The year 2001 saw many online forums deep in GNS flamewars. One poster with the handle of Scarlet Jester determined that he would present a new option, called GEN. Rather than being built from the ground up, GEN was instead created on the foundation of the original Threefold (GDS) and elements of GNS mixed together with a few other odds and ends.
It basically went nowhere and was quickly forgotten. I’ll be interested if anyone notes they remember it in the comments below. Even at the time, I was barely aware of it and give it little attention. I almost skipped covering it for that reason. However I think it reflects one of the few attempts to counter the growing influence of GNS with a different theory and deserves mention as a result.
Part of the reason for attracting little attention was due to it being built the Threefold and GNS. It was just too easy to off load any discussion onto those models. Why would one do this? Because GEN is much more complex than those models, and yet relies upon them for some of its definitions. Under such conditions people will pick at the familiar, i.e. those older theories it was trying to stand on.
The model was further weakened in that it was developed at The Gaming Outpost, a message forum that had died in every way save the fact that it was still there. Once a rather thriving group, by the time of GEN it was a weak shadow that offered little exposure. The natural place for development of this theory would have been the Forge, but it refused discussion on any non-Edwards driven model. GEN was in an even worse position than most given that it stated that GNS was incorrect in a number of points.
The last problem facing GEN was that by this time people were already getting tired RPG Theory. The bad Rep had set in, and the mood to look at new ideas just wasn't there.
I note two interesting things about this model.
First that it redefined GNS to a single axis: the conflict between Simulation and Narrativism. His argument for doing so is compelling given the nature of GNS.
Second is his claim (different from most) is that goals didn’t conflict in rpgs, only techniques did. However this assertion falls upon the same rocky shore that GNS did- the WotC study doesn’t support it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Hi. Stumbled across this looking for something else, and have been sucked in - reading the history of RPG theory.
I'm not sure I like the use of "conflict = combat" in the WotC study. I do think it is a decent breakdown overall. I must admit I was surprised that "having different mixes makes it better over the long run" was a finding. Given the ability of someone sufficiently out of sync with everyone else to wreck things, I'd have liked to see if the data was more about clusters along the center.
Also, I do remember encountering GEN when I first went looking at Game theory years ago.
@L: Dancey was asked about clustering, and he claimed there will little to none although they did define the area closest to the center given that it would have strong (or perhaps weak) influences from all factors.
Thought I had set this to email me when people answered. Ah well.
*nod*
Really surprising to me, but then hey, reality often is.
Post a Comment