It’s important to remember that GNS are goals of play more than preferences. Thinking of them as preferences makes sense when we’re on their own, but thinking of them as goals lets us talk to our other players about what we’re interested in better. Love the quiz! I got 8G, 6N, 6S. I love playing these games as they are, excited to see what emerges whether that’s worlds or stories or just a grand old time.
Very insightful! I honestly had never heard of simulationism before taking the quiz, and my initial thought was that it made up the "crunchy numbers" side of gamism, like ammo and exhaustion. Instead, it almost feels like the crunchy numbers side of both gamism and narrativism: the minutiae of worldbuilding taken to the extreme. Now I know that my simulationism would be my biggest blind spot when i finally run a campaign!
Which way I lean depends on the game I play. * When I play D&D, I think I primarily want a gamist experience. Maybe 60/20/20 if we imagine splitting up my proorities into 100%. * When I played in an Invisible Sun campaign, Narrativism was more important. Maybe 30/50/20. * As a GM/SToryteller of Mage: The Awakening, I've leaned simulationist by caring a fair bit about justifying why certain things are the way they are, and also honouring whatever strange outcomes we get. Perhaps 20/30/50. * and I think for each game and table of players, I feel a little bit differently about it Because of this, when I tried to take your quiz, I realised the answer was simply 'it depends'.
Absolutely! To me, it's almost the reason as to why many TTRPGs exist in the first place. I'd never look for a heavy gamism filled session in Blades in the Dark, but if I'm feeling strategic and gamism-y I could always pick up some D&D 3.5e. The best way I can think to answer the quiz if you're in an "it depends" mood is answer once per TTRPG if you're up for it.
@@thebountifulmimic I find it so interesting, for my part, find myself at the other side of the spectrum on this. I've been a forever Storyteller for Vampire the Masquerade (I got 8 simulationism, 7 Narrativism, and 3 Gamism. But For the past 2 years I've been finding myself with a unquenchable thirst for high fantasy game, like Pathfinder...but even then, I don't feel more incline to be a gamism player, I feel as much pull toward simulationism and because of that I expect I would be prone to house rule if I ever get to run a campaign. But even as a players, I am very much not interested in the gamism aspect of game, it occupy a very low priority in my mind. And so to me, although it might sound like a sacrilege to many DND purist and pathfinder and other wargame enthusiast, but Critical Role way of playing the game is much closer to how I run my game of vampire, and how I would hope to have the chance to play as a player in dnd or pathfinder. A deep emphasis on RP, and narrative before gamism.
According to your quiz, I am GNS 567. I am an old school grognard and run a hexcrawl sandbox using the 1981 basic/expert rules. There is no "story" save what the players choose to do. I use the rules and conceits of the system to inform the game world. I don't change the rules to be more realistic, I change the world to make the rules make sense. Players need to ask questions to make informed choices. A lot happens without a die roll. But if the dice come out, they are the final arbiters. Otherwise it's not the player characters driving the story, it's me imposing a narrative structure on them. You are criminally undersubscribed, by the way. Really good video!
I certainly think there should be a revival of sorts with an understanding that the theory should evolve and adapt. There has been lots of criticism of GNS especially because the original intent of the theory was to prescribe 1 attribute to a player and the advice was to focus on only 1 when making an RPG. Based on forums I’ve read, it seems like the original intent expanded a bit over time, but other models were developed that were deemed more in line with reality. I’m still a GNS fan though!
It was never the case that any game or player only appealed to/cared about a single aspect of GNS. It's a triple constraint spectrum, where both games and players fall somewhere in the middle. The point of GNS theory was to know where you fall on the triangle, and ensure your game design matches that intended target audience.
@@insomnolant6043 I don't disagree that this is the way that GNS Theory *should* be thought of, but this was not the lead designer Ron Edwards' intent. It's clear Edwards thought you fell into one camp with very little overlap. There's also the idea that people might change their alignment in GNS Theory depending on which system they're playing which isn't addressed by GNS Theory. Quotes from the article that started it all called System Does Matter: "Three player aims or outlooks have been suggested, in that a given player approaches a role-playing situation pretty much from one of them, with some, but not much, crossover possible...I suggest that building the system specifically to accord with one of these outlooks is the first priority of RPG design...I suggest a good system is one which knows its outlook and doesn't waste any mechanics on the other two outlooks."
That's only really relevant if you look at the Forge as a cult with a Dear Leader instead of what it really was: a discussion forum where people hashed out ideas. I certainly agree that some people treated it as a cult of personality, but there was much more useful conversation going on if you ignored that and stayed away from the coattail riders and suck-ups.
@@insomnolant6043 100% agree. People's perspectives were fantastic to read through, but ultimately the criticism and rebuttals were directed towards Edwards' original proposals. I'm glad there are people like yourself that enjoy the theory as I do to keep it alive.
Listening to your comments on wizards leveling up I'm once again reminded of how well AD&D 1e handled it. Wizards leveled up by going to a higher level wizard and paying them gold to teach them. They then spent time working with that wizard and in the process they learned new spells.
And so did everyone else. You didn't just need to train to learn spells, but to go up levels at all. But spending weeks training every level is incredibly disruptive to both any kind of narrative, but also to simulation itself in terms of the world being a living place that keeps on moving whatever the PCs are doing. It really only works in a particular kind of campaign - the kind with no time pressure and plenty of downtime between expeditions into the local dungeons. The kind that was the norm for the earliest D&D campaigns. 'And it isn't really necessary even for simulation, since the whole problem stems from the assumption that wizards can only learn spell from being taught by other wizards. The game itself even says that those spells "reflect the arcane research you conduct on your own, as well as intellectual breakthroughs" - and other editions had similar language. You can of course still seek out others to learn more spells from, but you're smart enough to figure some stuff out on your own. Just like the fighter practices fighting and the rogue practices lock picking and everything else.
Probably the best summary of GNS theory I've seen. Many dismiss GNS because of dumb things Edwards went on to say afterward, but the foundation of GNS theory is solid and important. The Quiz is also good. It told me exactly what I expected it would G:4, N:6, S:8.
The Vampire attack was a good idea. The mistake was not informing them beforehand that encounters would not be balanced. They just need to know that they are gonna have to decide if the fight is winnable or if they need a better plan. This actually makes the ranger way more useful. The encounter balancing atuff in the book isnt so that you can make balanced encounters for them to face. Its just there so you can gauge how difficult an encounter would be. I once had my players face a Beholder when they were level 3. They knew they weren't strong enough to take ot head on so they prepared really well instead. They destroyed it without anyone going down with the strategic use of arrows, fire, flower and nails.
