This a a collection of a five part series I published on my blog in early 2009, collected together here in a single location for future reference.
If one visits some of the more common RPG sites online,
there's a good chance that sooner or later you're run into what is call GNS,
which sadly is the most visible 'RPG Theory' today. While I think it's declining
in importance, it has left a long shadow of bad feelings that's cause many to
knee-jerk away from anyone speaking theory or design. Passions are heated and
the number of flamewars over this is beyond count.
So, why is that? How did GNS trash RPG Theory as a whole to the point where the
best nearly any forum with a Game Design subject can do is talk about how to
roll dice in a different way?
Like most things, it didn't begin with GNS. It started much earlier, to my
knowledge in the Usenet group rec.games.frp.advocacy (r.g.f.a) around the mid
1990s. And it's here that I'd like to start.
Originally r.g.f.a was a typical advocacy group on Usenet where someone could
scream that RuneQuest was better than D&D and get immediate foes claiming the
reverse. In short, it was a dumping ground for flamewars. This changed however
as the group membership abandoned exchanges about which game was better instead
talking about characteristics of gaming itself. Rec.games.frp.Advocacy in effect
became the first noticeable RPG Theory group online.
Into this enter one David Berkman (one of the authors of Theatrix). Berkman
advocated a style of play based around 'what was good for the story', not what
the mindless dice or needs of simulation would call for. 'Advocated' as is 'this
is the best way, any other way is stupid' type of advocating.
This was unacceptable to other members of the forum, those who based their
gaming upon the desire to recreate a internally consistent game world that would
allow deep immersion role-play. In such a campaign, even examining the 'plot',
let alone altering it in the name of ‘improvement', was an ice cold bath dumped
upon their life passion.
Thus the r.g.f.a core divide came into being between Story-Telling vs.
Simulation as the two sides were called (later Story-Telling would be replaced
by the label Drama).
Under fire, those on the Simulation side of things spent a great deal of time
and effort defining what they actually believed. And for good reason, after all
it's difficult to defend something unless you can say what it is. Along the way,
they also defined what Berkman's ideas of Story-Telling driven gaming meant to
them.
Eventally Berkman left the group although his influence remained until its end.
Afterwards the various members decided to build upon the defintions made during
the great debate. They saw things as divided between Drama on one hand, and
Simulation on the other as a result of the Berkman flamewars.
But the point was raised that people who just gamed for the fun of gaming didn't
seem represented. Thus the term Gamist was coined and from there the leap
(generally credited to Mary Kuhner) was made to what became the
Threefold Model
(also called GDS by some).
The important thing to me about the Threefold is that was created under fire,
and was create by those who with rare exception called themselves Simulationists.
Mary Kuhner's influence both upon the model and the newsgroup as a whole was the
most powerful, although John Kim who maintained the group FAQ certainly had an
impact as well.
So the end result was what one would expect. A model with a very nice definition
of Simulation (I should note here that Warren Dew, perhaps the best example of
what the term Simulation was meant to mean didn't like the term that much), but
rather half-baked and even somewhat insulting definitions of the other two
corners.
I truly feel that was unintended, but still the unavoidable result given that
the creators of the Threefold didn't really understand any other style of player
besides their own. They could not but describe Game and Drama except as 'other'.
Instead their failing if anything was the refusal to take input from those of
other styles who over the next few years as the 90s came to an end engaged them
in Threefold debate after Threefold debate.
Many tried (including myself from the Game POV), especially various people who
would have like to have identified with Drama. Nearly all give up, only to be
replaced by new people who arrived and had the same reaction. Finally the
supporters (most importantly Kuhner herself who drove much of the threads in the
newsgroup) of the Threefold got fed up with all the attacks and left r.g.f.a.
The newsgroup died.
Along the way was a fair amount of interesting discussion and good ideas. It’s
worth reviewing some of the threads in Google Groups. But the mental image left
to those aware of r.g.f.a was endless bickering over word use, all for a model
that didn't really define or mean much to most gamers given its Simulationist
founding and control.
So the Threefold was born in flames, and died in flames. With a hint of
Personality Cult around its creator at that. But far worst was to come in that
line with Ron Edwards and 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.
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.
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.
And so we’ve reached the end of our five part history lesson.
We’re currently as of this writing (Feb 2nd 2009) 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.