The nature of RPG discussion online?

I came across something interesting the other day speaking about the nature of debate on the Internet. The subject was global warming and I'd like to pass on that subject itself as this isn't a science or political blog, what's important here is that the author (Roger Pielke Jr.) is for the most part a supporter of the idea of global warming but objects to certain statements made by other proponents.

That objection resulted in what strikes me as an all too common Internet approach to debate. He describes it as such:

"Here is how it works. The really giant fish -- public intellectuals like Tom Friedman and Paul Krugman -- confer authority on the big fish of the liberal blogosphere. They do so by applauding the work of the big fish and saying that they trust them. This is a useful exchange because the big fish amplify the writings of the giant fish in the blogosphere and do the dirty work of taking down their political opponents by playing some gutter politics that the giant fish would rather not be seen playing. This has the effect of establishing the big fish as people to be listened to, not because they are necessarily right about things, but because the giant fish listen to them and the giant fish set political agendas."

Further on...

"But even the big fish apparently see some gutter behavior as not really becoming of professionals (though Romm doesn't seem to care), as to more effectively attack someone's reputation they also rely on the minnows of the blogosphere, people who see it as their sole job to "trash" someone's reputation via innuendo, fabrication and outright misrepresentation."

Full article found here.

Pulling this back to the subject of RPGs, the pond is vastly smaller, and so too are the fish. But I've seen much the same result. The GNS debates for example certainly has it's giant fish (Edwards), big fish (Clinton, Vincent), and minnows (the mass of Forge/GNS supporters).

It would seem to me a natural result of how large numbers of people would interact in an enviroment that is effectively uncontrolled (and almost void of people with true standing on the subject). Something to keep in mind I think.

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

Flaws of GNS- Part V: The Big Model

GNS is the foundation of Edward's thought on RPGs, and the driving goal of Forge style game design. As I've shown in this series, GNS is basically junk and wishful thinking.

One of the common responses by GNS believers to anyone pointing this out is something akin to the Chewbacca Defense, i.e. they claim you can't talk about GNS because you have to first understand (and it's implied, agree with) the Big Model. Leonardo did this very thing in the comments for Part III.

It's a bit like saying you need to understand Special Relativity before you can comment on someone claiming that F = m*a^2 (Force = Mass * Acceleration squared), when anyone with a basic grounding in education should know it's F = m * a.

And really, that's all one need say about the Big Model with respect to GNS, anyone invoking it is trying to change the subject. Johnnie Cochran would be happy with them, but most people would like to slam them upside the head with something heavy. I'd suggest a fifth edition revised HERO System book, or a baseball bat. Baseball bats have the advantage of tradition and effectiveness, but the HERO book suits our hobby. Your choice.

But I like picking apart things, so lets look at that Big Model a bit more (i.e. more than it deserves).

So, what is the Big Model and how does it relate to GNS?

Sadly it has its own wiki entry, which goes to show that one doesn't have to be worth a dime to be in wiki- you just need someone to add it. The upside is that its noted as lacking any information on notability (i.e. why it should have an entry), and that almost makes wiki my friend. They will be when they delete it.

One can also go to the Forge Articles for information, but there's not a single article on it there. You'll have to dig through all of them, collect the pieces and assemble them on your own time That was actually of value to the Forge supporters as it means anyone questioning them would have to put more work into it than it was worth.

If however you have time to waste, the Glossary is the best place to start. Note that it references the same GNS articles we've already talked about as its components.

What it breaks down to is something similar to my own Layers Model, but with a completely different goal showing in effect how people interact in order to achieve their Creative Agenda. Oh, and Creative Agenda is GNS.

Along the way it stops to define a few common elements of games- like characters and settings (as if people don't know about them) while adding highbrow terms like Color and Ephemera in place of simpler words just because it wouldn't be a Edward's thing without them.

What is key about this is that the Big Model is focused on GNS, it's that big arrow that runs through the whole mess in the diagram found at the link. It exists only to show the reader how everything in the view of its creator depends upon GNS.

Logically however that is true only if GNS is true. And we know that's false.

So to return to GNS supporters who say you 'have to understand the Big Model in order to comment on if GNS has any value'...