Really good explanation of various gaming philosophies. One thing that took me years to understand (and I’ve been playing D&D for over 40 years now), was the importance of letting the player’s/characters have a real and lasting impact on the world. If their actions matter to the point of changing governments, averting (or starting) wars, it enhances the story and really galvanizes their investment in the world as well)
Reminds me of the poisoned condition in D&D 5E. Poisoned condition and poison are not the same. Some poisons don't give the condition, they just do damage. Some foul smells don't actually poison you, but they give you the poisoned condition.
This is good as a guide not a strict ruling. Helping understand what both your players are wanting from a session/campaign and what you're capable of providing helps make the experience better for everyone. Sometimes people just want to roll dice. Sometimes people want brutal fun but don't want the sluggishness of full simulation. Gamification is easy and light for a lot because they want more story but not so much of the rules. There's no one size fits all but it better helps deliver the experience.
Within less than a minute of the video starting, I knew I was going to come up as a simulationist. And I was right. Personally, I prefer building living worlds and then having my players come in and wreck shop, the pieces then fall where they may and you get interesting(if not always particularly dramatic) story.
My biggest problem with GNS is how the conversation around it typically focus on potential conflict rather than synergies. Most rpgs make finding good in-fiction moves (sim) optimal, by awarding in-game bonuses. Most settings designed specifically for RPGs are made to be rich in story inspiration if dived into. Stories feed into the gaming experience by providing stakes. So it might be a usefull lens, but maybe more in the way that any being underrepresented might indicate that you are not getting the most out of the RPG experience due to missing synergies. This as opposed to the take I have found more common - to try to cultivate one spesific in order to limit potential conflict.
I tend to run a Narrativist game in a Simulationist world - the world runs in the background, and I keep approximate tabs on things, but it's never the focus *unless and until* the players decide to interact with it. The story is what the party does, where they go, the mechanics and the world are there to give a consistent framework for the story.
Narrative feels like the free writer and simulation it’s feels like the outliner writer. So add gamism to a traditional book and you get an RPG. Interesting way of looking at rpgs
This division doesn't seem that uselful to me. According to the quiz I'm a 776, which may as well say I care about all of them equally. It makes some sense as I tend to like it much more when gamism is working with the other two rather than fighting them. Basically, when the gamist outcome coincides with the others, which is quite possible if the game is designed that way. Probably why this theory is considered dead at this point.
Great to see simulationism back in the conversation! There's been kind of a false dichotomy between narrative focus and mechanics focus. I think Jim Murphy put it best when Matt Colville interviewed him: He wants to know "what really would have happened" if he was an adventurer. I've come to realise this is something I miss from 3.5e, where PCs and monsters are constructed using the same rules. 3.5e vs 4e and 5e typifies the simulationist vs gamist conflict for me. I'd be interested to know why GNS theory is discredited, because the points you raised from it made sense.
The main problem with GNS is that it: a) Assumes that the three goals are mutually exclusive and in opposition to each other (or, at least it does when it was initially laid out by Edwards) b) Ignores the ways that the three goals interact. My biggest example of this is that game mechanics can exist to enhance themes within a game (this is called ludonarrative resonance in the context of video game design), thus meaning that the "gamist" aspect of a game supports the "narrativist" aspect.
@@drfiveminusminus yeah, for sure it is always valid to acknowledge and remind frequently that every model has limits on what they can express or explain and that no model substitutes reality
I just don't agree that these three things always have to be in conflict. I believe that they *can* be in conflict sometimes but other times they might enhance one another and one doesn't always have to do less of one to do more of another. That said, thinking about the tensions between these three things can offer insights into what sorts of things we like in a D and D game (or any other rpg) even if the theory is flawed or incomplete. It is sort of like the alignment system for characters. It is definitely limited and not realistic but it can still offer insights into the characters and their motivations and personalities.
Agree! The simulation should be paramount, and a good simulation with interesting bones will produce great narratives. And fun game mechanics should be used to simulate the narrative simulation.
A word of advice. When a player asks for someones name just say "they tell you their name." This works for any piece of information that you don't have prepared. It's not important who the Baron is right away, it's just important that the character "knows" who the Baron is. You can fill it out in more detail as needed later on.
Great video. All three are pillars which make TTRPGs what they are requirements for any game. Still, people can lean into their preferences, and even certain systems have certain preferences inherent in their systems.
as an artist, i can't help but think of the 60-30-10 rule for colors in character design. essentially, this means a good palette will use one main color or hue on 60% of the character, a second accent color on 30% of the character, and the rest of the palette on 10%. perhaps you could use this to define and craft campaigns - a campaign with 60% of its time spent on narrative pursuits, 30% on gamism, and 10% on simulationism would be more akin to a movie or rollercoaster ride, where the plot drives most of the action, but also provides exciting setpieces in the form of mechanical challenges to add drama and player agency. very little attention is paid to things outside of the player's direct sphere of influence. one with 60% simulationism, 30% narrativism, and 10% gamism is all about getting lost in the world, with only the loosest of rules to keep things flowing. the players might not roll a die for hours, just describing their actions and watching the npcs react accordingly. finally, a campaign with 60% gamism, 30% simulationism, and 10% narrativism is closest to a video game, where the world is designed to be exploited, and exploitation is a win condition. the players may "solve" systems like they're a puzzle or defeat peaceful negotiations the same way they would a combat encounter. if you're dming one of these, it could help you figure out where to spend your planning time, so you don't stress out about being mortal and therefore not being equally amazing at all 3 tenets of design. the focus of the campaign, the 60%, should have the most thought put into it, with the 30% being used to support and highlight that aspect. the 10% is only there to glue the other two parts together. ...but maybe i'm totally off base and that wouldn't be a good way to plan a campaign. idk! it was just a stray thought. good video lol
@@ryanwillingham I think this is a helpful baseline for sure. I would even add that you can start with these 60-30-10 preferences and choose a TTRPG system based on that. If you’re looking for 60% narrativism 30% simulationism, you could be looking for something that D&D doesn’t fulfill, for instance, so it’s a good baseline to find a system that supports your needs more
I really like this way of framing it. I've been having issues trying to rationalize more liner game narratives to myself. Seeing it as a rollercoaster helps validate it. I'm not trying to bore my players with the events at all. I want them to be over the top, dramatic, and exciting filled with gameified tension in combat and fun spins on mechanics we've never tried. Even if that means they weren't allowed to fart around in the woods nearby because the castle was where the action is.
@@thebountifulmimic oh, absolutely! i've always enjoyed blades in the dark precisely because of its rich world and the way it weaves the narrative into its mechanics. there's a system out there for everyone.
