I stop roleplaying and worrying about what my character would do and just do whatever I want... which often breaks group concentration and is something I am now super conscious of looking back on.

This doesn't mean that if you want to try different approaches to playing a game you shouldn't, it just means that you should focus your attention where is will do the most good.

As a GM, this helped out tremendously once I broke down my player's attitude and was able to figure out why my Character/Skills players didn't like the game I was running that focused more on Combat/Stats. Once I put two and two together, I accepted my losses and shifted my focus to games that focused on roleplaying and character interaction and suddenly my players were having the time of their life.

Opinions and "Ur a fggut"s are welcome. Rate yourself if you want, it can help when you understand what your preferences are and why.

This feels weirdly limiting to me, because almost every player I know cares about all of these. Maybe to slightly different degrees, but trying to distinctly categorise everyone just seems overly simplistic.

I mean, if it works for you okay I guess, but I find it kinda arbitrary and a bit odd.

I get that a lot. In a perfect world, having a perfect balance of each would be ideal as anyone could whatever and it would still fit their playstyle, but when you are looking at normal people trying to build/play normal games, preferences tend to lean in certain directions.

If you want to think of it like percentages, perfect balance would be 25/25/25/25 but in reality there is going to be imbalances so it would be better to play/build a game closer to what you prefer rather than gambling on it. Especially when you know that you are the kind of player that doesn't give a damn about characters and you just want to hit stuff with your sword, you'll enjoy yourself more with a group of like-minded people.

The diagonal pairs integrate more cleanly into a 25/25/25/25 environment so they tend to be a healthier addition to any group, than say a Min-Maxer.

>trying to distinctly categorise everyone just seems overly simplistic
True in all things.

Min-maxing and optimisation isn't innately harmful though. I am in a lot of roleplay heavy games, but a few of the people I play with are very much into playing with the system.

However, because they know the people around them aren't going to be super optimised? Instead of going for the strongest potential builds, they'll instead pick a weird or unusual concept or combination of mechanics that wouldn't normally function, and use optimisation to make it work.

I guess that's the other thing. I feel like dividing all those things doesn't really make sense.

My character is who they are because of how they express themselves, both in the heat of battle and how they interact with the world, and the stats on my sheet are a representation of that to help establish a common frame of reference for their capabilities. None of those sections make any sense if you isolate them.

If you like playing games so much, why are you on Veeky Forums?

but they're not mutually exclusive. especially simulationism and narrativism are linked at the hip when it comes to genre simulation

Gamers 2 is still bretty gud though, tbqh with you famalam

it's semi-accurate though if it is meant to convey: player X prefers mostly playstyle Y. few players are balanced regarding that in any meaningful way.

it sounds like you're more of a narrativist or simulationist though and less of a gamist

I meant to present the system as a way of categorizing who likes to play what. It is a system for helping players find what they like to play and GM's to build games their players can get invested in. If you already know what you like to play and how, then good. Go find people who also like to play the same way you do that way everyone has fun doing the same things and no one is stepping on toes.

The whole idea is to break down on a very basic level who likes what and why there may be conflict between Player 1 and Player 2 when the session starts and the dice hit the fan.

It's okay as a mental shorthand, to very roughly describe something, like all oversimplifcations. It's like calling a game system "arcady", it's not really describing anything, but it creates a rough picture of what you want to describe.

Adhering to it is ass-fucking-backwards and just as bad as chimping out whenever it's mentioned.

In the (flawed) terms of GNS, I tend to focus on the N followed by the G, with S in extreme last place.

Unless you interpret 'S' as genre simulation rather than world simulation. But then you have to acknowledge how fuzzy the categories get under anything but the most simple interpretation and the model kinda falls apart.

It was stupid on rec.games.frp.advocacy, got somehow stupider on Ron Edwards' circlejerk site, and it's both stupid and irrelevant today.

>nice quints, witnessed.
however... simulationism is indeed unique in that it is comprised of 2 different submodes: genre simulation versus realism.

Stat yourselves according to user's system!