Here's another way of saying the same thing: 'In order to say Nessie doesn't exist, you have to understand field of Cryptozoology'.

There's a word that sort of claim- stupid.

So, here's what we have so far in our examination of GNS:

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
    

Part I, II, III, IV, VI

Flaws of GNS- Part IV: Conflict with Reality

The proponents of GNS have never offered anything except their own opinions and anecdotal examples as evidence of its validity. That doesn’t mean that more reasoned evidence on its effectiveness can’t be found. Indeed, we can look at what the model presents and test it against real world results.

GNS makes basically two key predictions that we can match against real world data:

1. There are three (and only three) exclusive and driving goals for players of rpgs- Gamism, Simulationism, and Narrativism
2. These three goals are directly related to mechanics of the game.

If GNS is a valid theory, we'd expect those two statements represented in any study of players, their needs and desires. That is: we'd find a three-way division of player goals with players of certain goals favoring certain styles of rpgs and avoding others.

RPGs are not a heavily studied field, and that fact has been to the advantage of GNS as they ask their critics to prove a negative (instead of proving their assertions, which is where the burden actually rests). There is however one study performed by WotC that directly answers the above prediction.

Rather than three goals or types of players, WotC found four: Power Gamers, Thinkers, Storytellers, and Character Actors. None of these really match any of the three GNS corners although Gamist and Power Gamer can be said to be the closest pairing.

So no three way split, and the measuring sticks (determined by WotC after the study was completed and thus determined to be the most effective of the possible measurements) are completely different (given that Narrativism <>Story): Story - Combat, Strategic - Tactical.

To quote the Study article:

"We also found no additional segmentation based on what games people identified as their "favorite"; in other words, there are just as many Power Gamers as there are Storytellers who like Vampire, and just as many Thinkers as Character Acters who like D&D."

No difference in player goals across different games? But GNS says this cannot be the case, in it's view System Does Matter. Real world data says differently, and theory must always give way to fact.

GNS takes additional hits from the following (again quoting the article):

"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; that is, if these 8 things aren't present in the play experience it won't matter if the game generally supports a given segment's interests - the players will find the experience dissatisfying."

Some of these 8 core values are matched to the original definition of a RPG I've been using in this series. To review:

It is a table-top game played by a group of people. That game consists of people role-playing their characters in a continuing series of events set in a self-consistent setting with consistent rules.

The 8 core values are:

• Strong Characters and Exciting Story
• Role PlayingComplexity Increases over Time
• Requires Strategic Thinking
• Competitive
• Add on sets/New versions available
• Uses imagination
• Mentally challenging

Some of these match the definition above rather nicely, and since GNS pulled from to get its three assumed corners- there is some match there as well. However the WotC study showed that ALL 8 values were important to the RPG gamer. Not just one.

The conclusion is rather clear. When gamers are studied and their play styles grouped- they don't break out into the GNS expected three groups. Further, the GNS exclusion doesn't have any significant match in reality. Players and their games are mix of goals- not a search for only one.

Not only are the goals not in fact exlusive, players actually meet their goals independently of the game systems. The two defining elements of GNS don't match reality, and the Theory lies disproved.

So, here's what we have so far in our examination of GNS:

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

Part I, II, III, V, VI

Flaws of GNS- Part III: Plan Meets Need

Continuing our examination of GNS, we've reach a parting of the ways with its processor the Threefold. Until now the failures have been shared between the models as one would expect given their similarities.

At this point, although flawed- the Threefold could at least be useful to a set of people who could agree on terms. It would likely be highly limiting given it's lack of a serious foundation and errors of logic and it would draw flamewars like mad. But even so, a few might find some use in it as a way of saying 'different people play for different reasons' if nothing else.

GNS however makes some serious additional mistakes.

First, let's toss that simple definition of what a RPG is back up to keep it in mind. It will become important latter.

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).

In addition to greatly changing the Threefold definitions to suit himself, Edwards would make two other new claims that would take GNS down a completely different path.

First is that he would in effect make a circular argument. After pulling the Gamist, Story (renamed Narrativist) and Simulation out of the above definition of a RPG and making them into goals, he would then claim that those goals are directly supported and must be supported by the game system.

