</article/1/>

*GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory*

by Ron Edwards <mailto:sorcerer@sorcerer-rpg.com>

Copyright Adept Press 2001

*Introduction*

My straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that

many participants do not enjoy it very much. Most role-players I

encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated. My goal in this writing is

to provide vocabulary and perspective that enable people to articulate

what they want and like out of the activity, and to understand what to

look for both in other people and in game design to achieve their goals.

The person who is entirely satisfied with his or her role-playing

experiences is not my target audience.

Everything in this document is nothing more nor less than "What Ron

Thinks." It is not an official Dogma for the Forge. It is not a

consensus view of members of the Forge, nor is it a committee effort of

any kind. It is most especially not an expectation for what you're

supposed to think or believe.

However, it does stand as the single coherent body of theory about

role-playing at the Forge, and its lexicon is definitive for purposes of

discussion there. I am satisfied with it, but I'm not unreasonable

either, so it is not immutable. Please deal with it in one of the

following ways: identify an inconsistency, ask for clarification and

examples, or otherwise address its content critically. I am perfectly

willing to amend any content, if I'm given a substantive reason to do

so, and to give credit for the insight.

I request that all discussion of this material be based on careful

consideration. Snap judgments, unsupported value judgments, neophobia,

taking offense, and other juvenile reactions are not welcome.

Furthermore, I am well aware that my GNS notions vary greatly from the

original Threefold Model (or GDS), and that my categories of Stance

differs from those originally proposed. Identifying these differences

does not constitute a criticism.

I have been extensively influenced by the work of others and have

incorporated it in ways which make sense to me. Concepts that were

originated and developed by others are credited in the acknowledgments

at the end.

*Contents*

Introduction

   1. Exploration

   2. GNS

   3. Stance

   4. The Basics of Role-playing Design

   5. Role-playing Design and Coherence

   6. Actually Playing 

Acknowledgments

</article/2/>

*_Chapter One: Exploration_*

When a person engages in role-playing, or prepares to do so, he or she

relies on imagining and utilizing the following: *Character*, *System*,

*Setting*, *Situation*, and *Color*.

    * Character: a fictional person or entity.

    * System: a means by which in-game events are determined to occur.

    * Setting: where the character is, in the broadest sense (including

      history as well as location).

    * Situation: a problem or circumstance faced by the character.

    * Color: any details or illustrations or nuances that provide

      atmosphere. 

At the most basic level, these are what the role-playing experience is

"about," but to be more precise, these are the things which must be

imagined by the real people. In this sense, saying "system" means

"imagining events to be occurring."

*Exploration and its child, Premise*

The best term for the imagination in action, or perhaps for the

attention given the imagined elements, is *Exploration*. Initially, it

is an individual concern, although it will move into the social,

communicative realm, and the commitment to imagine the listed elements

becomes an issue of its own.

When a person perceives the listed elements together and considers

Exploring them, he or she usually has a basic reaction of interest or

disinterest, approval or disapproval, or desire to play or lack of such

a desire. Let's assume a positive reaction; when it occurs, whatever

prompted it is *Premise*, in its most basic form. To re-state, Premise

is whatever a participant finds among the elements to sustain a

continued interest in what might happen in a role-playing session.

Premise, once established, instils the desire to keep that imaginative

commitment going.

Person 1: "You play vampires in the modern day, trying to stay secret

from the cattle and coping with other vampires." [See atmospheric, grim,

punky-goth pictures]

Person 2: "Ooh! Cool!"

Person 2 might have liked the grittiness of the art, the romance of the

word "vampire," or the idea of being involved in a secret mystical

intrigue. Or maybe none of these and an entirely different thing. Or

maybe all of them at once. It doesn't matter - whatever it was, that's

the initial Premise for this person.

Premise is a metagame concern, wholly different from the listed

elements. They are the imagined (Explored) content of the role-playing

experience, and Premise is the real-person, real-world interest that

instils and maintains a person's desire to have that experience. At this

early point, though, Premise is vague and highly personal, as it is only

the embryo of the real Premise. The real Premise exists as a clear,

focused question or concern shared among all members of the group. The

initial Premise only takes shape and shared-focus when we move to the

next chapter.