@@secretlyaslug2325 i've been there, definitely. for every player out there who wants a sandbox, there's another player who would be happiest on the orient express. it's hard to find the delicate balance between showing off the best bits of the story and respecting the player's desires, especially when they're at odds. sometimes the best moments come from when your plans fall to pieces, and sometimes the players have unintentionally brought everything to a screeching halt. maybe that excursion into the woods is secretly an exciting opportunity, or maybe it's just a waste of time. i've personally had issues letting players die, because i always want them to succeed and keep the rollercoaster going. logically, i know that failure is more interesting than success, but emotionally, i don't want to kill off the heroes! i'm slowly retraining my brain to pull less punches and roll with the ones that land. with time, i'm sure i'll reframe death into an opportunity.
Really interesting video, I just did your quiz I got (I thought I was 100% a narrativist), and I am, but I got 8 at simulationism, 7 at narrativism and 3 at gamism. I think its fair.
@@thebountifulmimic Forever DM/GM or Storyteller (as it is called in Vampire the masquerade). I just ask two of my very close friend one is also a game master (he got a 5 in gamism, 6 in Simulationism, and 5 in narrativism... he told me my result fitted my personality. Another friend got mostly the same result 6, 6, 6 lol and told me, that my result fit my personality to be very much against the game, when the game start preventing me from trying to tell the story I am trying to tell.
If I'm reading the results correctly, I got G(5), N(7), S(7). Very middle-of-the-road, which makes sense to me 🤠 Great video. I've been thinking a lot about categorization of ttrpgs not from a player perspective, but from a design perspective. I think these terms are a bit less useful when analyzing the types of ttrpgs there are for that matter. Gonna have to conjure some new terms! Looking forward to seeing more from this channel!
The more you attempt to apply simulationism into D&D, the more the system will fight back due to how many concepts the system abstracts and because the gamist agenda is often at odds with the simulationist agenda. I'd say one of the best TTRPG systems for those that lean simulationist is GURPS. It has a plethora of combat options that allow you to try things you can do in the real world and has one-second combat rounds (which may sound very nit-picky but allows for the flow of combat to happen more simultaneously than D&D's 6-second rounds). Non-powered humans in GURPS can also go down pretty quickly (especially when they're not wearing armor) and traits make a hell of a lot more sense (stronger characters have more hit points, being proficient in one skill may provide leeway with related skills, etc.) Another option is to apply simulationist mechanics to a game system that is relatively rules-light, like many OSR games, because they have less moving parts to clash with. Last but not least, applying simulationist principles doesn't necessarily mean that everything needs a specific game mechanic or needs to be numerically measured. The GM can have the game world react as a real place and apply real-world consequences, even when it would come into conflict with gamist mechanics. Someone slit your throat when you were asleep? No, don't roll damage, because hit points only apply in a combat scenario; you're bleeding out and will die in 2d6 seconds.
Terrific video. I haven’t thought about GNS for twenty years as most of my play or GMing is from experience and instincts. I’ve always been interested mainly in narrative, followed by simulation, with less focus on gaming. I followed the link and narrative is 6, simulation is 6, with gaming at 3. I’m surprised that narrative isn’t higher but I’m not as pushy as I once was. I prefer a good balance and go with the flow of the players. Every so often, I do enjoy focusing on one aspect of RPG. I was exposed to this with Dragonlance modules that had scenes dedicated to drama, pivotal events and mini games. I think this lets players really enjoy the parts of RPG they find most interesting. When GMing I find it more important to know about your players and PCs, more so than giving them world details and lore. An RPG can be theatre of the mind, story, tactical simulation, board game, investigation, and just plain silliness. Everyone has different expectations of TTRPGs and talking about those in advance reduces the chance of awkward situations and general boredom.
Great vid. Best (truest to the source material) summary of GNS theory I’ve watched on UA-cam. And I agree, despite the community’s dismissal of it, this (and Edwards’s Big Model) are very useful as a framework, a lens, and I consider and reference them often. Something to check out regarding narrativism: one might consider narrativism as being primarily concerned with “good story structures,” like the short story structure model (literary), “The Heroes Journey” (mythological), and/or Aristotle’s model for good Tragedy from his *Poetics* (Theatrical). If you aren’t familiar with this last one, I recommend looking up his list of qualities, and their order of importance (Plot, Character, etc. - though note that in D&D, the players control Character, and they share Plot control with the DM), bc player agency), because D&D, like theatre, is a “live, performative medium, enjoyed collectively in a group” unlike literature. (Note: it only is useful for the “entertainment” part of the game experience - the part that is enjoyed by observing what others do, and obviously does not address the necessary “recreation” part of the experience -the part that is enjoyed by *doing* rather than observing). Great stuff. Liked, and subscribed.
ICYMI, I’ve read that Edward’s later regretted his choice of word for the playstyle he named “Simulationism,” and suggested that “Emulationism” may have been a better fit, semantically. Useful, I think, for helping people understand what he intended, and to circumvent the common misunderstanding that it is “simulating the real world.”
I think it would be cool to compare the results of the quizzes to how long the responders have been playing D&D. I personally initially got into D&D because I enjoyed the narrative and some simulation aspects of the game. Once I got comfortable with the rules and more experienced, I got more gamey to challenge my creativity with the rules and spice things up. Currently though, I feel like I've shifted back to a more narrative focus as I got tired of messing around with the rules and wanted to think more about what they represent.
The quiz I made doesn't collect data, so I wouldn't be able to do a comparison without people sending me their results. But that sounds really interesting! I'm curious, have you tried other TTRPGs? How do you feel about the GNS of those systems?
I can provide an additional datapoint here from my own experience: Starting off D&D - Simulationist Veteran Player- Gamist First time DM - Gamist Veteran DM - Narrativist Getting into Worldbuilding - Simulationist Nowadays- Narrativist (G5N7S6 according to the quiz) To answer your other question - I think systems GREATLY vary in the GNS triangle. D&D mostly falls into Gamist and far away from Simulationist. Numenera and White Wolf are Simulationist. Blades in the Dark and Fiasco are Narrativist. Etc.
I got, G:4 S:6.5 N:6 , Guess it makes since why in digital games I like things like Dwarf Fortress, or Cataclysm Dark Days Ahead. And more crunchy story based RPGs.