Thus saying, in order: (RPG components) == (Play Goals) == (Mechanic Systems).

This is done just by claiming it's so, without evidence and backing.

His next step however would be even more impactful. It drives GNS and the game design approach that arises from Edward's body of theory. Quoting from System Does Matter:

"To sum up, I suggest a good system is one which knows its outlook and doesn't waste any mechanics on the other two outlooks."

A rather amazing statement and one critical to what GNS is. To realize its impact let's plug this assumption back into the original definition of a RPG.

It is table-top game (Gamist) played by a group of people OR it consists of people role-playing their characters in a continuing series of events (Story) OR it is set in a self-consistent setting with consistent rules (Simulation).

That certainly isn't the original instinctive definition now is it?

The original was inclusive saying that all three components made up an RPG meanwhile GNS is basically saying that a good RPG only contains one and avoids the other two. So GNS took a simple instinctive definition of the RPG, and completely turned it upon its head. Basically a bait and switch.

The goal of any RPG Theory (i.e. its 'need') is to better explain what a RPG is and how to design them. But the method (i.e. 'plan') of GNS drives one to create something that isn't an RPG at all.

At this point some could say that perhaps GNS has it right, and that the instinctive definition that I and others would put forth was an error. Edwards is big on saying that the original writers of RPGs were wrong.

Let's take that up in Part IV.

So, here's what we have so far in our examination of GNS:

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.

Part I, II, IV, V, VI

Flaws of GNS- Part II: Devil in the Details

To continue our examination of GNS (and the related Threefold), let's review that nearly instinctive definition of an PnP RPG:

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:

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

Next: Inserting the 'Exclusive Or'

Part I, III, IV, V, VI

Flaws of GNS- Part I: The Appeal

Given the recent outbreak of GNS at a few web forums and some questions here, it may be worthwhile to review GNS not in terms of history as I've done before on this blog but on its own merit as theory. While I've written about this before, I realized I don't have a single link of the sum of my views on the matter and it's time I did.

We'll examine GNS as presented in the official articles presented at the Forge. Most key in this will be System Does Matter and GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory although I may touch upon other ones if my interest can be maintained (or if readers express interest). Readers may want to read or review my history article as I wish to avoid repeating things stated there if possible.

GNS is the foundation of what is in fact a larger collection of writings reflecting Ron Edward's views on rpg. Some are his, many were taken from the writings of others (such as Jonathan Tweet's methods of resolution).

GNS however is just about the only thing out of that large collection that one ever hears about. It is basically the Face front and center of Forge thought, drawing all attention even from the supporters of Edwards and the Forge. The question thus arises: Why?

I'd like to kick off this critical review of GNS with that simple question. For which I feel there are two answers that in combination explain much of why it had any appeal at all.

The first is that people love to group others and themselves. A quick glance at websites like http://www.quibblo.com/ reveals this quickly. I'm even prone to this and have taken tests to tell me which "Fantasy Writer am I" and other rather silly time wasters.

So we like the idea of labels and groups up front, we're human and that's what we do. We define the world and stake out our ground.

But this by itself doesn't explain GNS for there have been other systems of labels in the RPG world, to name but one- Blacow's Four Aspects. Those aren't a source for flamewars all over the Internet. What makes GNS different?

That is found in my second point, and that's is the nearly instinctive view of what an PnP RPG is. There are those who would differ with this definition, but I think this captures a gut level reaction for what most people consider an rpg to be:

It is a table-top game played by a group of people. That game consists of people role-playing their characters in a continuing series of events set in a self-consistent setting with consistent rules.

That is a simple definition whose basic thrust you'd find in the earliest of RPG designs often as an introduction, these more than a decade before GNS or the Threefold.

Let's rephrase it just a bit.

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).

Thus the GNS/Threefold Theories are based at their most simple upon a common definition of an RPG. Its component building blocks as it were. To someone who plays RPGs, there would be an almost instinctive reaction that the theory was correct- for it matches what they feel at a gut level an RPG consists of.

But GNS/Threefold are not about the components of an RPG. They are instead about player goals and requirements. The fact that these theories have made a leap from apples to oranges is easy to miss unless one pays careful attention.