*Why "genre" is not part of the lexicon*

I do not recommend using "genre" to identify role-playing content. A

"genre" is some combination of specific setting elements, plot elements,

situation elements, character elements, and sometimes premise elements,

such that by hearing the term, we are informed what to expect, or in

role-playing terms, what to do. On the face of it, the concept would

seem to be useful.

The problem is that genres are continually being deconstructed and

re-formed, with elements of one being re-combined with others. This is

occurring as a non-planned or non-managed historical phenomenon

throughout all media. Therefore "genre" may be a fine descriptive label

for what is or has been done, but it's not much help in terms of what to

do or what can be done.

In many cases, a given genre label will convey to a close group of

people a fairly tight combination of values for these variables.

However, the same genre label loses its power to inform as you add more

people to the mix, especially since most labels have switched meanings

radically more than once. And even more importantly, new combinations of

values for the key variables may be perfectly functional, even when they

do not correspond to any recognized genre label.

Therefore when someone tells me that a game (or story, or whatever) is

based on a certain genre, I have to ask a few more questions - and

sooner or later, I get real answers in terms of Character, Setting,

Situation, or Color. Only then can an initial Premise be identified, and

then the next step toward functional, enjoyable role-playing may occur.

</articles/3/>

*_Chapter Two: GNS_*

Talk to someone who participates in role-playing, and focus on the

precise and actual acts of role-playing themselves. Ask them, "Why do

you role-play?" The most common answer is, "To have fun."

Again, stick to the role-playing itself. (The wholly social issues are

real, such as "Wanting to hang out with my friends," but they are not

the topic at hand.) Now ask, "What makes fun?" This may not be a verbal

question, and it is best answered mainly through role-playing with

people rather than listening to them. Time and inference are usually

required.

In my experience, the answer turns out to be a version of one of the

following terms. These terms, or modes, describe three distinct types of

people's decisions and goals during play.

    * *Gamism* is expressed by competition among participants (the real

      people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters,

      both short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual

      play strategies. The listed elements provide an arena for the

      competition.

    * *Simulationism* is expressed by enhancing one or more of the

      listed elements in Set 1 above; in other words, Simulationism

      heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play. The

      players may be greatly concerned with the internal logic and

      experiential consistency of that Exploration.

    * *Narrativism* is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a

      story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal

      protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are

      often considered co-authors. The listed elements provide the

      material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense

      of literary analysis). 

Collectively, the three modes are called *GNS*. Stating "GNS," "GNS

perspectives," or anything similar, is to refer to the diversity of

approaches to play. One might refer to "GNS goals," in which case the

meaning is, "whichever one might apply for this act of role-playing."

GNS is the central concept of my theorizing about role-playing. It is

necessary for understanding how Premise is developed, and it provides

the context for the later points in this essay. However, it is not

sufficient, and the three modes themselves do not address any and all

points about role-playing.

I disavow either GM-centric or player-centric applications of GNS. The

terms apply to real people engaged in the act of role-playing, and the

distinction between GM and player is irrelevant for this purpose.

However, the reverse is meaningful: given a GNS focus of play, GM and

player roles take on specific shapes, or specific ranges of shapes.

(This issue is discussed later.)

*Labels*

Much torment has arisen from people perceiving GNS as a labelling

device. Used properly, the terms apply only to decisions, not to whole

persons nor to whole games. To be absolutely clear, to say that a person

is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This person

tends to make role-playing decisions in line with Gamist goals."

Similarly, to say that an RPG is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand

for saying, "This RPG's content facilitates Gamist concerns and

decision-making." For better or for worse, both of these forms of

shorthand are common.

For a given instance of play, the three modes are exclusive in

application. When someone tells me that their role-playing is "all

three," what I see from them is this: features of (say) two of the goals

appear in concert with, or in service to, the main one, but two or more

fully-prioritized goals are not present at the same time. So in the

course of Narrativist or Simulationist play, moments or aspects of

competition that contribute to the main goal are not Gamism. In the

course of Gamist or Simulationist play, moments of thematic commentary

that contribute to the main goal are not Narrativism. In the course of

Narrativist or Gamist play, moments of attention to plausibility that

contribute to the main goal are not Simulationism. The primary and not

to be compromised goal is what it is for a given instance of play. The

actual time or activity of an "instance" is necessarily left ambiguous.

