Saturday, June 24, 2006

Roleplaying Theory - GNS

I've been doing quite a lot of web-surfing recently looking at Vikings, as background for my upcoming Iron Heroes game, and a theory about roleplaying called GNS.

Along the way I found a problem with my game prep for Iron Heroes, and the possible solution in Ron Edwards' GNS. For an easy introduction to GNS, try Ben Lehman's post "An Introduction to Forge Theory #7". If GNS is new to you, you might want to go read that now, because I'm going to assume you've read it. I'll link to the full theory at the bottom of this post, but don't jump straight there, Ben's summary is enough for starters.

My basic problem is that I was brought up on the increasingly Simulationist RPGs of the 80s and 90s, I even wandered the halls of the odd Narrativist game. I thought that clearly all the troubles we had in our gaming groups could be solved by adopting game systems that more closely simulated the genre we were interested in, so as to avoid game-breaking, powergaming and wimpish play.

At the same time, I felt that I was the only person who could be trusted to run such a game (since my good friend Shan had moved to Melbourne), which meant assuming the burden of both generating comprehensive Simulationist background, and hacking rules to get a better fit to my ideal system (my personal Mission Impossible). In a comment on Ben's blog I put it this way:
My personal preference is Sim, and that explains why I can find it hard to enjoy running a heavy Gamism game, because the way I run it (Gamist) and the way I prep for it (Sim) are in opposition. I find lots of what I prepare doesn't get used, and I rarely want to return to prep for the next session - yet the players loved playing it.
To aggravate matter, game sessions run by others always left me wanting more out of them. The solution seemed to be more preparation and more work up-front, with increasingly less payoff at the end.

I think the solution is that I need to embrace the essential appeal of Gamism, keep enough Simulationist in there to establish an enjoyable theme, and make the point of the Gamism be competition in ways that satisfy my Narrativist bent. In other words, stop layering rules on D&D that ratchet up the Sim level, and look for ways to use Gamism to keep in-game competition where it belongs.

As a concrete example, I've always enjoyed the little bit of Pendragon I've played. In hindsight that was because the game rules encouraged us to play knights that matched the mythic stories of Arthur's knights. If you wanted you could slide towards magic and paganism, or be a virtuous Christian knight, or pursue the ideal of romantic love, or be fairy-touched.

Because the Pendragon system channelled our Gamist tendencies towards building characters that better engaged in the game world, it both fostered Simulationism and created the sort of investment in premise that Narrativism seeks. It is however (IMHO) a game heavily weighted towards Gamism. Character advancement was less about combat effectiveness, and more about engagement with the game world (becoming recognised as a virtuous knight) - although that brought it's own advantages.

So why don't I just start a game of Pendragon? Partly because I am less interested in that theme than I once was, and mostly because of the heavy financial investment my gaming friends have already made in D&D (of all versions). Getting them to play some sort of d20 game is easy enough, having the selected game system poit us in the right direction is harder.

Iron Heroes has some good ideas about making combat the center of attention and making all aspects of a d20 character impact upon it, through stunts and zones. I have some ideas about linking that with some house rules to encourage the sort of play I'm interested in - but I think I need to examine that in more detail before talking about it.

I'm interested in your ideas, so feel free to comment!



As promised, here are links to the original GNS articles:

GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory

Gamism: Step On Up

Narrativism: Story Now

Simulationism: The Right To Dream


1 comment:

Zac in VA said...

Looking at the ideas you've put forth here, I'd recommend checking up on Forge terms like Coherence and Hybrids.
The deal with a Creative Agenda is that it represents the *primary* goal of play - no more than one CA can be on top.
You can certainly have elements of two, or all three, but only as secondary facets of the design.
You pick one (in almost all cases, anyway), and then that's your main design goal.