Thus the theories appeal to our desire to group and label (and defend our personal group), and it builds upon our gut instinct of what a rpg is as a springboard.

But what evidence do the presenters of such theories give that all player goals match those components of the RPG definition? None.

Do they tell us why we should make that assumption to begin with? No.

Instead the theory appeals to an unexamined assumption out of the gate, and thus it starts off a fallacy and things only get worse.

So, here's what we have so far in our examination of GNS:

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

Part II, III, IV, V, VI

A outbreak of GNS

"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.", Socrates.

Looking over my site stats, it seems that I've had quite an up tick in recent traffic despite my rather inconsistent postings of late. Reviewing them I noticed that a number of rpg web forums are encountering a new round of GNS debates.

Those exchanges will on occasion link to this site, mostly to my Why RPG Theory has a Bad Rep series (starts here, with links to the next article in the series at the bottom).

To anyone arriving here, welcome. I hope you find something useful.


Most the traffic is coming from http://www.giantitp.com/, but there are others and I've seen reports of similar exchanges on other websites. It appears that followers of GNS are making a reappearance for whatever reason. They're following their old methods of operation, i.e. arrive at a forum and attempt to turn everything into a GNS exchange.

From what I've seen of the postings, they aren't based around any new games or insights. Instead they are focused on what I'd call '1st generation' Forge Games before they openly leaped into games about rape and worse. They also try to explain away the worst of the GNS history as mistakes of word choice or the like (if anyone should bring it up).

It seems that the GNS cult has lain low for the last few years in the hopes that people forgot what they stood for, and so that they could begin again with a clean slate to regain their glory.

I'm pleased if my little blog in any small way stands in their path.

I've spoken before about the validity of GNS, in the history article and elsewhere. I don't think there's anything further for me to add except to wish well any who rejects that model. You're right, and with luck we'll see GNS continue its fading with this new traffic being the last gasp of a decaying corpse.

Revisiting the Threefolds

I was talking about some of the old theory models the other day, mostly the WotC study of gamers and Bartle's play styles. The thought occurred that it would be worth pointing out some of the many differences between these two (professional/academic) studies and other 'RPG Theory', especially the Threefold models (GNS and GDS).

The first major difference that a rather casual inspection should show is that the professional/academic studies both collected significant amounts of data before making any claims or definitions. With data in hand, it was analyzed, trends noted and the model created.

This stands in sharp contrast to the development of the Threefold models which grabbed and defined terms based on personal experience, taste, and power struggles within their respective forums.

The second major difference is found that the professional/academic studies are both based upon two unrelated axis of information, that together produce the resulting descriptions.

Bartle's model used the following: Player -- World, Acting --- Interacting to produce Achievers, Killers, Socialisers, and Explorers.

WotC used Strategic --- Tactical, Story --- Combat to produce Power Gamers, Thinkers Storytellers, and Character Actors.

In short, they used two scales of what are directly opposed concepts that allow direct measurement. Indeed, they had to as it was based upon measurement in the first place. Thus one could 'test' for an individual's focus and where they sit on those scales. It allows for players of mixed tastes by nature as they would just measure towards the middle when their score was totaled.

In contrast the Threefolds prevented any such measurement as they did not have any opposed axis of measurements as part of their construction*. They were instead idealized 'end states' at the points, three different ideas each unrelated to each other.

Each corner perhaps could have been one end of a possible axis, but that was never considered.

Keep that point in mind.

Now imagine the impact on the WotC or Bartle's models if instead of their two axis, they had attempted to define things only in terms of two ends. Say Tactical Focused and Story Focused for the WotC study. A full 75% of the study's users would have dropped out of the model.

The result would have been very useful to Character Actors, but would have had the rest of the player base up in arms. Which is basically the overall reaction to the two Threefold models when looking at them in hindsight. Most seem to hate them, while a few love them beyond reason.

And doesn't that result make perfect sense when one steps back and looks at it?

*The Threefold/GNS originally did start out with an axis, the poorly named Drama---Sim which is better viewed as Meta-Game ---Sim, but this was quickly lost when Gamism was brought into the mix, as it didn't have a scale or opposed point of its own.