Over a greater period of time, across many instances of play, some

people tend to cluster their decisions and interests around one of the

three goals. Other people vary across the goals, but even they admit

that they stay focused, or prioritize, for a given instance.

*Developing Premise into practical form*

Again, all three modes are social applications of the foundational act

of role-playing, which is Exploration. Taking that into a social,

role-playing circumstance, the people get more concrete about a shared

Premise, and thus their decisions acquire a GNS focus of some kind. To

play successfully, the members of the role-playing group must be, at the

very least, willing to acknowledge and support the focused Premise as

perceived by one another.

The developed or focused Premise is no longer a noun ("vampire") or

image, but has become a question, challenge, or provocative issue.

Gamism and Narrativism each encompass a wide range of variation for

Premise, including variations that differ drastically from one another.

This is why "a Gamist," for instance, does not necessarily enjoy any and

all Gamist play or have the same priorities as any and all other

Gamist-oriented role-players. The same applies for Narrativism.

Simulationism is a bit different in its details, but in its way also

includes a wide range of variation and approaches to play; therefore the

insight that not all Simulationist-oriented play is alike applies here

as well.

*Gamist Premises* focus on competition about overt metagame goals. They

vary regarding who is competing with whom (players vs. one another;

players vs. GM; etc), what is at stake, victory and loss conditions, and

what particular sort of strategizing is being employed. Gamist play also

varies widely in terms of what is and is not predictable (i.e.

randomized), both in terms of starting positions and in terms of ongoing

events.

    * Can I play well enough such that my character survives the perils?

    * Can I score more points than the other players?

    * And much more, depending on the arrangement and organization of

      the participants. 

The key to Gamist Premises is that the conflict of interest among real

people is an overt source of fun. It is not a matter of upset or abuse,

and it is certainly not a "distraction from" or "failure of" role-playing.

    * A possible Gamist development of the "vampire" initial Premise

      might be, Can my character gain more status and influence than the

      other player-characters in the ongoing intrigue among vampires?

    * Another might be, Can our vampire characters survive the efforts

      of ruthless and determined human vampire hunters? 

*Narrativist Premises* focus on producing Theme via events during play.

Theme is defined as a value-judgment or point that may be inferred from

the in-game events. My thoughts on Narrativist Premise are derived from

the book The Art of Dramatic Writing by Lajos Egri, specifically his

emphasis on the questions that arise from human conundrums and passions

of all sorts.

    * Is the life of a friend worth the safety of a community?

    * Do love and marriage outweigh one's loyalty to a political cause?

    * And many, many more - the full range of literature, myth, and

      stories of all sorts. 

Narrativist Premises vary regarding their origins: character-driven

Premise vs. setting-driven Premise, for instance. They also vary a great

deal in terms of unpredictable "shifts" of events during play. The key

to Narrativist Premises is that they are moral or ethical questions that

engage the players' interest. The "answer" to this Premise (Theme) is

produced via play and the decisions of the participants, not by

pre-planning.

    * A possible Narrativist development of the "vampire" initial

      Premise, with a strong character emphasis, might be, Is it right

      to sustain one's immortality by killing others? When might the

      justification break down?

    * Another, with a strong setting emphasis, might be, Vampires are

      divided between ruthlessly exploiting and lovingly nurturing

      living people, and which side are you on? 

*Simulationist Premises* are generally kept to their minimal role of

personal aesthetic interest; the effort during play is spent on the

Exploration. Therefore the variety of Simulationist play arises from the

variety of what's being Explored.

    * Character: highly-internalized, character-experiential play, for

      instance the Turku approach. A possible development of the

      "vampire" premise in terms of Character Exploration might be, What

      does it feel like to be a vampire?

    * Situation: well-defined character roles and tasks, up to and

      including metaplot-driven play. A possible development of the

      "vampire" premise in terms of Situation Exploration might be, What

      does the vampire lord require me to do?

    * Setting: a strong focus on the details, depth, and breadth of a

      given set of source material. A possible development of the

      "vampire" premise in terms of Setting Exploration might be, How

      has vampire intrigue shaped human history and today's politics?

    * System: a strong focus on the resolution engine and all of its

      nuances in strictly within-game-world, internally-causal terms. A

      possible development of the "vampire" premise in terms of System

      Exploration might be, How do various weapons harm or fail to harm

      a vampire, in specific causal detail?

