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.

The coming of HERO 6th Edition

According to the herogames.com website, today's the day that 6th edition was suppose to be loaded on the slow boat from China. It still hasn't shown up for even advanced sales on places like Amazon yet, so the truth of that claim can be debated.

The whole thing is something I dread, a coming of something like the D&D 4E edition wars that will result in my abandoning of any new HERO System production.

One of the telling signs is that unlike the previous production of 5th edition, there's no single easily found description of all the changes that 6th will make. I did find a list of links to 'showcased' changes here. I doubt there will be a list or PDF of all the system changes. Judging from those showcases and other statements on the official website- they're just too extensive, almost the equal of just printing the books.

Part of me wants to buy the rulebook so I can judge it fully based upon all the facts. But that part is fading. It seems that there are two core books now instead of one. Total using the package price is $70. However those two books don't contain everything, the links above contain references for an 'advance play book. So now we're at three books and likely $100 to replace the one book I currently have.

Now maybe if I found the changes useful, it would be worth it. But frankly they all look to be nit-picking of the worse type.

Sure, there's some sort of gain with things like Resistant Protection which replaces both armor and forcefield (the latter becomes a limited version, and would likely end up cheaper as a result). It's a more unified building block approach. But that's a abstract sort of gain that would appeal to a lawyer like Long instead of a gamer and is a haul mark of the thought processes that drive this edition.

There are downsides in such an approach. Before various powers could be defined in terms of Armor or Forcefield (NND with the defense being Forcefield is a classic, often used in lightsaber builds or similar weapons). Now that NND has to be defined against a set of power & power limits or special effects (completely meta-game determined at that point).

So one is trading one type of sloppy (different powers for the same core effect) for another sloppy (harder and more detailed listing of powers and power interaction), and I already know all the sloppy with 5th edition. There's no gain in total IMO, and in fact I consider the new method worse.

So why make such changes?

Two reasons come to mind. The first is the classic 'new edition to make more money' that drives much of the rpg market. The second is Long's ego and law trained mind. He bought HERO from the original owners and this is his chance to make it his own. That desire would natually express itself in his nit-picking build focused mindset and the attempt to actually make the points balanced (which is impossible no matter what he does).

So as of right now, I'm giving up on 6th and Hero Games as a lost cause after over 20 years of loyality. This is subject to change perhaps, but I'd have to have good reason to toss that much money to a design concept I don't support.

When is geeky too much geeky?

RPG Gamers are by nature a geeky bunch. Well except for those story first lite mechanics guys who are IMO anti-geek replacing cool tactical game mechanics and consistent game settings with ego building excercises, but I digress.

I certainly have earned the title of geek, after all you're find me calculating the recoil impulse for a H&K 416 chambered in the .50 Beowulf in order to use that number to determine a game stat. It's hard to get more geeky than that.

This is more geeky than that.

Now it wouldn't be more geeky if it was being done in reference to an on-going rpg campaign. There it speaks to how the campaign should progress and in what direction. Thus it would just be normal geek-dom, at least for our hobby. But when applied to a movie that was never intended (and never will) make sense beyond being a space opera fantasy, you've gone beyond geeky to just plain rabid fan super geek-dom.

And that is just embarrassing for everybody.

Back from Vacation

We took a week for out tour of history, starting with Boston and the USS Constitution and rushing through Salem, Washington DC, and Gettysburg. With 8 days, one could only hit the highlights.

One can at times fell the weight of history, and in so doing notice the lack of awareness of most.

Through it all I gather a number of interesting details to use in future games, one shot and campaign. Of course some may involve time travel. I love maps, and now I have a better feel for some them be it the battlefield at Gettysburg or the layout of the 'The House of Seven Gables' (even if it isn't really the fictional house of the book).

Even got some good stuff out of Salem, which has become a horrid tourist trap with self-righteous airs. It's someday to be the setting for one of my Holloween games, with one of its many tourist shops getting ahold of something a little too real...