*tenets - tenants live in a rented property 😅 GNS only buried cos Ron Edwards was totally inflexible with it - if he bothered to actually learn how games are played, GNS would have gained much more traction
The idea that every monster or villain that the players come across should be a challenging, but winnable fight is one of the things I find wrong with the way people play D&D nowadays. Not role-playing, there are plenty of different role-playing games out there with different styles. But D&D historically, was not a game that was intended to be fair. Gary gygax was not what you would call a fair DM nowadays. He created the tomb of horrors because too many PCs were living. Players need to learn how to retreat, regroup, and then go after the bigger challenge. And if the GM has to lay it out for him at the beginning, which I do, telling him that they are probably not going to be able to win every fight, that the fights aren't necessarily going to be fair, then they're warned and they know and maybe they should retreat sometimes.
Incredibly biased test to DnD specifically, despite showing other TTRPGs earlier in the video. There are ways for Simulationism/Narrativism to coexist in even ways, I would never hesitate to let my players try to fight a vampire and lose horribly. Balance is only useful as a way to simplify the process of weighing an encounter, but I hate using it to make the fight “even,” sometimes my players need to stomp and sometimes they need to be stomped.😊
@@yeoldeharbinger5880 Definitely agree on the bias towards D&D as that’s the focus of my channel. I was thinking about adding questions regarding time, for instance (“I strictly adhere to linear time while playing” is a good Narrativism vs Simulationism question that brings to mind Blades in the Dark in particular). I’m in the same camp for the vampire fight as well! But my players specifically didn’t approach the world from that much of a simulationism sense at first, so an outright loss wasn’t what they were expecting. Sounds like you’re leaning more towards the simulationism camp!
6.5 Narrativism, 5 Simulationism, 4 Gamism (EDIT: I've been a player/GM of various systems for about 15+ years and learned from my father a GM/player of 40+ years)
@@thebountifulmimic the answer is a yes but like anyone my mood and feelings do change. But the one thing that remains consistent is that i do not play TTRPG's for any gamification reasons. I like mechanics because they add elements of random chance to increase the dramatic tension of the role play. Which is much different than the mechanical gamified aspects of something like a video game where it exists for the purpose of competition and challenge
I don't think you were being "too simulstionist" in that vampire example. It's also narratively compelling to have a "big bad" (even if just the arcs big bad) show up and display their overwhelming power, so that the party can see its progress when they grow strong enough to defeat that power later. It's fair to say this should have been a "session zero" discussion. But I think it should be expected that things they can't beat will occasionally show up in the parties path, and they need to use their brains to not get themselves killed rushing into those battles. You don't jump in the pits in a Mario game. Avoiding hazards is also part of "gaming" in even the most loosely simulated world.
5:40 A simulationist, has these demons come from somewhere that can be interacted with in a unique way. You don't strike me as a simulationist. You only cover the other two in this case. A simulationist realizes there is history behind why the creatures are conjured, it comes from somewhere, and the conjurer has "sacrifices" or otherwise related to the costs and effects.
This part of the video was about Gamism vs Narrativism while the other 2 (N vs S and G vs S) are later on. The scenario itself was constructed just to explain the contrast, not to bring Simulationism into the picture. Apologies for the confusion!
Could you people help me figure out the meaning of this question in the quiz?😅 I am not sure if it's my second-language English, or am I not as sharp as I believed? And for the sake of fairness I will tell you, beyond two options there's a third as well, but sometimes silence justs as much as fairness, as well as fairness sometimes kills a man😯 What exactly am I supposed to answer to this: Placing fun, in depth puzzles in dungeons or hideouts is more important than not including them? because it wouldn't make sense how they got there? Which in essence means: You should place puzzles in dungeons BECAUSE it is unrealistic and makes 0 sense. Idk, It's so confusing to me 😓
Hey thanks for taking the quiz! Let me try to help. So that question specifically is about Gamism versus Simulationsim. Puzzles in dungeons are a big part of the game and go way back to classic D&D. From a gamism perspective, puzzles are challenges to overcome for the player and can add complexity and variety to dungeons. From a simulationism perspective, a question might arise: "Why is this puzzle in this dungeon in the first place? Who puts a puzzle in a dungeon?" Remember simulationism is about emulating a world that makes sense. So if the party is traveling through a crypt, why is there a puzzle where you have to move statues around? Who put that there and thought it was a good idea? Back to the question. Phrased another way, this is asking "Is it more important to place a puzzle into a dungeon or for the dungeon to make sense in the world?" Hope this helps!
@@thebountifulmimic Much thanks for this explanation! It illustrates the opposites alright! But would you be so kind and map for me the scale with measures: "Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree" onto this bipolar scale you've just described. Of course if it will not burden you
@@stanislavpogorelij3910 If you think you should include fun puzzles in a dungeon even if they don't make sense in the world, then you agree. If you think the world making sense is more important than placing puzzles in a dungeon, then you disagree
Oh my god I haven't found this theory discussed in years! I think as a method to label player preferences, it isn't terribly useful. You will find that all players enjoy all three elements, and if everyone enjoys all three elements, trying to divide player into categories is pointless. The theory was really great at providing a framework for thinking and criticizing the design of any game system or campaign. You highlighted some great ones at the end of your video. Floundering narratives is a problem I have seen in many a campaign. A classic gamist complaint is that a lack of certain elements in a game may cause class feature to be useless. For example, a Wizard has a feature that they can copy spells into their spellbook, however that feature is dependent upon the GM remembering to sprinkle scrolls as treasure throughout a campaign. These three elements are not actually directly connected either, like DnD 3.5e was both more simulationist and more gamist, but not necessarily better than DnD5e turned out to be. DnD 3.5e had strict and complicated rules surrounding encumbrance, traveling, how much you can push and pull, carrying capacity, exhaustion effect, and very strict limits of what creatures can accomplish. 3.5e was also more gamist because it allowed unbounded level growth. Leveling up always gave a +something, and they could grow as quickly, and old challenges would become impossible to fail. 5e uses quick and dirty rules for stuff like carrying capacity (strength x10) and it was designed with "bounded accuracy" to prevent unchecked growth of characters, .
Haha I don't know if that's entirely untrue. 5e is incredibly popular and much more digestible than many many other systems I can think of (older D&D editions come to mind, but also some of the systems I showed in the video). 5e is very approachable. It doesn't take a lot to set up a character and get going.
@@davidharper238 I’m curious. How do you continue to challenge your players? Does the plot drive them forward and the areas they end up in coincide with stronger monsters?
