RP Game Theory - Do you use it?

[Chainsaw Aardvark]

I'm sure most of us have read about "GNS" (Gamist/Naritivist/Simulationist), "The Big Model" and other theories of role playing. I have even tried writing a few theories of my own. However, the question remains, do we use it?

While I certainly agree with the notion "system does matter" behind these aspects, I don't find myself sitting down to write with an agenda. Instead, its a case of writing what seems to work based on prior games I've played. The first role playing game I ever attempted to design was basically just all the house rules I'd written for Rifts in one collection.

Now perhaps its a matter of I'm so deeply embedded in a cretin style of gaming that I don't see the forest for the trees. I prefer things with a bit more crunch and rules as the arbitrator of disputes over free form & GM fiat for example. But, no two of my games are exactly alike system wise, so I don't think the agendas are merely subconscious...

Anyway - how do you use these theories? And if you don't, how collaborate towards a thought system that does prove more useful?

[Bryndon]

Argh. At the time, I was just making a game! But I do study this sort of thing, so looking back on it, the basic framework of Superliga was "I want to be able to model combat between a knight and a tank, or a dragon and a robot", so it was mostly simulationist. I don't think I consciously use game theory to create anything that I do, but I will most likely use game theory (or theories) whenever I go back to do some revision to make sure the system works for other people.

[Wolfboy]

I just wrote a bit of a rant on this at my shiny new interblag. You can read the rant here: . The upshot is, I reckon most of the models of RPG theory are flawed, because they tend to be based on (or at least heavily influenced by) the personal biases of the author, and they don't take into account the fact that a large portion of the experience of playing a game (which is what theories seem to want to control) is actually out of the control of a game designer - if your game is being played by 13 year old boys, they will play like tools (probably) and no amount of game design will fix that.

The best advice I can think of as far as game design theory goes, is "pick something and go with it" or "make your game as much like the way it is as you possibly can". The thing White Wolf did that tripped them up, was to make a line of games with a stated aim ("story gaming") and a system that didn't actually support telling stories in between all of the grovelling about trying to make your superpowers work right. The lesson you can learn from this is that if you want a game of (for example) dark angst and awesome powers that come at a terrible cost, you shouldn't make a system where the powers are hard to get, and harder to use.

Just make sure everything about your game actually supports your vision for how the game should be, that's all.

[JasonDarrah]

I generally adhere to a hybrid gamist/narrativist point of view when I'm gaming. I like plenty of Game in my role-playing games. I also like, as the usual game master of my group, to pull the players into a story that they care about. In my opinion, a game system should have enough crunch that everyone knows that they're playing a game, but not enough that the system becomes the driving force behind your game sessions and derails the actual action that is going on in a game.

@wolfboy: That pretty much sums up my point of view on the G/S/N topic. It's great for hypothetical discussion, but in the end games of Vampire can turn into hack n' slash events, and games of Hackmaster can involve a lot of deep character development and storyline. Games of the Amber Diceless RPG can degrade into bickering about the system, and games of FATAL can... oh, who am I kidding. Nobody plays FATAL.

The problem with the GNS format is that in practice it comes off as N vs. Not N. While it tries to define every aspect of what an RPG is or should be, it misses the entire point. If it was easy, I'd come up with a theory of my own. I'll leave that to others, and hope that they don't lord their ideas over everyone like some in the past have been known to do.

[Rob Lang]

Like any theory, I only like GNS when it is used for good, healthy reasons. Any verbal clustering technique is really about assigning words to allow ideas to be grouped together then dealt with. GNS as verbal clustering is superb because it is useful only to the person weilding it. I found it useful when I was trying to work out why a previous campaign wasn't as much fun as it could be. It was because we'd gone too narrative and the players (we all do) like a bit of game in there. Had GNS not been specified, I would not have been armed with the ability to use those words to help myself out.

Where GNS fell down was in how people tried to wield it. In topics on the Forge, you often found people looking down on roleplaying games that didn't meet whichever of G, N and S was in fashion at the time. Around the birth of Story Games, you had people belittling Simulation a lot and as Jason mentions, it became very N vs Not N. That was a perversion of the original idea and it's a shame that it's tainted the idea of RPG Theory.

[Kinslayer]

Game theory is good. It can help us as designers improve upon our craft. What must be remembered is that GNS is just one grouping theorem. There are others. Coincidentally, I just posted my own 3-dimension grouping over at the . Of course, that post was never intended to be serious game design theory, something guaranteed to revolutionise the hobby or anything.

During the initial planning stages with Midian I studied the various design theories, GNS and others. I kept them in mind, and deliberately sculpted my game so as to allow various play styles, or to switch between them. In that sense at least, game design theory proved very useful in general--even if not in specific--to keep me from making the play style of Midian neither overly focused nor not focused enough. According to the core GNS precepts, making a game that allows for gamism, simulation, and narration equally is the gravest of sins. I think the high calibre of the end product that is the Midian Dark Fantasy Roleplaying Game would refute this.