15 30
40 15

This perfectly sums up why GNS theory is misguided:

seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html

> All of the people who indicated a strong interest in RPGs identified eight "core values" that they look for in the RPG experience. These 8 core values are more important than the segments
> We also have data that suggests that most groups are made up of people who segment differently (that is, monolithic segmentation within a gaming group is rare), and in fact, having different kinds of players tends to make the RPG experience work better over the long haul.

In other words: if you want to design a fun game, empirically study players' preferences, and design you game to bring together players whose preferences are complementary.

GNS theory instead encourages designers to create games that cater to only one segment of players. Which is exactly why none of the games heavily informed by it have become popular.

>SKR

I guess he really has come along way since his days at paizo

I am sorry but the findings of this study do not align with my 30+ years in the hobby with great degree of accuracy.

for example:
>A Thinker is a player who most enjoys the game when it delivers Strategic/Combat Focus. This kind of person is likely to enjoy min-maxing a character, spending hours out of game to find every conceivable advantage available in the system to deliver maximum damage from behind maximum protection, even if the min-maxing produces results that are seemingly illogical/impossible. This kind of person wants to solve puzzles and can keep track of long chains of facts and clues.
People who like character builds /strategic) in general also like combat (tactical/power gamer), as that is the occasion where they can flaunt their clever character build. conversely, there are few people who like combat but are not into character builds and who will just roll up a new character, no problem.

this is not realistic. i could run over the entire article but that should suffice as example of why i think it's inaccurate, certainly less accurate than GNS - if GNS is being seen as a spectrum.

GNS theory was barely relevant when it was conceived, mainly for the fact that it mistakes the components of an RPG for the goals.

Considering that it's never managed to have any empirical support while there's empirical evidence against the key assertion that "system matters", it's not a very good theory.

> there's empirical evidence against the key assertion that "system matters"

What the fuck are you talking about? RPG systems do matter. They're not the only thing that matters, but they're an element that directly affects the experience, which is why good system design is valuable.

You can thank min-maxers for figuring out how to make 3rd edition D&D playable with its class tier system, exposing ivory-tower inspired useless abilities, and guides to encounter design

Not in the way that GNS theory proposes it does

Can you clarify?

the only serious flaw of GNS is that it doesn't postulate G, N and S as corners of a triangle with every player/system falling somewhere inbetween.

GNS is a useful guideline, but it shouldn't be a categorization.

Like said, GNS should be treated as a spectrum, a triangle with infinitely many points where a game can land. Under the game, all the subsystems can be fitted to a spectrum of similar kind. But what is important about GNS is to raise awareness about the fact that how you build your game affects how the game is played.

It might sound stupid, "Of course it does" or "Why would it?", depending on how you look at the question. But the true use for GNS should be to be a ballpark benchmark for player and GM expectations about a game and playstyle. It also helps as a design FRAMEWORK to help with design goals, but in no way should it be taken as some golden rule on how to make games.

If you DON'T like games, why the fuck are you on a TRADITIONAL GAMES board?

I think it's the implication that most people on Veeky Forums are hateful loners who don't actually play games and just bitch about them.

accepting that none of them can be construed out of the other two, the question then becomes: are they complete?
do we need other modes beyond G, N and S?

If you ignore GNS and Forgies long history of ad hominem and bad faith attacks, you end up with the following problem about it which is the WoTC survey blows it out the water.

GNS postulates that the best games will support one goal and reject others. So, one would expect popular games to have some extrema of gamists, narrativist, or simulationist players because System Matters. What Wizards found is that across a variety of different games, the number of players that fit into GNS boxes was roughly equal across different games. This, in the absence of further study or evidence, disproves one of central tenets GNS analysis.

This is also about the point at Ron Edwards threw a temper tantrum and started calling everyone that didn't agree with him "brain damaged"

>In the (flawed) terms of GNS
Explain how they're flawed. There's no better theory than GNS right now.

>Is it still relevant today?
It wasn't relevant ever.

Theory should explain reality. When reality contradict theory, it's not reality that's wrong.

Ahh, yeah, I can agree that's dumb. Acting like every system should super-specialise is really dumb.

Reading the thread before responding is generally a good idea.

GNS theory does explain reality. No other theory does. Every game is some degree of G, N, and S. They all fit in that spectrum somewhere. That's the theory, s way to classify RPG systems. Explain how that's wrong.
Take your own advice. Nothing answered the question yet.

System Matters is completely BTFO'd. All that's left is pedantic arguments about the semantics of what exactly G, N, and S mean.

>System Matters is completely BTFO'd.
stupid bullshit. gamers have debates about system all the time because, you know what? system matters to a fair number of gamers, including to fa/tg/uys.

>GNS theory does explain reality. No other theory does. Every game is some degree of G, N, and S. They all fit in that spectrum somewhere. That's the theory, s way to classify RPG systems.

Making up definitions is not "explaining reality."

Not much, but it still isn't totally overshadowed.

It's worth mentioning that GNS isn't really about classifiyng the games (as in "the text of game X we buy") or even less what the single player may do in a given situation, but the styles of play.

It's more than that. In GNS, a narrativist game caters to narrativist players while a simulationist game caters to simulationist players. However, if the proportion of players whose G, N, or S goals is roughly equal, GNS can neither classify players nor games. It truly is a useless theory.

That's because you're not using System Matters within GNS and Forgie jargon. You're using it in a somewhat sensible manner.

They call it incoherent games.

Meaning they're shit.

And I agree.

GNS fails to explain gamist games having equal proportions of gamist, narrativist, and simulationist players outside of its own circular reasoning.

Or just insulting things that don't fit the "theory," like the classic Forgie move you are pulling here :^)

I feel you are meaning to ask something like "why are there gamist games to which many people which prefer simulationist/narrativist game go to?"
Well, it's pretty simple actually. Most "gamist" games aren't pure gamist games, and they market themselves as "simulationist" at least in part. Oddly enough DND is one of the most honest there, but just look at WHFRP, jesus.
Narrativism is another beast, I mostly think it's because narrativist games are pretty much newer shit (well, relatively speaking, say 2005+) and most people don't even know they exist... but most of all, they think it's something that shouldn't be bound by rules, just by "roleplaying".

It's not a insult: they think they are shit because you can have things like striving for narrative coherency to a genre and be still willing to "win" at any cost (for example). No one thinks every game is good as any other and you know it.

It still causes butthurt.

Know a better measure of relevance?

Actually being brought up more than maybe once a month?

>I feel you are meaning to ask something like "why are there gamist games to which many people which prefer simulationist/narrativist game go to?"
Actually, the game that comes most to mind is WoD, which is "gamist" in GNS despite being marketed in a "narrativist" fashion, but had roughly equal representation in the WoTC survey. This strongly implies that narrativist players had their narrativist desires satisfied in a "gamist" RPG. They could be just brain damaged, but Occam's Scissors makes that possibility extremely unlikely.

>Narrativism is another beast, I mostly think it's because narrativist games are pretty much newer shit (well, relatively speaking, say 2005+) and most people don't even know they exist... but most of all, they think it's something that shouldn't be bound by rules, just by "roleplaying".

I'd love to see another survey like Wizard's. With some successful "narrativist" systems like FATE in the running, one might finally put to rest GNS if the results are similar to the previous survey. Until then, all that is speculation, and GNS at the present lacks any empirical evidence to assert it validity.

>No one thinks every game is good as any other and you know it.

That's not what System Matters means and you ought to know it

I would be "character/stats" based on your weird system, but my favorite thing to do in game is instigate things and make shit happen.

I think you've fallen into several false dichotomies here.

WOD is considered such a clusterfuck that is impossible to categorize in any meaningful way, but theoretically it should be a simulationist. Quoting Edwards, "Also, most incoherent game designs are partly or even primarily High Concept Simulationist as well, with AD&D2 and Vampire (first edition) as the best-known examples"
I'm pretty sure WOTC wasn't so stupid to assume "absolute satisfaction" on anything, and I sugget you don't either.

>With some successful "narrativist" systems like FATE

Narrativist? Fate?

>That's not what System Matters means and you ought to know it

I don't think you should talk about things you don't have any idea of, user. The concept of incoherence is a vital part of GNS theory. And yes, they consider incoherent games shit.

[cont.]

Edwards, still:

"All of these games are based on The Great Impossible Thing to Believe Before Breakfast: that the GM may be defined as the author of the ongoing story, and, simultaneously, the players may determine the actions of the characters as the story's protagonists. This is impossible. It's even absurd. However, game after game, introduction after introduction, and discussion after discussion, it is repeated.