Why RPG Theory has a Bad Rep- Part V: Conclusion

And so we’ve reached the end of our five part history lesson. For those late to the series, previous entries can be found here: I, II, III, IV.

We’re currently as of this writing in the shadow years of GNS. No other set of theories have appeared with any noticeable following leaving the online world with fragments of GNS and little else. Most speaking of it today do so with little real knowledge of the theory. Of course that was always the case given its jargon and inconsistencies, but now more so than ever. A very common mistake I see is replacing its concepts with those of the older and (although flawed) much clearer Threefold.

In its wake, anyone discussing theory will hit a major barrier as the reaction by readers is near immediate dismissal. After all, the previous ‘theorists’ failed to produce anything understandable or useful. And they managed to insult nearly the entire hobby along the way. Nor does it help that others coming afterwards tend to build upon GNS or pick something far too similar.

The one bright point is that GNS now has few defenders, and while some do speak up for small parts of the theory- almost no one defends it in its entirety or its creator.

I wanted a example and so I went looking at RPGnet and grabbed the first related thread written today I came across. It shows all the traits mentioned above, but has little else of interest (I haven’t read past page 6, but these things seldom improve as they go).

Thus any new body of theory would have to overcome the resistance created by its predecessors. To manage such a task would require it to be clear and concise, and lacking the biased nature of GNS or the Threefold.

Even if such a reasonable and useful thing could be achieved, the nature of the Internet is such that it will likely be praised- and then forgotten. The simple truth is that most people don’t need RPG Theory anymore than the typical reader of the Time Best Sellers List needs an understanding of the formal schools of literature. Not everyone of course is a typical reader, so it’s not completely a lost cause. But I don’t foresee any successful Theory becoming an internet buzz word.

The prime example of this is found in the WotC's study that undermined the core of GNS. It's just not talked about anymore, although its findings were quite interesting.

Sadly there's always room online for more flamewars. Ron Edwards' one lasting achievement was a blueprint for taking over Theory discussions online. I for one, hope that the next in his footsteps will be a while in coming.

Why RPG Theory has a Bad Rep- Part IV: The Fading of GNS

While GNS gained early success and spread at least a limited version of its concepts far and wide, in the end this was to be about as important as the latest Britney Spears hair cut. Sure it made the news. But to continue without becoming a joke it would need to produce something of worth to the common gamer.

This was the movement’s first failure. While a number of highly focused GNS style small press games were published, none reached any serious level of success. Most in GNS terms actually failed to support Narrativism as a whole, instead focusing on a single Narrativist theme. They were from the ground up designed to do one thing and only one thing. Examples include Life with Master and Dogs in the Vineyards.

Predictably the result of turning away from the wide open range of traditional RPG design was a narrowing of the game’s long term usefulness. Such work resembled more a ‘party game’, something to be played once or twice and then forgotten. And indeed, it was not uncommon to see the Forge crowd move from game to game the way one moves from one Hollywood release to the next.

To compensate for these one-trick-ponies, the Forge crowd attempted to hitch themselves to more traditional designs (Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel) with a mechanic or two that supported at least in part some goal of Narrativism, but these was a thin and unconvincing dodge at best.

Perhaps the most serious blow would come from WotC, the makers of D&D. They commissioned a study of role-players that covered some of the same ground as GNS, specifically why people play and towards what goals. The results were from a GNS viewpoint back breaking. It seems that as far as goals and styles were concerned, System Didn’t Matter. Be it D&D, VtM or anything else, each game had roughly identical numbers of any specific style.

Thus the core concept behind GNS ‘that the best games would focus on one goal and reject others’ was proven false. Players didn’t care if the mechanics supported their goals. Rather it seems that they’d find them on their own (as Layers of Design would indicate- what isn't found in the Game Layer mechanics can often be found in the meta-game layers).

Faced with such a damning rejection of the core ideas of GNS, as well as not finding their new GNS based games making significant inroads in the market, Ron Edwards would take likely the worse possible response. He’d declare that RPG gamers who displayed such undesired tendencies to find Story anywhere other than GNS style games were in fact suffering Brain Damage.

