Flaws of GNS- Part VI: Conclusion

We've reached the end of our series review GNS, what it claims to do and what it in fact actually does. To recap:

1. It mistakes components of an activity for the goals of the activity
2. It assumes (without reason) that those are the only possible goals
3. It is inherently subject to Definition Conflict, and thus flamewars
4. It then attempts to define its definitions in ways that don't match the common understanding, making the model useful (if useful at all) to a very limited set of people
5. GNS becomes a circular assumption.
6. GNS violates the common definition of what a rpg is, replacing it with something new
7. Real world data shows no foundation for a three-way play-style split
8. Real world data disproves that player styles are exculsive
9. Real world data disproves that player styles match game mechanics
10. The Big Model core and basis is GNS
11. The Big Model's primary use is as a debate dodge to deflect criticism of GNS

Logically flawed, we can now see that GNS fails completely in its effort to define or model RPGs as most people think of them. Indeed, if followed the model will produce something that is basically another type of game completely.

Does this mean that there's nothing of value to be found in GNS or any of the rest of the Forge's body of work?

Not really. There are good things to be found in it, if only at the edges.

The beginning concept of Game, Story, Sim does have its grounding in what makes a rpg. GNS may take it beyond 'too far', but that original insight can help people decide on their own what type of mix they may want in their campaigns or if the mix is even important to them. Just remember points 1-3 from above- the definitions will be your own and shared views of them will be difficult if not impossible. Further, the mix will likely change moment to moment.

Further, the greatest danger of even a well formed Threefold style model is that it may blind you to only thinking in those three terms. I consider it highly unlikely that the world of RPG gaming is so limited.

With that in mind, for those wanting something like that three-way split, I'd suggest the original r.g.f.a Threefold as a starting point to be altered to taste. Better yet, go four-way with the WotC model. It's good to use real data even if you don't have all of it (WotC released the summary, but not the questions and responses).

Edwards often references the work of others, and those references certainly point to things of value. Tweet's resolutions methods for example. Another example is that much of his article on Gamism seems to be influenced by various self-declared Gamists (likely including myself) that objected to his original more insulting short definition. It even links to a couple of my own articles on tactics and strategy in game design and uses my homebrew game Age of Heroes as an example.

Now I feel it's better to come across these things in a way other than the Forge. But at worse the GNS movement has some value in exposing real work on RPG theory to interested people by means of criticisms such as this series. Try some of the links on this blog. Explore other blogs. Generally anyone not talking about GNS has something interesting to say.

The Forges definition of Narrativist while very specific is still a method of viewing a Story based campaign. Some people like it. The games produced (for the best examples of the theory) by the theory are not what people commonly consider to be RPGs- but they are still games of some type liked by a certain type of player.

And finally, GNS stands as an excellent example of what not to do. Such experience is always gained at a cost. Don't waste it.

Part I, II, III, IV, V