Consider the players who were excited about the vampire concept for role-playing. What happens when they try to play Vampire: the Masquerade? Well, they try to Believe the Impossible Thing, and in application, the results are inevitable.

The play drifts toward some application of Narrativism, which requires substantial effort and agreement among all the people involved, as well as editing out substantial portions of the game's texts and system.
The play drifts toward an application of Simulationism in which the GM dominates the characters' significant actions, and the players contribute only to characterization. This is called illusionism, in which the players are unaware of or complicit with the extent to which they are manipulated.
Illusionism is not necessarily dysfunctional, and if Character or Situation Exploration is the priority, then it can be a lot of fun. Unknown Armies, Feng Shui, and Call of Cthulhu all facilitate extremely functional illusionism. However, it is not and can never be "story creation" on the part of all participants, and if the game is incoherent, illusionism requires considerable effort to edit the system and texts into shape.
Most likely, however, the players and GM carry out an ongoing power-struggle over the actions of the characters, with the integrity of "my guy" held as a club on the behalf of the former and the integrity of "the story" held as a club on behalf of the latter. "

Not really. It's pretty arbitrary and silly. There has never been a clear distinction between these, and trying to force one into your understanding of a game detracts from it. It isn't a good model, and the point of models is to provide you with tools to analyze something. This one does that job poorly. It'd be better to categorize the types of rule-sets than to categorize the types of intended play.

GNS was never a useful or relevant way of describing system structure. Literally ever.

theangrygm.com/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/

Analyzing types of enjoyment people get out of a game and how a system can help achieve those sorts of fun is far more useful, and personally I've found angrygm's list more useful than most.

>1. Sensory Pleasure
The tangible enjoyment of just fucking with stuff. Moving figurines around a battle map. Rolling assloads of dice.

>2. Fantasy
The pleasure of immersing yourself in character. Not having to make "out of character" decisions, having a strong atmosphere that pulls you into your character's situation.

>3. Narrative
Enjoying experiencing a well told story. Not necessarily wanting to *tell* one, just experience one. Experiencing typical story arcs with a beginning, middle, and end.

>4. Challenge
Overcoming problems in the game world. Making fun and interesting tactical decisions.

>5. Fellowship
Enjoying socializing in the context of a game through teamwork and camaraderie.

>6. Discovery
The fun of learning new things. Figuring out the truth behind some elder gods, or discovering a secret behind an imperial plot.

>7. Expression
Creative expression. Making a character your own through customization, making your own mark on the game world.

These are way more useful ways to cut into the meat of a game than "hurf durf it's narrative."

Probably. Most likely reality simulation and genre/style simulation should be made distinct.

in the end, Realist and Stylist games have very different goals and work differently with the Gamist and Narrative types' mechanics.

Stylist is usually more in line with narrative mechanics, because forging a certain kind of narrative, well, IS the definition of "genre".

And Realist games, while usually being their own beast, usually give a lot of leeway for Gamist type of play, what better way to emphasize realism than breadth of options we would have ourselves?

And then the kicker, how do stylist games and realist games interact? Well, taking into account that stylist games are the most disjointed group (psychological horror and candyland fantasy are very different but under the same banner) regarding game design goals and interaction with other types, it really depends on the style of the stylist game, entirely.

So, how can you craft a game with this GNSR-distinction? Do a numbered list 1-4, and add in the four types, in regards of what perspective trumps which. So if you ever end up with a dilemma of what you're looking for, bring up that list and think of your options in relation of the type groups. Then decide which of the two fits better (and higher) inside the hierarchy.

That is the way I imagine using GNS(R).

>I'm pretty sure WOTC wasn't so stupid to assume "absolute satisfaction" on anything, and I suggest you don't either.

Then prove dissatisfaction on the level that GNS asserts should be there.

>Narrativist? Fate?
What fits the bill in GNS theory's opinion?

>The concept of incoherence is a vital part of GNS theory

As a rhetorical bludgeon to games the theory's proponents dislike, yes. I believe I covered that in "ad hominem and bad faith attacks"

And, of course, jargon and theory which are not necessarily empirically supported.