"More specific to your question, Vincent, I'll say this: that protagonism was so badly injured during the history of role-playing (1970-ish through the present, with the height of the effect being the early 1990s), that participants in that hobby are perhaps the very last people on earth who could be expected to produce *all* the components of a functional story. No, the most functional among them can only be counted on to seize protagonism in their stump-fingered hands and scream protectively. You can tag Sorcerer with this diagnosis, instantly.

[The most damaged participants are too horrible even to look upon, much less to describe. This has nothing to do with geekery. When I say "brain damage," I mean it literally. Their minds have been *harmed.*]" Ron Edwards, 1-24-2006 Lumply.com Blog

Edwards would expand upon these thoughts, and find agreement echoed by much of the Forge membership.

The Internet firestorm was immediate and immense, and even caused former believers to condemn such statements. GNS had turned the corner from oddball theory to a nutcase spewing bile at those who saw the world differently. All that was left was a few more nails in the coffin.

Following on the heels of the Brain Damage claims was a turn by key members of the movement towards games intended to push the edge of acceptable game design- not in mechanics as such, but in what those mechanics were intended to inspire. The best example of this was Vincent Baker’s game Poison’d, which made a splash with an actual play report on rpg.net in 2007(http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=350453, starts at post 11).

By itself, that would have only indicated a rather sick group of players. Except of course GNS is all about the design influencing the players. Something Baker himself would agree with in the same thread. Other threads on other sites (including those by the author) would reinforce this image. Soon many were linking GNS with perverse gaming as well as ineffective theory.

In combination, these factors would doom GNS to the dust bin of the Internet. Now more a joke than a movement, little more remains than a handful of people claiming some worth in some part of the whole. The Forge still exists, and will likely continue to do so for a while yet. But the sun has set on GNS, leaving a long shadow over RPG Theory.

Next- the conclusion.

Parts I, II, III, V

Why RPG Theory has a Bad Rep- Part III: The Swine Wars

One of the other differences GNS had with the preceding Threefold was the desire to spread the word and to influence the hobby as a whole. To this end, believers at the Forge would spread to other message boards both to wax poetically upon the benefits of GNS and most importantly to combat any who attempted to point out problems with the theory.

I say most importantly because the Internet thrives on flamewars and conflicts. Reasoned exchanges soon drop out of sight online and are remember by few. And dropping out of sight was the last thing the GNS movement wanted. To this end they would engage anyone gainsaying their viewpoint anywhere. And if there wasn’t anyone to engage, they would make certain that GNS related topics remained in public view through consistent posting.

To this end they had a number of powerful advantages besides the fanatical core believers.

The first was the sheer mass and jargon of the GNS body of Theory, and its open and implied insults against other game styles. The latter was certain to draw fire while the former allowed a wide range of response and if nothing else, allowed the faithful or unaware to debate the meaning of the model between themselves. Both factors kept GNS in the public eye for years.

The second advantage they enjoyed was the arrival of the Print on Demand era. It was now possible for nearly anyone to publish a RPG for almost nothing up front. The GNS movement took immediate advantage of this by publishing theory focused games using their new ‘author’ status to gain ‘gamer cred’ as someone of some importance. Further these games were new fuel for keeping GNS visible online as each release would renew the debate over the theory and what it was now producing.

Their third advantage was the reaction of some on the net. Perhaps the most noticeable case is found in RPGpundit and his message board. This self declared guardian ‘of the frontier against the swine’ labeled GNS believers ‘Swine’ and used his blog and forum to launch weak diatribes laced with petty profanity against them at every turn. This of course played directly into the hands of the GNS crowd by keeping them front and center. And linked anyone else opposing them with the image of irrationality RPGpundit brought to the debate.

The Swine Wars (to use RPGPundit’s term) was off and running. Ron Edwards and GNS would enjoy all the limited fame the Internet could bring to an extent never seen before in RPG Theory. Their sun had risen high indeed, and their day was bright.

But they were about to be undone by three important factors: the arrival of one of the few serious studies of gaming styles, the highly limited appeal of their games, and their need for public attention and desire to push the edge. Next, the fading of GNS…

Parts I, II, IV, V

Why RPG Theory has a Bad Rep- Part II: GNS

As the sun set on the Threefold, it rose on GNS.