@@thebountifulmimic Thanks for asking! That is a big part of it. Might be a bit of a cop out but to me 'as the players follow a plot they end up in more dangerous situations/stronger entities take notice of them' feels WAY better than 'enemies scale to your level because game'. However, if everything just auto-levels to your players the world feels arbitrary and I just hate it. So I will also use encounters and enemies that are at a level that "makes sense" which sometimes means below. Influenced by the Alexandrian blog post about encounter scaling, I often throw weaker monsters as well. When I do so I try to give them a strategy or something like that that's engaging if not necessarily challenging. 'These bandits are going to have their wolves try and knock you down. Then they're going to grab something off you and book it. The challenge is to stand tall or stop them from running off with your stuff'. This isn't a miracle solution but it's worked well enough for me in the past that I keep doing it. And in theory it also means players get to feel that they've advanced 'in world' instead of just 'in theory'. Some places become safer than before. Worth saying, this blends into my actually having multiple combats per 'adventuring day'. Someone who doesn't want that, their mileage may vary.
@@yukitxz If you'd like to, you can download the quiz locally. It's open source on GitHub. github.com/Dng52/GNSQuiz/blob/main/index.html just click the download raw file button on the right and double click to open in a browser.
I'm having trouble with the following question in your quiz: "If a player’s action makes sense within the established lore, but breaks game balance, you still allow it to preserve the world’s consistency." I don't see how a single action can break game balance. Are we talking about them gaining some new ability? Or in some way breaking the rules of the game? Are we talking about something like becoming a lich? Because with the last one, there's ways of accomplishing that without breaking the game balance.
Let me try to explain where my head was at. This was a Gamism vs Simulationism question. It can definitely be a new ability. A lich is a good example, or maybe a character gains a major boon from a God or has different sets of rules because they're a fiend or fey. Even moving outside of D&D, Star Wars TTRPGs have to contend with this when one character is a strong force user like Luke Skywalker and another is a bounty hunter or pilot more like Han Solo. Similarly, I've noticed this with the Avatar: The Last Airbender TTRPG where benders and their abilities heavily outclass the strength and utility of non-benders. Ultimately it asks, is it okay for the game to be unbalanced if it better simulates the world?
@@thebountifulmimic For me, I think it's been easy enough in my experience to satisfy both if you really want to. I have played a few different systems, but I'm not the most varied roleplayer out there. So maybe my problem with the question has to do with that lack of variety. It just doesn't seem like something you *have* to choose between for me.
@@JarShar if a players turns into a werewolf in dnd they probably will gain a lot of mechanical boons for it (immunity for non-silver or magical weapons, for example). It might unbalance and even feel unfar to other players for it, especially at lower levels. What I would do as GM is allow the player to play as a werewolf but I would change it's habilities a bit so it's still fun to play but it doesn't feel unfar to other players. In this case, I'm sacrificing Simulationism for Gamism.
@@coronal2207 I’d be interested to hear your reasons. Ultimately, I find GNS interesting as a lens to view TTRPGs through. It’s hard to say if other theories are “better” or “worse” because they’re usually suited for other things. This video goes over how I have found GNS useful in analyzing DMing D&D
Technically it's a hypothesis not a theory The way you're Using theory is a colloquialism The same colloquialism responsible for flat earth foolishness
@@TheinternetArchaeologist I didn’t come up with the term GNS Theory, but even if I did, there are other definitions of the word the encompass more than the strict definition ascribed to scientific theories. Just like how Graph Theory in math is just about the principles of graphs and their applications, so too is GNS Theory about the principles of GNS and some applications towards TTRPGs.
It’s important to remember that GNS are goals of play more than preferences. Thinking of them as preferences makes sense when we’re on their own, but thinking of them as goals lets us talk to our other players about what we’re interested in better.
Love the quiz! I got 8G, 6N, 6S. I love playing these games as they are, excited to see what emerges whether that’s worlds or stories or just a grand old time.
Very insightful! I honestly had never heard of simulationism before taking the quiz, and my initial thought was that it made up the "crunchy numbers" side of gamism, like ammo and exhaustion. Instead, it almost feels like the crunchy numbers side of both gamism and narrativism: the minutiae of worldbuilding taken to the extreme. Now I know that my simulationism would be my biggest blind spot when i finally run a campaign!
you don't need to simulate anything. that's not the point of a game.
I always explained wizard level ups as research. I tend to preselect spells and mention that I'm working on them.
Which way I lean depends on the game I play.
* When I play D&D, I think I primarily want a gamist experience. Maybe 60/20/20 if we imagine splitting up my proorities into 100%.
* When I played in an Invisible Sun campaign, Narrativism was more important. Maybe 30/50/20.
* As a GM/SToryteller of Mage: The Awakening, I've leaned simulationist by caring a fair bit about justifying why certain things are the way they are, and also honouring whatever strange outcomes we get. Perhaps 20/30/50.
* and I think for each game and table of players, I feel a little bit differently about it
Because of this, when I tried to take your quiz, I realised the answer was simply 'it depends'.
Absolutely! To me, it's almost the reason as to why many TTRPGs exist in the first place. I'd never look for a heavy gamism filled session in Blades in the Dark, but if I'm feeling strategic and gamism-y I could always pick up some D&D 3.5e. The best way I can think to answer the quiz if you're in an "it depends" mood is answer once per TTRPG if you're up for it.
@@thebountifulmimic I find it so interesting, for my part, find myself at the other side of the spectrum on this. I've been a forever Storyteller for Vampire the Masquerade (I got 8 simulationism, 7 Narrativism, and 3 Gamism. But For the past 2 years I've been finding myself with a unquenchable thirst for high fantasy game, like Pathfinder...but even then, I don't feel more incline to be a gamism player, I feel as much pull toward simulationism and because of that I expect I would be prone to house rule if I ever get to run a campaign. But even as a players, I am very much not interested in the gamism aspect of game, it occupy a very low priority in my mind. And so to me, although it might sound like a sacrilege to many DND purist and pathfinder and other wargame enthusiast, but Critical Role way of playing the game is much closer to how I run my game of vampire, and how I would hope to have the chance to play as a player in dnd or pathfinder. A deep emphasis on RP, and narrative before gamism.
OP - I would run those games with a similar approach
According to your quiz, I am GNS 567. I am an old school grognard and run a hexcrawl sandbox using the 1981 basic/expert rules. There is no "story" save what the players choose to do. I use the rules and conceits of the system to inform the game world. I don't change the rules to be more realistic, I change the world to make the rules make sense. Players need to ask questions to make informed choices. A lot happens without a die roll. But if the dice come out, they are the final arbiters. Otherwise it's not the player characters driving the story, it's me imposing a narrative structure on them.
You are criminally undersubscribed, by the way. Really good video!
I don't know why this is considered a "dead" theory of RPGs. GNS theory has helped me make sense of my gaming habits.
