Ok IM not trying to deflate the GNS Theory. The ideas of the three main areas are intriguing from an intellectual angle. The styles of play as it were encompass much in the way one can think about gaming. I also realize that GNS has become the Big Model theory of some of game design. And From the design aspect I can see where is can be a tool to creating unique and fun games.
However I have become to question why we as gamers feel the need to fit ourselves or others into these labels. I know I did it too. I am, according to the theory, a Narrativist with some leaning toward simulationist. And this is why I started to wonder, why I worried about this. At the time it seemed important to fit into an area within the theory. Some of you proudly state which area you fit in and a few sneer at one side or the other. I’m not naming names, but you know who you are.
I have come to my own conclusion in that I’m a gamer, this theory is good for intellectual debate, sure, nice when you’re looking into actual game design, but why label your play style, Enjoy what you do and enjoy what you play. Take time to really look at the games you play and if your anything like me, you will see that you enjoy games that fall along the whole spectrum of the GNS theory.
So do you think you need to fall into these labels, or are you like me and just want to promote gaming? So in all things…Go Game!
3 comments:
Hi Mark,
I believe you are misinterpreting GNS. GNS isn't meant to categorize players. It's not saying anything about who Mark is, or who Clyde is. It's meant to categorize the way a group is playing over time.
To give you an idea. Someone can like playing in groups that push for any of the agendas. Some people may only feel rewarded by groups that only follow a certain agenda. For instance, I like playing with groups that work on any of the agendas. Other people may only want to play in groups pushing for simulationist play.
The idea is that groups that are firing on all cylinders are typically pushing towards a certain type of play. These three being the three types that have been identified.
Thanks for Commenting. I understand what your saying, and I do agree with that interpretation, My point wasnt that groups tend to follow patterns, it is more as to why we feel we Have to group ourselves and why many tend to not just prefer one type of gaming but sneer or jibe the other types.
And why we feel we Have to catergorize play in the first place. I can understand it as the general direction of groups, however I have seen too many individuals use it as a way to look down upon other gamers wanting other agendas.
Hi Mark,
I hear you, and have encountered what I consider elitism myself in folks grabbing on to GNS. I don't think this is a new phenomenon, as you can see it in folks who don't like LARP, wargames, tabletop, etc. I find it interesting that a community that expresses to have disliked, and perhaps been traumatized, by the cliquishness of High School, mimics that same behavior long after High School is over.
Now to answer your question about why "The Big Model" categorizes play. It's done so that we can look at play to create better play. One of the ways this is done is looking at a group and it's behavior and conflicting motivations. GNS is about identifying motivations for play, if we have different motivations it's hard for us to have good play due to conflicting expectations. If we can recognize these differences it's easier for us to find like minded players, to work together more cohesively, or to try to put something into the game to try and keep everyone happy.
If you want to see examples of how creative agendas a.k.a. GNS is used to try to improve play you should read the Actual Play forum on the Forge for a bit and I'm betting it will become more clear to you.
The Big Model is not really tightly focused on the individual, and as such anyone using it to look down on others is only showing their ignorance.
Post a Comment