GNS followed on the heels and built upon the ground of Threefold, however in many ways they were worlds apart. Where the Threefold was only concerned with individual decisions by players and GMs, GNS would seek to define entire game systems. Where the Threefold was interested only in expressing the ideas of individual, GNS would seek to be a movement to change the hobby. Where the Threefold by error uplifted Simulation, the GNS would by intent trumpet Narrativism. Where the Threefold was a reaction to being attacked, GNS would be the attacker.

Ron Edwards took many of the original concepts of the Threefold and turned them on it's head around 1999 with the publication of System Does Matter. Here he replaced the Threefold's Drama with the term Narrativist and redefined the other two terms (Gamist and Simulationist) although he kept the wording.

The goal was completely different from that of r.g.f.a, here the intent was to define game systems (not individual decisions) by the three concepts. And further and more importantly he would claim "a good system is one which knows its outlook and doesn't waste any mechanics on the other two outlooks." This was a radical departure from the Threefold who viewed individuals as commonly using all three elements throughout a game session.

Thus, according to Edwards a game was to be judged as to how well it allows you to play in one of the three modes, which by nature means that it could not let you play in any of the other two. Games that did this would later be labeled coherent, those that failed this test would be labeled incoherent.

Armed with this new vision, Edwards set out upon a crusade to remake the hobby replacing such inferior (to his mind) work as the incoherent World of Darkness games (which according to him preached Narrativist play while only offering Gamist mechanics).

Towards this end, he took sole control of what was once a website called Hephaestus' Forge from his partner E P Healy sometime in 2001. The site would undergo changes that made it into a platform for further development of the GNS theory where once before it supported any and all free rpgs offered oline. Renamed The Forge, it holds the definitive articles on GNS.

Message forums were added to the site, and this by nature attracted a number of people previously involved in the Threefold or other theory debates including myself by invitation.

It soon became clear however that this wasn't r.g.f.a, for this place was even less accepting of disagreement and more than willing to enforce it by moderation. I broke all contact early on when the site admins edited a posters comments that reflected poorly upon the supporters of the new model (without informing the poster or making a notation of the action). The effect was to make my own reply to the now edited article appear far over the top. Any and all posts by me and links to my works at the site were pulled by the Admins at my request after a short firestorm.

In short order, entire threads would be managed and locked when they in Edward's view diverged from the core (now GNS) intent of the site. The original offer to build new theory and rpgs was found to have a serious limit- only as long as they met Edward's approval.

For the next few years the site's forums saw limited and focused debate effectively limited to believers as Edwards sought to refine his model. During this time his distain for corners except Narrativist would become clear as this quote on Simulationism shows

"Paul and I are now thinking that Simulationism is NOT an actual outlook or goal, unlike Narrativism or Gamism. Nor is it a "design dial," as many have suggested.

No, we think that Simulationism is a form of retreat, denial, and defense against the responsibilities of either Gamism or Narrativism."

Gamism would fair somewhat better than Simulationism, but would still be characterized as being more akin to board games rather than rpgs, and in terms unfamilar and unacceptable to the typical role-player. From 1999 on Edwards would author additional articles on his model expanding on his concepts of how rpgs should be designed. These are jargon filled almost beyond belief. Those interested can review them themselves here.

What is striking about these events is both what it has in common with the original Threefold and where it differs. Both were models developed by someone who heavily favored one of the corners, and both refused outside suggestions for change or improvement. Edwards however took GNS places where the Threefold never stepped- outright dismissal of one of its corners, intense criticism of various RPGs and gaming styles, and to a mission that would make new rpgs that were in all ways better than any that came before.

The Threefold was a human failure due to lack of prespective. GNS was from the start an ego driven obesssion.

Finally in December of 2005, Ron Edwards closed the Forge's message board on GNS theory with the following 'Graduation' statement:

"This forum is no longer available for posting. It has served its purpose: to develop a sensible framework for discussing play, and the children of play, design and publishing. That framework is available as the Big Model."

Any future exchanges on GNS (or the Big Model that evolved from it) at the Forge were now shut down. The model was perfect, the stage set. It was time to go forth and multiply.

Next, the Swine Wars...

Parts I, III, IV, V