I certainly think there should be a revival of sorts with an understanding that the theory should evolve and adapt. There has been lots of criticism of GNS especially because the original intent of the theory was to prescribe 1 attribute to a player and the advice was to focus on only 1 when making an RPG. Based on forums I’ve read, it seems like the original intent expanded a bit over time, but other models were developed that were deemed more in line with reality. I’m still a GNS fan though!
It was never the case that any game or player only appealed to/cared about a single aspect of GNS. It's a triple constraint spectrum, where both games and players fall somewhere in the middle. The point of GNS theory was to know where you fall on the triangle, and ensure your game design matches that intended target audience.
@@insomnolant6043 I don't disagree that this is the way that GNS Theory *should* be thought of, but this was not the lead designer Ron Edwards' intent. It's clear Edwards thought you fell into one camp with very little overlap. There's also the idea that people might change their alignment in GNS Theory depending on which system they're playing which isn't addressed by GNS Theory. Quotes from the article that started it all called System Does Matter: "Three player aims or outlooks have been suggested, in that a given player approaches a role-playing situation pretty much from one of them, with some, but not much, crossover possible...I suggest that building the system specifically to accord with one of these outlooks is the first priority of RPG design...I suggest a good system is one which knows its outlook and doesn't waste any mechanics on the other two outlooks."
That's only really relevant if you look at the Forge as a cult with a Dear Leader instead of what it really was: a discussion forum where people hashed out ideas. I certainly agree that some people treated it as a cult of personality, but there was much more useful conversation going on if you ignored that and stayed away from the coattail riders and suck-ups.
@@insomnolant6043 100% agree. People's perspectives were fantastic to read through, but ultimately the criticism and rebuttals were directed towards Edwards' original proposals. I'm glad there are people like yourself that enjoy the theory as I do to keep it alive.
Listening to your comments on wizards leveling up I'm once again reminded of how well AD&D 1e handled it. Wizards leveled up by going to a higher level wizard and paying them gold to teach them. They then spent time working with that wizard and in the process they learned new spells.
And so did everyone else. You didn't just need to train to learn spells, but to go up levels at all.
But spending weeks training every level is incredibly disruptive to both any kind of narrative, but also to simulation itself in terms of the world being a living place that keeps on moving whatever the PCs are doing. It really only works in a particular kind of campaign - the kind with no time pressure and plenty of downtime between expeditions into the local dungeons. The kind that was the norm for the earliest D&D campaigns.
'And it isn't really necessary even for simulation, since the whole problem stems from the assumption that wizards can only learn spell from being taught by other wizards. The game itself even says that those spells "reflect the arcane research you conduct on your own, as well as intellectual breakthroughs" - and other editions had similar language. You can of course still seek out others to learn more spells from, but you're smart enough to figure some stuff out on your own. Just like the fighter practices fighting and the rogue practices lock picking and everything else.
How poorly, you mean. Games should be fun. They shouldn't be simulations.
@@mrosskne The whole point of GNS is that people find fun in different ways.
No, some people are just idiots.
Probably the best summary of GNS theory I've seen. Many dismiss GNS because of dumb things Edwards went on to say afterward, but the foundation of GNS theory is solid and important. The Quiz is also good. It told me exactly what I expected it would G:4, N:6, S:8.
I never truly got the cabbages joke from Discworld until now, I think it's a joke on going into painstaking detail about an economy
The Vampire attack was a good idea. The mistake was not informing them beforehand that encounters would not be balanced. They just need to know that they are gonna have to decide if the fight is winnable or if they need a better plan. This actually makes the ranger way more useful.
The encounter balancing atuff in the book isnt so that you can make balanced encounters for them to face. Its just there so you can gauge how difficult an encounter would be.
I once had my players face a Beholder when they were level 3. They knew they weren't strong enough to take ot head on so they prepared really well instead. They destroyed it without anyone going down with the strategic use of arrows, fire, flower and nails.
Really good explanation of various gaming philosophies. One thing that took me years to understand (and I’ve been playing D&D for over 40 years now), was the importance of letting the player’s/characters have a real and lasting impact on the world. If their actions matter to the point of changing governments, averting (or starting) wars, it enhances the story and really galvanizes their investment in the world as well)
Reminds me of the poisoned condition in D&D 5E. Poisoned condition and poison are not the same. Some poisons don't give the condition, they just do damage. Some foul smells don't actually poison you, but they give you the poisoned condition.
This is good as a guide not a strict ruling. Helping understand what both your players are wanting from a session/campaign and what you're capable of providing helps make the experience better for everyone.
Sometimes people just want to roll dice.
Sometimes people want brutal fun but don't want the sluggishness of full simulation.
Gamification is easy and light for a lot because they want more story but not so much of the rules.
There's no one size fits all but it better helps deliver the experience.
Within less than a minute of the video starting, I knew I was going to come up as a simulationist. And I was right.
Personally, I prefer building living worlds and then having my players come in and wreck shop, the pieces then fall where they may and you get interesting(if not always particularly dramatic) story.
My biggest problem with GNS is how the conversation around it typically focus on potential conflict rather than synergies. Most rpgs make finding good in-fiction moves (sim) optimal, by awarding in-game bonuses. Most settings designed specifically for RPGs are made to be rich in story inspiration if dived into. Stories feed into the gaming experience by providing stakes.
So it might be a usefull lens, but maybe more in the way that any being underrepresented might indicate that you are not getting the most out of the RPG experience due to missing synergies. This as opposed to the take I have found more common - to try to cultivate one spesific in order to limit potential conflict.
I tend to run a Narrativist game in a Simulationist world - the world runs in the background, and I keep approximate tabs on things, but it's never the focus *unless and until* the players decide to interact with it. The story is what the party does, where they go, the mechanics and the world are there to give a consistent framework for the story.
Narrative feels like the free writer and simulation it’s feels like the outliner writer.
So add gamism to a traditional book and you get an RPG. Interesting way of looking at rpgs
This division doesn't seem that uselful to me. According to the quiz I'm a 776, which may as well say I care about all of them equally. It makes some sense as I tend to like it much more when gamism is working with the other two rather than fighting them. Basically, when the gamist outcome coincides with the others, which is quite possible if the game is designed that way. Probably why this theory is considered dead at this point.
It is dead because it is a largely incorrect and useless hypothesis, and not a tested theory in the first place.
Great to see simulationism back in the conversation! There's been kind of a false dichotomy between narrative focus and mechanics focus. I think Jim Murphy put it best when Matt Colville interviewed him: He wants to know "what really would have happened" if he was an adventurer.
I've come to realise this is something I miss from 3.5e, where PCs and monsters are constructed using the same rules. 3.5e vs 4e and 5e typifies the simulationist vs gamist conflict for me. I'd be interested to know why GNS theory is discredited, because the points you raised from it made sense.