    * Any mutually-reinforcing combination of the above elements is of

      course well-suited to this form of play. 

The key to Simulationist play is that imagining the designated features

is prioritized over any other aspect of role-playing, most especially

over any metagame concerns. The name Simulationism refers to the

priority placed on resolving the Explored feature(s) in in-game,

internally causal terms.

*Controversy: is that third box really there?*

It has rightly been asked whether Simulationism really exists, given

that it consists mainly of Exploration. I suggest that Simulationism

exists insofar as the effort and attention to Exploration may over-ride

either Gamist or Narrativist priorities.

Some of the following examples refer to RPG rules and text; I am

referring to people enjoying and preferring such rules and text (i.e.

the people, not the game itself).

Concrete examples #1: Simulationism over-riding Gamism

    * Any text which states that role-playing is not about winning;

      correspondingly, chastising a player who advocates a character

      action perceived as "just trying to win." [This example assumes

      that the text/game does not state story-creation as an alternative

      goal.]

    * Using probability tables in character creation to determine

      appearance, profession/class, or race, based on demographics of

      the community of the character's origin. 

Converse: Gamism over-riding Simulationism

    * Characters teaming up for a common goal with no disputes or even

      attention regarding differences in race, religion, ethics, or

      anything else.

    * Improving character traits (e.g. damage that may be taken) based

      on the amount of treasure amassed. 

Concrete examples #2: Simulationism over-riding Narrativism

    * A weapon does precisely the same damage range regardless of the

      emotional relationship between wielder and target. (True for

      RuneQuest, not true for Hero Wars)

    * A player is chastised for taking the potential intensity of a

      future confrontation into account when deciding what the character

      is doing in a current scene, such as revealing an important secret

      when the PC is unaware of its importance.

    * The time to traverse town with super-running is deemed

      insufficient to arrive at the scene, with reference to distance

      and actions at the scene, such that the villain's bomb does blow

      up the city. (The rules for DC Heroes specifically dictate that

      this be the appropriate way to GM such a scene). 

Converse: Narrativism over-riding Simulationism

    * Using metagame mechanics to increase the probability of task

      resolution, with NO corresponding in-game justification. "Apply my

      bonus die to increase my Charm roll," in which the bonus die is

      not "will" or "endurance" or anything but an abstract pool unit.

    * A player is chastised for claiming a PC motive that "stalls out"

      story elements (conflict, resolution etc). Example: player A is

      pissed off at player B, who has announced "I say nothing," in

      certain interactive scenes, when player A is aware that the PC's

      knowledge would be pivotal in the scene.

    * Using inter-player dialogue and knowledge to determine character

      action, then retroactively justifying the action in terms of

      character knowledge and motive. "You hit him high and I'll hit him

      low," between players whose characters do not have the opportunity

      to plan the attack. [This example could also apply to Gamism

      over-riding Simulationism; the two are quite similar.] 

In conclusion, Simulationism exists as an established, real priority-set

of role-playing, with its own distinctive range of decisions and goals.

*Controversy: "But I'm story-oriented"*

A great deal of intellectual suffering has occurred due to the linked

claims that role-playing either is or is not "story-oriented," and that

one falls on one side or the other of this dichotomy. I consider this

terminology and its implication to be wholly false.

"Story" may simply mean "series of caused events," in which case the

issue is trivial. However, most of the time, the term is more specific.

More specific meanings of "story" may be involved in role-playing in a

variety of ways. Narrativism is a no-brainer in this regard, as it is

defined by the metagame attention to creating a story of critical merit

(i.e. "good"). But story-creation and its elements are certainly

possible, although not prioritized, in both of the other modes. Most

generally, there are (1) forms of Simulationist play with a strong

Situation focus, which provide a story for the participants to imagine

being in; and (2) forms of Gamist play in which dramatic outcomes are

the stakes of competition, which produces story as a side-effect of that

competition.

More specifically, to observers who are not considering goals and

decisions of play, the following three, very distinct sorts of play are

superficially similar and often confounded.

    * Narrativist play with a Setting-driven Premise.

    * Simulationist play in which Situation is being preferentially

      Explored, perhaps with an elaborate published metaplot in the form

      of short stories or novels.

