![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
Missed a few days due to other events...back to the regular schedule now, more or less...
Before there was “The Big Model” there was GNS theory.
You may wonder why I’m going to talk about GNS if it was replaced by another theory. Without getting into endless cyclic argument, GNS is the simpler, more basic, foundation for “The Big Model.” In many ways it may be more applicable to live roleplay, since it is clear to me that “The Big Model” has weaknesses, particularly in regard to immersionism, that are amplified in dealing with live roleplay.
I think there is a lot to learn from both models. I think neither is an end all and be all, and I think that an eventual model for live roleplay will have to embrace some elements of theatre that Forge Theory does not.
But these are rich models and there is a lot to learn in them.
- Gamist behaviours reinforce competition and challenge
- Narrativist behaviours reinforce story and theme
- Simulationist behaviours reinforce experience and celebration of source material
Gamist
The seminal “Gamist” tabletop was Dungeons and Dragons. Developed out of the Wargame Chainmail, characters were just “one up” on tokens for military units. The emphasis was not on personality and characterization, but on a system of statistics or attributes which were expressed by numbers, and in which success or failure in combat and other undertakings was determined by dice rolls. All those huge charts of “random generation” we loved as kids…those are the legacy of the “gamist” root of RPG.
“Gamist refers to decisions based on what will most effectively solve the problem posed. These decisions are most common in games which pit characters against successively tougher challenges and opponents, and may not spend much time explaining why the characters are facing them.”
Narrativist
Narrativism is drama focused. In Narrativist style the focus is on what is going on in the story, and how it fits into the larger whole. Narrativists look at the work as they would a play or a novel, seeking to draw out larger themes and support them with the action. Many elements in Threads are strongly narrativist, such as when we make a genre decision that the bad guys will not likely win, even if on paper they seem to be numerically superior. Genre conventions are not strictly speaking Narrativist, but often push a Narrativist agenda. Narrativism often tends to imply GM fiat, though it can in fact involve dice, mediation or any other system of resolution that has been made responsive to the story.
Simulationist
Simulationism is “gaming in the real world.” A focus on making things work as close as possible to the way they would. In a larger sense “real world” may be loyalty to a media source. In traditional simulationism, there is a focus on “realistic” rules, which can often be cumbersome and complex. “The benefit of this method is that it is simple for the players to interpret the results and understand what must have happened. The drawback is that the process of obtaining the results can take a long time to perform, and may still not produce plausible results if it is inaccurate and/or incomplete. “ This is not a strict rule, however, and many modern simulationist systems focus on effect or statistics in order to obtain faster play.
Summary
In summary we can see that our local Threads of Damocles Campaign has a very heavy Narrativist bias, with some bow to Simulationism, with Gamism having probably the least influence. This doesn’t mean that any of these things is bad, but rather provides a description that makes it easier to understand why some things that are traditionally important may be given less weight in some games than others. Various adherents of all these positions tend to see their element as “necessary” and other elements as “optional” so it is easy for a Gamist to feel that a Narrativist game lacks some important component.
That said, most successful games have elements of all three areas.
Next we’ll step back further and take a look at the “Big Model.”
This is just a brief starter description of course...for more information you'll want to read in depth here: GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory
February 1 2008, 03:25:07 UTC 4 years ago
GNS theory has three basic states, and expects that an individual has desires that are some mixture of those states. Once they looked closely at their data, WotC discovered that the population seemed to have four basic states, rather than three.
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/g
February 1 2008, 05:50:14 UTC 4 years ago
By this - I'm an extreme character actor who hangs out with a lot of thinkers and storytellers.
February 1 2008, 09:38:48 UTC 4 years ago
And I can't stop thinking about the Bartle studies (it's what I've had the most exposure to), so the temptation to drive a Social/Event axis through the intersection of the Strategic/Tactical and Combat/Story axes is strong. That may just be me, though; your mileage may vary, typically tending toward the rational end of the Sane/Hairpin axis.
February 1 2008, 20:45:30 UTC 4 years ago
You see, these groupings fell out of the data - they plotted it in several different ways, until they found axes in which there was a tendency to fall into four separate groups (actually five - there was a centrist one as well). When the data suggests a structure, it does not pay to try to then squish the data into another structure that is based on theory alone. That's not the scientific process. It pays to look at what the data actually tells you, regardless of what your model says.