Agreed.
Wanna do a second take about the history of the GNS Theory, @thebountifulmimic?
@@MauroDraco If people are interested I’d love to talk more about it!
The main problem with GNS is that it:
a) Assumes that the three goals are mutually exclusive and in opposition to each other (or, at least it does when it was initially laid out by Edwards)
b) Ignores the ways that the three goals interact. My biggest example of this is that game mechanics can exist to enhance themes within a game (this is called ludonarrative resonance in the context of video game design), thus meaning that the "gamist" aspect of a game supports the "narrativist" aspect.
@@drfiveminusminus yeah, for sure it is always valid to acknowledge and remind frequently that every model has limits on what they can express or explain and that no model substitutes reality
the forge was an amazing place and probably part of the RPG renewal
I just don't agree that these three things always have to be in conflict. I believe that they *can* be in conflict sometimes but other times they might enhance one another and one doesn't always have to do less of one to do more of another. That said, thinking about the tensions between these three things can offer insights into what sorts of things we like in a D and D game (or any other rpg) even if the theory is flawed or incomplete. It is sort of like the alignment system for characters. It is definitely limited and not realistic but it can still offer insights into the characters and their motivations and personalities.
Agree!
The simulation should be paramount, and a good simulation with interesting bones will produce great narratives. And fun game mechanics should be used to simulate the narrative simulation.
A word of advice. When a player asks for someones name just say "they tell you their name." This works for any piece of information that you don't have prepared. It's not important who the Baron is right away, it's just important that the character "knows" who the Baron is. You can fill it out in more detail as needed later on.
I did that little GNS test in the description and got an even perfect result in all sections.
Great video. All three are pillars which make TTRPGs what they are requirements for any game. Still, people can lean into their preferences, and even certain systems have certain preferences inherent in their systems.
as an artist, i can't help but think of the 60-30-10 rule for colors in character design. essentially, this means a good palette will use one main color or hue on 60% of the character, a second accent color on 30% of the character, and the rest of the palette on 10%. perhaps you could use this to define and craft campaigns - a campaign with 60% of its time spent on narrative pursuits, 30% on gamism, and 10% on simulationism would be more akin to a movie or rollercoaster ride, where the plot drives most of the action, but also provides exciting setpieces in the form of mechanical challenges to add drama and player agency. very little attention is paid to things outside of the player's direct sphere of influence. one with 60% simulationism, 30% narrativism, and 10% gamism is all about getting lost in the world, with only the loosest of rules to keep things flowing. the players might not roll a die for hours, just describing their actions and watching the npcs react accordingly. finally, a campaign with 60% gamism, 30% simulationism, and 10% narrativism is closest to a video game, where the world is designed to be exploited, and exploitation is a win condition. the players may "solve" systems like they're a puzzle or defeat peaceful negotiations the same way they would a combat encounter. if you're dming one of these, it could help you figure out where to spend your planning time, so you don't stress out about being mortal and therefore not being equally amazing at all 3 tenets of design. the focus of the campaign, the 60%, should have the most thought put into it, with the 30% being used to support and highlight that aspect. the 10% is only there to glue the other two parts together.
...but maybe i'm totally off base and that wouldn't be a good way to plan a campaign. idk! it was just a stray thought. good video lol
@@ryanwillingham I think this is a helpful baseline for sure. I would even add that you can start with these 60-30-10 preferences and choose a TTRPG system based on that. If you’re looking for 60% narrativism 30% simulationism, you could be looking for something that D&D doesn’t fulfill, for instance, so it’s a good baseline to find a system that supports your needs more
I really like this way of framing it. I've been having issues trying to rationalize more liner game narratives to myself. Seeing it as a rollercoaster helps validate it. I'm not trying to bore my players with the events at all. I want them to be over the top, dramatic, and exciting filled with gameified tension in combat and fun spins on mechanics we've never tried. Even if that means they weren't allowed to fart around in the woods nearby because the castle was where the action is.
@@thebountifulmimic oh, absolutely! i've always enjoyed blades in the dark precisely because of its rich world and the way it weaves the narrative into its mechanics. there's a system out there for everyone.
@@secretlyaslug2325 i've been there, definitely. for every player out there who wants a sandbox, there's another player who would be happiest on the orient express. it's hard to find the delicate balance between showing off the best bits of the story and respecting the player's desires, especially when they're at odds. sometimes the best moments come from when your plans fall to pieces, and sometimes the players have unintentionally brought everything to a screeching halt. maybe that excursion into the woods is secretly an exciting opportunity, or maybe it's just a waste of time.
i've personally had issues letting players die, because i always want them to succeed and keep the rollercoaster going. logically, i know that failure is more interesting than success, but emotionally, i don't want to kill off the heroes! i'm slowly retraining my brain to pull less punches and roll with the ones that land. with time, i'm sure i'll reframe death into an opportunity.
7 Simulationism 6 Gamism 7 Narrative
Almost perfectly balanced. I'd call myself an immersimist.
I got 676 on the quiz. I like narrative as the driving factor, but I understand the need for mechanical and world consistency
Really interesting video, I just did your quiz I got (I thought I was 100% a narrativist), and I am, but I got 8 at simulationism, 7 at narrativism and 3 at gamism. I think its fair.
Wow that's interesting! Are you more often a DM or a player? I wonder what the people you play with perceive you as.
@@thebountifulmimic Forever DM/GM or Storyteller (as it is called in Vampire the masquerade). I just ask two of my very close friend one is also a game master (he got a 5 in gamism, 6 in Simulationism, and 5 in narrativism... he told me my result fitted my personality. Another friend got mostly the same result 6, 6, 6 lol and told me, that my result fit my personality to be very much against the game, when the game start preventing me from trying to tell the story I am trying to tell.
Took your quiz. Got a 7 on Simulation, 6 on Narrative, 5 on Game.
If I'm reading the results correctly, I got G(5), N(7), S(7). Very middle-of-the-road, which makes sense to me 🤠
Great video. I've been thinking a lot about categorization of ttrpgs not from a player perspective, but from a design perspective. I think these terms are a bit less useful when analyzing the types of ttrpgs there are for that matter. Gonna have to conjure some new terms!
Looking forward to seeing more from this channel!
The more you attempt to apply simulationism into D&D, the more the system will fight back due to how many concepts the system abstracts and because the gamist agenda is often at odds with the simulationist agenda.