    * Gamist play in which Drama mechanics (see the fourth chapter) are

      used as a strategy-element, making use of a complex set of

      circumstances, Setting and Situation) for material. 

Similarly, the same confoundment may occur regarding the following

(which share regions of potential overlap with the three above in terms

of "story," as well):

    * Narrativist play with a Character-driven Premise.

    * Simulationist play in which Character and Situation are being

      Explored.

    * Gamist play in which Character improvement or other development is

      at stake, and character behavior or attitudes are limiting factors. 

Story-stuff and/or character stuff is so important to all these

approaches that the differences in processes and point of role-playing

are easy to miss, or, disastrously, easy to deny. Three people

attempting to role-play with one another in a vampire-character game,

but each representing one of (say) the first three perspectives, are

going to have a hard time, even if they assured one another that they

were fully committed to "the story." How and why the difficulties arise

are discussed throughout the remainder of the essay.

*Misunderstandings of GNS*

By far and away, the worst misunderstanding of GNS, with the worst

consequences, arises from synecdoche, confounding the part with the

whole and vice versa. (I'll use Simulationism as my stand-in term, but

any of the modes could be named here.)

    * Mistaking the whole for the part, within a mode: claiming that any

      Simulationist-oriented person must enjoy all Simulationist play.

    * Mistaking the part for the whole, within a mode: claiming that a

      particular sort of Simulationism is Simulationism (and nothing

      else is).

    * Mistaking the whole for the part, for all of role-playing:

      claiming that in role-playing at all, one must be engaged in

      Simulationism somehow.

    * Mistaking the part for the whole, for all of role-playing:

      claiming that a particular sort of Simulationism is role-playing

      (and nothing else is). 

Synecdoche may be committed by someone who has recently or imperfectly

learned some GNS vocabulary, who in his enthusiasm is disrespectful to

modes of play besides his favorite. However, it is also tremendously

widespread among those role-players who do not know, or even who

disparage, a critical approach to the activity, but commit synecdoche

using terms like "realistic" or "story." In either case, this fallacy is

disastrous. It results in bad feelings, fizzled games, and rejection of

role-playing.

Other common misunderstandings of GNS include:

    * Ascribing any sort of geometric shape or variable-space to these

      terms. Such ideas are often interesting but they are not formally

      part of the definitions. (For instance, there is no such thing as

      a "GNS Triangle.")

    * Confounding Simulationism with the term "realism." Much of

      Simulationist play and game design has indeed focused on

      generating realistic outcomes, but this is a historical subset of

      the mode rather than part of the mode's definition.

    * Stating "see what happens" as the definition for any of the modes.

      All role-playing is about "seeing what happens." This is a good

      example of whole-for-the-part synecdoche.

    * Mistaking the shorthand of "He's a Narrativist" (or either of the

      others) for a limiting statement that the person is incapable of

      any other mode of play.

    * Mistaking any of the listed elements for one of the modes, e.g.,

      such that attention to character must be Narrativist, or attention

      to setting must be Simulationist, or attention to system must be

      Gamist.

    * Projecting judgment and value-judgments into the terminology, such

      that the speaker or listener perceives one of the goals to be

      placed higher or better than the others. Gamist play, for

      instance, is often unfairly marginalized.

    * Perceiving the terms' purpose as a means to classify game design.

      They are used relative to game design, but again as shorthand:

      calling an RPG a "Narrativist design," for instance, really means

      "This RPG's content facilitates Narrativist play."

    * Failing to understand the terms' actual purpose: to enable people

      to enjoy their role-playing more. 

Note: "synecdoche" is pronounced "sin-ECK-doe-key." Think Schenectady

and vasectomy. If you can make a good limerick out of these three words,

I'll give you a prize.

</articles/4/>

*_Chapter Three: Stance_*

Chapter Two was about what a person wants out of role-playing; this

material is about specific acts and moments of role-playing, that is,

what a person does. *Stance* is defined as how a person arrives at

decisions for an imaginary character's imaginary actions.

    * In *Actor* stance, a person determines a character's decisions and

      actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character

      would have.

    * In *Author* stance, a person determines a character's decisions

      and actions based on the real person's priorities, then

      retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. (Without

      that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called *Pawn* stance.)

    * In *Director* stance, a person determines aspects of the

      environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely

      separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence

      events. Therefore the player has not only determined the

      character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial