GNS is not a Theory; it is a Tradition

This post is a brain-fart—me trying to jot a thought, lurking and seeing TTRPG folks react to GNS Theory for the upteenth time.

+

Context:

GNS Theory seeks to frame, understand, categorise, and model tabletop roleplay—and, via this framework, suggest solutions and improvements to the craft of TTRPG design as a whole. Understanding GNS Theory, it is asserted, will allow you to create better-designed (“more coherent”) games.

Edwards compares the utility of understanding GNS to that of understanding physics:

I use a physics analogy: prior to the insights of Newtonian physics, bridges could be built. Some of them were built rather well. However, in retrospect, we are well aware that in order to build the bridge, the designer must have been at the very least according with Newtonian physics through (1) luck, (2) imitation of something else that worked, (3) use of principles that did not conflict with Newtonian physics in a way that mattered for the job, or (4) a non-articulated understanding of those principles. I consider the analogy to be exact for role-playing games.

+

“Is GNS Theory right or wrong?” is usually the question when TTRPG folks talk about it. This feels unusual for an art theory—but is perhaps understandable in GNS’s specific case.

Edwards presents his ideas as actionable: a science by which you can make better games; principles you can rely on to build your own bridge. It becomes paramount, then, that those principles be factual. Otherwise the bridge collapses.

(Edwards infamously called people who enjoyed “incoherent” games [according GNS standards] brain-damaged, but the less said about this the better.)

Also because nerds are perverts about taxonomy:

Here is a sorting hat that will let us categorise and self-select our fandoms and selves.

We love this tribal shit. “Are you a Gamist? Narrativist? Simulationist? Take this quiz! Argue in the comments!”

+

GNS is two decades old by this point.

It was the chief theoretical framework of the Forge. It guides the work of designers like Vincent Baker and Paul Czege. Game lines like Burning Wheel and its descendants are entirely informed by GNS conclusions about players and player behaviour, resulting in specific strengths, quirks, and frustrating design “solutions”.

On the other hand:

From the Noughties onwards there has been any number of interesting and excellent games made without adherence to (or even knowledge of) GNS. Tabletop roleplaying games have flowered much since the Forge’s heyday.

+

All that long-winded shit to get to the thought I had:

Rather than asking: “Is GNS true? Does GNS work? Does GNS accurately describe tabletop roleplaying games?”

It is probably more useful to consider GNS as a TTRPG art tradition. A school or movement or genre, that creators and designers have chosen to belong to / define themselves by / work in the lineage of.

Similar to:

But Dada is not the whole of art; nor is anime synonymous with animation. Pina Bausch is just one albeit influential choreographer; nowadays method acting has an antiquated, faintly ridiculous legacy.

Meanwhile, European music theory today is often seen as the scientific yardstick by which all music should be measured, just as nerds are wont to do with GNS vis a vis tabletop roleplaying games in general.

But we should remember that GNS is a lens, one way of considering and practicising the craft of TTRPGs. It is one lens amongst a multitude. Whether it is a good lens is up to you. Some designers have followed its precepts, and made games informed by said precepts; such games vary in quality but share a particular vibe.

A bridge built in the Moorish style isn’t necessarily superior or more stable than a bridge built any other other way; but you may find it beautiful, provided you are partial to Moorish architecture.

I think that analogy works for GNS.

25 Notes/ Show

Recent comments