Ironically the "fun" half gets an incredibly long and boring text.

But how to measure those?

No, seriously. How do you apply this shit to a game?

They aren't bullshit but honestly I don't see how to apply them.

Wait. Who the fuck talked about "dissatisfaction"? I didn't.

GNS theory was long "dead" (well, crystallized) before that. I didn't play it so I don't know, honestly.

It's quite the contrary from an ad hominem, considering it dissed litteraly hundred of games. If anything, it's the exact contrary.

Simulationist isn't anything related to "realism" in GNS.

MAID should be probably considered simulationist, but so is Night Witches, I guess.

Oh right, I forgot one.

>8. Submission
Enjoying just turning your brain off and doing effortless things. That guy who shows up to play a Barbarian and just hack and slash everything in sight.

theangrygm.com/gaming-for-fun-part-2-getting-engaged/

I mean, honestly though, it shouldn't be rocket science.

N is blue, S is green, G is red and yellow
>Checkmate atheist

6

It basically says that systems can't be judged because anyone plays any way he wants to.

Which is technically true, but that's like saying you can't judge chess because you can technically use its pawns to simulate a cyberpunk skimirsh.

>striving for narrative coherency to a genre
that's (genre) simulationism. in narrativism, story trumps genre

>WoTC survey.
the WOTC study asked about narrativism? most likely not since that wasn't a thing at the time. it probably asked about story-telling but mechanisms that support shaping the story, like FATE's fate points, were not really a thing back then. player agency in shaping the story beyond "my character does X" wasnt much of a thing back then.

>one might finally put to rest GNS
as long as it fits my gamer experience, i will make use of it. i don't give a damn about WOTC surveys

>It basically says that systems can't be judged because anyone plays any way he wants to.

No?

>The point is this, though. Most systems come prepackaged with Core Engagements which can easily become the Core Engagements of your game. But that doesn’t mean that playing a system automatically means you have to accept those Core Engagements. In most cases, you can add to or subtract from the list fairly easily, though some systems can make this easier or harder. Long story short, the system matters both more and less than you want to think it does.

I don't know how the point can be made any clearer than that. Systems do come prepackaged to reinforce certain ways of having fun, but by virtue of the gamemaster existing, he can try to customize things. It does not say that they "can't" be judged.

Well... yes, exactly. I was talking about Right to Dream. I guess it wasn't clear.

Yes. What I want to know is: how do I JUDGE games?

Because that's what GNS theory did (ok, after many considerations, perhaps more important). If you tell me GNS is shit, no prob, but if you tell me this works the same way, I need some tools to judge games

See above.

>WOD
>theoretically it should be a simulationist.
not really. it's kinda a typical game for the era. systemwise, it's not really different from shadowrun, Cyberpunk 2020, D&D 3.x, etc.
which means it's a mixture of gamist and simulationist design. I would argue that humanity can be regarded as having narrative impact but mostly it's simulationist.

>Narrativist? Fate?
yes, fate points are a narrativist mechanic, not gamist or simulationist.

Why did she age so horribly in the next one? It was like she was the Carrie Fisher and did drugs the whole time.

>If you tell me GNS is shit, no prob, but if you tell me this works the same way, I need some tools to judge games

>Analyzing types of enjoyment people get out of a game and how a system can help achieve those sorts of fun is far more useful, and personally I've found angrygm's list more useful than most.

This is not going to work if you lack basic reading comprehension.

Systems are played so people can have fun. There are different types of fun. Categorizing ways of having fun and seeing how a system helps achieve those sorts of fun is how you can judge systems.

>There has never been a clear distinction between these
OP's pic provides a fairly clear distinction though. If you GNS a spectrum, it's pretty useable.

>1. Sensory Pleasure
not directly system related
>2. Fantasy
simulationist
>3. Narrative
narrativist
>4. Challenge
gamist
>5. Fellowship
not system related
>6. Discovery
generally not system related
>7. Expression
>Making a character your own through customization
can be gamist or simulationist
>making your own mark on the game world.
this coulld also relate to narrativism

>Combat focused and story focused are mutually exclusive
>What is wuxia

What a dogshit breakdown method.