GNS theory, as I understand it, was developed based on at best anecdotal or what we'd call "statistically irrelevant" sets of data. While one data set isn't what I'd call complete either, it suggests that GNS is an inaccurate description.
February 1 2008, 05:46:31 UTC 4 years ago
February 1 2008, 19:39:46 UTC 4 years ago
http://www.geocities.com/devil_bunnys/a
I don't agree with all of his definitions, but I can run down the list and think of larpers I've known who fit squarely into some of these boxes.
By his nomenclature, you're either an "Actor" or an "Escapist", probably.
February 1 2008, 06:49:57 UTC 4 years ago
On Simulationism
I'd actually clarify and change your definition of simulationism a bit. Simulationism is about prioritizing Exploration over other needs (compare with Gamism/Winning and Narrativism/Story). The areas of Exploration that Edwards mentions are Character, Color, Setting, Situation, and System.Mostly useful because a lot of people will see GNS and immediately assume that they're Narrativists because they don't care about winning and don't care about "simulating things," but the simple fact is that almost every LARPer I know prioritizes Simulation over Gamism and Narrativism.
Even if you're interested in the plot or story you may not be a Narrativist -- there's a difference between prioritizing Story and prioritizing the Exploration of Plot (Situation). Now I don't think Simulationism is a bad thing (I'm actually biased towards Sim: Character), but it's worth realzing what Simulationism and Narrativism are really about.
Anonymous
February 1 2008, 12:19:59 UTC 4 years ago
The core principles of simulationism are cause-and-effect and internal consistency. It's about creating a living response setting within which the character can exist.
My own manifesto is strongly simuluationist, but seeing simulation has tool for supporting the immersion of the characters.
I'd also play down the focus on the real world. For example, I've run simulationist Ars Magica games, staying true to defined metaphysics of the setting, using a simple economic model to track vis stocks, having all characters react according to themselves rather than the 'needs of the story.'
One of the Flaws with GNs is it doesn't seen to proplerly acknowledge the immersionsist / turku style.
Personally, I use a five fold model - I add both immersionism and 'social' (e.g. roleplaying for purley off-game motives, such as the girlfriend who has been dragged along to larp with no real interest).
February 4 2008, 12:51:29 UTC 4 years ago
February 1 2008, 19:24:40 UTC 4 years ago
http://www.geocities.com/devil_bunnys/m
But on a different topic, I found this quote in particular to be interesting:
"That said, most successful games have elements of all three areas."
I think that this may be an important point at which Forge-theory as it applies to larp needs to branch from Forge-theory as it applies to tabletop. Because while I agree that many successful larps do have elements of all three areas, it is a general Forge premise that tabletop games that exhibit this are likely to be less successful than games which choose a particular agenda and stick to it. The word used over there is "incoherent", for games that purport to promote one sort of agenda, but which have mechanics that point in a different direction, or systems of power-sharing that go in a third way, for example.
(Here's the main essay on incoherence. Dated, as it's from 2001, but I think that most of the ideas in there have persisted:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/6/)
Here's a particularly telling quote:
"The 'dominant' dysfunctional system is immediately recognizable, to the extent of being considered by many to be what role-playing is: a vaguely Gamist combat and reward system, Simulationist resolution in general, a Simulationist context for play, deceptive Narrativist Color, and incoherent Simulationist/Narrativist Character creation rules."
It has been my experience, at least with Brassy's, that big involved larps tend to try to span all sorts of agendas, in the interests of attracting a sustainable character base large enough for the sort of game you're trying to run. It may be the case that this is necessary for larps, and that one should really look at a big larp more like a whole collection of little ongoing games, sharing space and overlapping in different ways. These little games can be weighted toward particular agendas.
The questions to me, then are "Does this make for a better game? Would a more focused agenda, with supporting mechanics, produce a better experience? Or would it just limit the player base to the point that the game is unrunnable?" Maybe more focused agendas are best suited to 4-hour games, or smaller player groups, with systems tied tightly to the sort of effect that you're going for. (And by mechanics here I don't just mean numbers and dice, I mean the whole box of tools that are used to decide what happens in the game.) I recall a 4-hour game run by Sandy Antunes at an Intercon a while back, all about different groups of people interacting with a minefield. I'd consider that a very Narrativist larp (and it was also a lot of fun.)
I don't have answers to these questions, but I hope that as you continue to delve into this a picture of how to adapt Forge-theory to larp begins to emerge. I know you're just laying groundwork here, which is of course a necessary first step.