It is a table-top game (Gamist) played by a group of people. That game consists of people role-playing their characters in a continuing series of events (Story) set in a self-consistent setting with consistent rules (Simulation).
Jumping from there to a Threefold or GNS like Model sure is tempting. It would be flawed of course. Saying goals == components is quite the leap; and then limiting ourselves to only three possible goals is yet another. But it is tempting.
And when left vague, maybe not all that harmful. After all, it would seem likely that people may favor one component of an activity over another. So why not flow with it?
Why not? Because people need more than just a vague idea from their models. They need to stake out their ground, what is theirs and what is not. That is the point of labels. That's the first thing we do when we encounter them.
And that is when things fly apart.
Let's take one example from the early days of Threefold debate in rec.games.frp.advocacy. The Simulation people wanted to claim self-consistent settings as a characteristic of Simulation, i.e. they should be internally realistic. This is after all the key point of the Simulation concept- the very attempt to make something as real as possible within its framework.
Makes sense doesn't it?
Well... not so fast. The Story/Drama people were insulted. After all they claim, everyone knows a key element of good fiction is suspension of disbelief, and to have that one must have self-consistent settings that appear real to the viewer.
Sigh
We're not even out of the gate with a threefold theory and we already have a flamewar to the death going. Years and many electrons were burned in r.g.f.a over that one issue (alongside others of course). The feelings on both sides were very strong and reasonably so, as each considered the concept key to how they did things. In effect, the Simulation side (who controlled the FAQ and thus the model) was seriously insulting the Story side by claiming they didn't do what they felt was key to the success of what they were doing.
Neither side were willing to give nor did they, and the news group fell apart when they just should have given up the Threefold.
That's only one example that I wasn't directly involved in. I have lots more (some I was involved in), but let's save space. I think the point is made. Moving from something vague and on the surface reasonable to something actually defined is one heck of a long distance move- and may not even be possible.
The key point here is that the maker of any model is highly likely to lump those things important to him into those parts of the model he favors and deny it to the other parts. Even when those things are shared by multiple parts. They are in turn likely to split away any feature that they don't like from their favored label to a unfavored one.
The pressure to do this is immense, after all the point of having three different labels is for them to be different- and they're not if they're doing the same things. The conflict is nearly unavoidable. In fact, let's give it a name- Definition Conflict
GNS is subject to these same pressures and reality.
Consider Ron's full length article on what Narrativism is, assuming your eyes don't glaze over and you go brain-dead from the effort. Roughy 23 thousand words there to define a very specific concept of Story. One that isn't one in common use by any means, and one that likely didn't apply to any significant number of rpg campaigns until he started to apply it. But without doubt, one that is important to Ron himself.
Such a thing by itself would construct a model that would only be useful to those who are seeking that specific sub-definition of story. And we all know what Ron thinks of other definitions of Story, I covered that in my history of GNS series- he considers them to be brain-damaged.
The same applies to the other two corners, GNS defines very detailed sub-definitions of what are started out as vague concepts and excludes all others sub-definitions. This is on top of the inherent Definition Conflict.
So, here's what we have so far in our examination of GNS:
- It mistakes components of an activity for the goals of the activity
- It assumes (without reason) that those are the only possible goals
- It is inherently subject to Definition Conflict, and thus flamewars
- 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
Part I, III, IV, V, VI
Posts
6 comments:
I don't really find this to be a fatal critique of GNS, in fact it seems to fall into a common trap - confusing the theory in general with Ron Edwards in particular. If you don't bother with his lugubrious redefinitions, and use a more reasonable common-sense definition of G, N, and S, then it's a fine model. It describes the three main things that people I have seen get out of RPGs. Sure, people get in flame wars over it and do "mutually exclusive" logic errors, just like any other model in the world that anyone cares about. (If we were to go toss out every model that has flame wars over definitions, we'd only be left with models no one bothers to use.)
Use the older Threefold definitions, or fine tune your own - but it was as true then as it is now that there's plot/story, world/immersion, and game/rules elements to RP and that different games serve these differentially and different people want them differentially.
Rod Edwards is the theory, he owns and defines GNS.
One can use the older Threefold and it is more reasonable- but its not worth the flamewars and the implied insults it makes due to the problems I've pointed out here. I saw it destroy a very worthwhile newsgroup and turned otherwise good people into life-long foes.
I wouldn't want to see that repeated.
Eh, that's conflating people and personalities and history with the validity of the theory itself. I don't care about Ron, the FORGE, or what some net.freaks did one day, and evaluating it on its face, it seems to work fine.
It works only if you alter it so that it isn't GNS.
That's somewhat like saying rattlesnakes are only dangerous when you don't replace them with rubber ones.
Such comments make you look like a Idiot.
If you're working with the Threefold, say so. If it's something yet again, give it a new name. Othewise you're just lying about what you believe.
Or just go away. I hate stupid people who want the fame of others (there are those even who want a piece of Edward's 'glory' it seems)so bad that they're willing to be dishonest to get it.
Then
a) I use more the Threefold definitions of the three axes, and
b) jumping to anyone who disagrees with you being a "lying idiot" does nothing to make your arguments more convincing. In fact, it makes you seem like someone with a random hate-axe to grind rather than someone with a good logical point.
Seriously, me thinking GNS isn't a fundamentally flawed model means I desire to "ride Ron Edwards' glory?" Get over yourself.
@mxyzplk: Yes mxyzplk, it does.
If you weren't trying to ride his glory you wouldn't defend a flawed model and claim "it's ok if you remove all the bad stuff".
Which is a stupid statement on its face. It's like saying 'death' isn't so bad if you can just get over that 'dead' issue.
No, you'd make up a new model and you'd be responsible for it yourself.
As is, you're just a jerk wanting someone else screen time.
Post a Comment