Edwards is an idiot that has never heard of improv theater or playwrights, and can't move past his "players vs. the gm" mentality.

This is part of my problem with the whole thing.

There are always places where things overlap in ways that aren't 'normal' for other sorts of things.

Part of the reason Legends of the Wulin is my favourite game is the way it makes combat the heart of its storytelling, where the mechanics and crunch of combat is directly linked to the narrative, character development and story progress. And it defies basically any definition from any model discussed in this thread.

Dude, read what Edwards said. He even agrees on the second point (but certainly not on the first).

>yes, fate points are a narrativist mechanic, not gamist or simulationist.

Yeah, but there are no narrativist premises per se. I dunno.

You can think so, even if this line doesn't make any sense. But it's pretty retarded to judge a theory contradicting what the theorist said; Vampire is simulationist. Word of God.

It's Reynolds, user. What did you expect?

>Sensory Pleasure
>not directly system related
Yes it fucking is you retard. What are combat minis? What are battlemaps? What are dicepool systems?
>Fellowship
>not system related
Yes it is you retard. What is a team based combat game? What are systems that feature tangible group links and roleplaying elements?
>Your other retarded shit
The entire point of why GNS is a stupid system is that it is INACCURATE. It does not break down anything down to useful, concrete, relatable terms, and subsequently, it is all airy-fairy nonsense that means nothing in a real game.

The fact that you yourself try to categorize multiple things as "narrativist" or "gamist" or say they could be "either or" is only proof that you acknowledge this.

>Most likely reality simulation and genre/style simulation should be made distinct.
but what if the genre adheres to realism? i feel like realism is a sub-style of simultionism. an important one, yes, but still...
this is further compunded by stylist and realist being incompatible. or rather: you need to define what you are simulating and to the degree that this is realistic you have one or the other.

that's why i would advocate against GNSR: use GNS instead but be aware of what you're simulating - reality or a genre with its conventions

. Sensory Pleasure
>not directly system related
Systems such as 4e mandate the usage of tokens, so you could say they're built to provide Sensory Pleasure

But they don't mandate to use tokens of one type or another.

This is something you could use for published boardgames.

>Systems do come prepackaged to reinforce certain ways of having fun
best example is shadowrun. there are countless ways of exploring a cyberpunk/fantasy crossover genre but shadowrun really dictates a specific angle: freelance spec ops in the employ of (mostly) the corps

>What are combat minis? What are battlemaps?
not directly system-related, dumbass
>What are dicepool systems?
the number of dice rolled is a minor aspect to system design. i am taking the liberty to neglect it here.
>Fellowship
>Enjoying socializing in the context of a game through teamwork and camaraderie.
this is something experienced in almost all RPGs and it's something that is generally independent of system but more driven by story and the characters that the players have imagined. not really system related, sorry.

>The fact that you yourself try to categorize multiple things as "narrativist" or "gamist" or say they could be "either or" is only proof that you acknowledge this.
try to stay up with the thread. we have agreed in here that GNS should be a spectrum. they are the RGB basic color out of which all other colors can be produced.

That's my point. I'd like to see another go at it since storygames have become more popular to either validate or invalidate GNS. Currently, the data does not support the validity of GNS observations or analysis

Nor does it disprove it.

WAIT A MINUTE

I assumed all rpg were what this picture call simulationist

>not directly system-related, dumbass

You're honestly going to sit there and tell me d&d 4e and FAE have the same requirements of minis or battlemaps?

>this is something experienced in almost all RPGs and it's something that is generally independent of system but more driven by story and the characters that the players have imagined. not really system related, sorry.

What are Dungeon World Bonds? What are games that feature lots of opportunity for teamwork in its mechanics, such as 4e d&d?

Just fuck off, you have no idea what you're talking about.

If GNS did, there would be extrema of GNS player personality types congregating to different systems. This was not observed.

And that, in a summary, is precisely why the whole GNS "theory" is bullshit.

Play games other than 3.x

Considering the picture is some high-level of bullshit, it's not a problem.

Did I say it was proved or even "tested"?

>Considering the picture is some high-level of bullshit, it's not a problem.

We might disagree on a lot, but I think we can both agree on that.