So, what's exactly wrong with GNS theory?
Everytime it is brought up everyone tends to be all like
>using GNS
or whatever
I don't se how it's "wrong". It's very rough and one can be more specific, divide the categories into subrypes and find links between them, but it gives rather accurate rundown of most basic player tastes and agendas.
The original version of the theory implied that they were mutually exclusive, when that's just stupid. IIRC it also applied it exclusively to one side, instead of looking at both players and systems.
GNS still has uses, but the original theory was all kinds of fucked.
It's an attempt at factor analysis without having any real data. There's some old market research that WotC did before 3e that has much more useful insights than trying to cluster players from an ivory tower.
What's wrong with alignment theory?
Everytime it is brought up everyone tends to be all like
>using alignments
or whatever
I don't see how it's "wrong". It's very rough and one can be more specific, divide the categories into subrypes and find links between them, but it gives rather accurate rundown of most basic player tastes and agendas.
It mistakes the components of a game for its goals.
that doesn't work
alignment ins't a theory
it's just a in-game rule
rules don't have to make sense
theories have to make sense
TOTAL mutual exclusivity is BS, sure, but considering that time and attention are limited resources it isn't completely baseless. I mean I do enjoy having some nice gamey things on the side of the story and I like the world where the story takes place to be detailed and make sense, even if it has to be enforced through actual rules and not just RP, but too much of either and it becomes detrimential for the main goal.
Either way, it is just part of original iteration of theory and cutting out mutual exclusivity doesn't hurt the main rundown in any way. Most people tend to have one MAIN agenda even if they can enjoy spicing it up with others to a degree.
I heard that one before and I'm not buying it at all. Yes, the most basic goal is to have fun, but that's the final degree of generalization. "To have fun through crafting a collaborative story" or "to have fun through gaming" are perfectly valid descriptions of "goals" for me.
>that doesn't work
It works just fine if you play murderhobos like Grygax intended. It just falls appart whenever you start trying to play a good person in a non-Taliban, non-third gen slaveholder-way.
Lots of Veeky Forums and gamers are G/S, think N is for fags, and are anti intellectual in a way that discourages theoretical discussion.
Its not wrong. Its a tool set. Its not one many people here seem to like.
People who keep trying to use D&D for things it wasn't meant to be used for are retards and the reason for 50% of all problems in games
Pretty much this.
The Johnny/spike/whatever player probably has more direct applicaiton to gaming than GNS theory.
>if you play murderhobos like Grygax intended
What a load of bullshit.
Huh.
That chick is kinda how I imagine Ayn Vanar looking.
It's just practically useless. It's too unprecise and unfitting of real situations to matter.
GNS should be like the Protection/Mobility/Firepower triangle of tank design.
It's really just a nice shorthand way of describing what a game's components are weighted in favour of, or the personal preferences of players (though I think it's less useful for that given people can radically vary in opinion, preferring extremes of all the options).
It's not a definitive design doctrine. I mean the best it can do it is help give people a frame of reference for what a game's mechanics are aiming at.
Works for wargames too, not just RPGs.
>killing prisoners is lawful good
>killing evil babies is lawful good
It's what he said. There is no: "Oh, this person pings evil because he was thinking badwrong thoughts just now". If somebody pings, they got a swamp full of dead orphans on their booths and you kill them.
It, or its supporters, make it out to be something it's not.
It's frequently claimed to be a model, a complete representation of gaming in just three traits.
It's not a model, it's a tool. It's a way to look at things that helps with design. There's far more to a system or group than GNS can cover, but using GNS can help make things better. And it's painfully obvious to anybody who GMs or designs games that GNS isn't the complete model it claims to be.
It's like handing a carpenter a ruler and telling him it's the only thing he needs to do his job. Sure, having a ruler is important. Sure, a ruler tells you a lot of things about a piece of furniture. But what wood you're using, what varnish you're using, the angle you're driving in the nails, how heavy each board is, how the client will use the item, etc all play a huge role. And if all you have is a ruler, any problem that looks like a nail is a big problem.
>S/N is best combination
Discuss
There is no best or worst combination. It's all a matter of personal style and preference, what you and your group enjoy. Attempting to claim that your preferred kind of fun is superior, or that someone else's is inferior, just makes you an asshole.
you can't be both simulationist and narrativist
prove me wrong by telling me of a system that is both of those things
GURPS depending on what books and rules are activated.
1) GNS theory starts with some very big assumptions about what RPGs are about and never really questions them in the first place. This makes it more ideological rather than analytical, despite it claiming to be the latter. It seeks to try and enumerate components of the game while asserting some things are "good" or "bad" without any critical reflection on why that is the case
2) it claims to be academic but has barely any engagement with actual academic discourse on game psychology, theories of literature, etc.
3) GNS theory simple looks at rulesets whereas RPGs are by nature a social activity. It provides no analysis of how differences in actual play and social practice can provide a vastly different experience using the same ruleset, and assumes that fixes to the ruleset are all that matter.
Chronicles of Darkness
>Narrativist
Has very narration-based roll resolution and character development.
>Simulationist
Conditions and tilts exist to simulate changes and effects from both mundane and supernatural effects in a way that's tailored to represent the setting.
>Inb4 that's not what simulationist means
Actually it is, reread the theory. Simulationist doesn't necessarily mean simulating the real world, it means creating a simulacrum of the game world and it's conceits using rules & mechanics.
Compare to say, FATE, which is very narration-based, but generally doesn't have any special mechanics that specifically simulate the world you play in.
Genre emulation