I talked a little bit about the GNS theory (Gamist, Narrativist and
Simulationist) in my last post, and today I`d like to elaborate a
little more about this subject and give you folks my take on the GNS
theory and my addendum to it.
In its core, the GNS bases its premises in three aspects: the game
aspect (challenges and tactics), the narrative aspect (the mechanics
that deal with character development and story building) and the
simulation aspect (how well does the system emulate its proposed
genre, like western, fantasy or sci-fi). Albeit a very engaging
theory, I find some of its points problematic, specially concerning
many of its abstract concepts and the difficulty of applying them in
a direct analysis of a rpg system. In part, I believe that happens by
reason of its conceptual application. At first, the GNS was used
fundamentally to categorize the different player behaviors and
expectations. But it took not long for it to be translated and
applied to more direct game design and used as a guideline to write
rpg systems in general. Thenceforth, many others have theorized and
build upon the GNS theory and some of its notions have changed or, at
least, the way those notions are apprehended by the public have
changed. As of today, the three concepts are normally understood as
follows: Gamist (rpg game that focus on rules, crunchiness, tactics,
challenges, combat); Narrativist (rpg games that focus on telling
stories, shared narration, open-ended player characters attributes);
Simulationist (rpg games that focus in character building and
realism).
However, I find such definitions either excessively abstract or
lacking in their direct application as descriptive tools for rpg
systems. So I started to think about the subject of properly
describing rpg systems with a more direct approach. The main question
that directed my searches was: What composes the fundamental aspects
of a role playing game? Are there any characteristics that comprise
every single tabletop rpg game? In order to achieve such endeavor, I
mingled concepts and played with some ideas and, even though I change
my mind from time to time, I believe I've found a manner to which I'm
comfortable with and find affordable its application as a descriptive
method for rpg systems.
Basically, what is tabletop rpg? It's a game of telling stories in
group. But those stories are not told randomly, like those said in a
bonfire during a camping trip. No, they use specific sets of rules to
direct the storytelling process. Such sets of rules are called
Systems, and there are hundreds of them. Every rpg system has 4 main
aspects:
. Gamist: The game and rules. Every system has a set of rules
that all participants must follow in order to build the story
together. The more a system feels like a tabletop game – having
rules for specific roles that a character must have (like classes),
having the story scenes be based on challenges (like, for example,
having challenge levels or specif objectives in each scene needed to
be done in order to advance the story), having tactical and complex
rules for challenges (like combat grids) – the more gamist elements
it has.
. Narrativist: The story and narration. Every participant may
contribute with the story building. The more a system gives options
to its participants to build the story – having everyone to
contribute with the narration, having the world building be done by
everyone and having open-ended attributes that allow for
improvisation on the part of the players – the more narrativist
elements it has.
. Simulationist: The genre and mood. The system has an ideal
setting or mood that it tries to emulate with its rules. The more a
system has mood and genre components – the design of its
nomenclature reflect the genre its trying to emulate, the game rules
has specifics for the genre, and the game awards the players for
acting in consonance with the mood or genre – the more
simulationist it is.
. Personalist: The character and roleplay. There are
characters (Personas) that the participants may interpret and play.
The more a system focus in character building – giving options to
customize the skills and capacities of a character, giving options
for mechanical representation of a character demeanor, moral and
personality and awarding players for creating a backstory for a
character – the more personalist it is.
As you may see, I added a fourth layer of description to the GNS
theory – The Persona element, which has elements of the original Narrativist elements, but focusing entirely in character building. I believe that this addition helps
better describing a rpg system because it deals with the very important
element of the 'characters', be them primary (of the players),
secondary (of the GM) or tertiary (the extras of the world). Just for
the sake of nomenclature, I call this the 'GNSP' idea.
It is important to notice that the fact that a system has more
elements of an aspect than other system does not make it 'better'.
This is just a descriptive method, and in no ways it tries to judge
normatively a system. Every system can be fun to play, that is not
the question in debate here. The proposal is of a method of
describing systems.
However, this post is merely an introduction to this GNSP theory I
just briefly presented. At length, I hope to introduce more of its
parts and discuss every element meticulously.
Until next time,
Valete
Image 1
No comments:
Post a Comment