I'd say one of the best TTRPG systems for those that lean simulationist is GURPS. It has a plethora of combat options that allow you to try things you can do in the real world and has one-second combat rounds (which may sound very nit-picky but allows for the flow of combat to happen more simultaneously than D&D's 6-second rounds). Non-powered humans in GURPS can also go down pretty quickly (especially when they're not wearing armor) and traits make a hell of a lot more sense (stronger characters have more hit points, being proficient in one skill may provide leeway with related skills, etc.)
Another option is to apply simulationist mechanics to a game system that is relatively rules-light, like many OSR games, because they have less moving parts to clash with.
Last but not least, applying simulationist principles doesn't necessarily mean that everything needs a specific game mechanic or needs to be numerically measured. The GM can have the game world react as a real place and apply real-world consequences, even when it would come into conflict with gamist mechanics. Someone slit your throat when you were asleep? No, don't roll damage, because hit points only apply in a combat scenario; you're bleeding out and will die in 2d6 seconds.
Terrific video. I haven’t thought about GNS for twenty years as most of my play or GMing is from experience and instincts. I’ve always been interested mainly in narrative, followed by simulation, with less focus on gaming. I followed the link and narrative is 6, simulation is 6, with gaming at 3. I’m surprised that narrative isn’t higher but I’m not as pushy as I once was. I prefer a good balance and go with the flow of the players. Every so often, I do enjoy focusing on one aspect of RPG. I was exposed to this with Dragonlance modules that had scenes dedicated to drama, pivotal events and mini games. I think this lets players really enjoy the parts of RPG they find most interesting. When GMing I find it more important to know about your players and PCs, more so than giving them world details and lore. An RPG can be theatre of the mind, story, tactical simulation, board game, investigation, and just plain silliness. Everyone has different expectations of TTRPGs and talking about those in advance reduces the chance of awkward situations and general boredom.
I'm all three, but which one I lean into at any given time depends on my mood and who I'm playing with.
Great vid. Best (truest to the source material) summary of GNS theory I’ve watched on UA-cam. And I agree, despite the community’s dismissal of it, this (and Edwards’s Big Model) are very useful as a framework, a lens, and I consider and reference them often. Something to check out regarding narrativism: one might consider narrativism as being primarily concerned with “good story structures,” like the short story structure model (literary), “The Heroes Journey” (mythological), and/or Aristotle’s model for good Tragedy from his *Poetics* (Theatrical). If you aren’t familiar with this last one, I recommend looking up his list of qualities, and their order of importance (Plot, Character, etc. - though note that in D&D, the players control Character, and they share Plot control with the DM), bc player agency), because D&D, like theatre, is a “live, performative medium, enjoyed collectively in a group” unlike literature. (Note: it only is useful for the “entertainment” part of the game experience - the part that is enjoyed by observing what others do, and obviously does not address the necessary “recreation” part of the experience -the part that is enjoyed by *doing* rather than observing). Great stuff. Liked, and subscribed.
ICYMI, I’ve read that Edward’s later regretted his choice of word for the playstyle he named “Simulationism,” and suggested that “Emulationism” may have been a better fit, semantically. Useful, I think, for helping people understand what he intended, and to circumvent the common misunderstanding that it is “simulating the real world.”
@@zachhanks4399 Wow yes, I’ll definitely take a deeper dive into Poetics/Theatrical. Thanks so much for the information.
I got 6G, 6.3S, 6.6N. I know there aren't any decimals but that's about what it looks like.
Amazing video mate. Terribly underrated.
@@Achern4r Thank you so much! Sharing the video and quiz could really help out
I think it would be cool to compare the results of the quizzes to how long the responders have been playing D&D. I personally initially got into D&D because I enjoyed the narrative and some simulation aspects of the game. Once I got comfortable with the rules and more experienced, I got more gamey to challenge my creativity with the rules and spice things up. Currently though, I feel like I've shifted back to a more narrative focus as I got tired of messing around with the rules and wanted to think more about what they represent.
The quiz I made doesn't collect data, so I wouldn't be able to do a comparison without people sending me their results. But that sounds really interesting! I'm curious, have you tried other TTRPGs? How do you feel about the GNS of those systems?
I can provide an additional datapoint here from my own experience:
Starting off D&D - Simulationist
Veteran Player- Gamist
First time DM - Gamist
Veteran DM - Narrativist
Getting into Worldbuilding - Simulationist
Nowadays- Narrativist (G5N7S6 according to the quiz)
To answer your other question - I think systems GREATLY vary in the GNS triangle. D&D mostly falls into Gamist and far away from Simulationist. Numenera and White Wolf are Simulationist. Blades in the Dark and Fiasco are Narrativist. Etc.
I got, G:4 S:6.5 N:6 , Guess it makes since why in digital games I like things like Dwarf Fortress, or Cataclysm Dark Days Ahead. And more crunchy story based RPGs.
I am 100% a Simulationist...don't even need the quiz! lol (took it anyway - and I was mostly right; the other dimensions were NOT zero)
*tenets - tenants live in a rented property 😅
GNS only buried cos Ron Edwards was totally inflexible with it - if he bothered to actually learn how games are played, GNS would have gained much more traction
The idea that every monster or villain that the players come across should be a challenging, but winnable fight is one of the things I find wrong with the way people play D&D nowadays.
Not role-playing, there are plenty of different role-playing games out there with different styles. But D&D historically, was not a game that was intended to be fair.
Gary gygax was not what you would call a fair DM nowadays.
He created the tomb of horrors because too many PCs were living.
Players need to learn how to retreat, regroup, and then go after the bigger challenge.
And if the GM has to lay it out for him at the beginning, which I do, telling him that they are probably not going to be able to win every fight, that the fights aren't necessarily going to be fair, then they're warned and they know and maybe they should retreat sometimes.
Incredibly biased test to DnD specifically, despite showing other TTRPGs earlier in the video. There are ways for Simulationism/Narrativism to coexist in even ways, I would never hesitate to let my players try to fight a vampire and lose horribly. Balance is only useful as a way to simplify the process of weighing an encounter, but I hate using it to make the fight “even,” sometimes my players need to stomp and sometimes they need to be stomped.😊
@@yeoldeharbinger5880 Definitely agree on the bias towards D&D as that’s the focus of my channel. I was thinking about adding questions regarding time, for instance (“I strictly adhere to linear time while playing” is a good Narrativism vs Simulationism question that brings to mind Blades in the Dark in particular).
I’m in the same camp for the vampire fight as well! But my players specifically didn’t approach the world from that much of a simulationism sense at first, so an outright loss wasn’t what they were expecting. Sounds like you’re leaning more towards the simulationism camp!
Situations in this story like this are often where I give my players a choice. Die and make new characters or become lackeys.
I feel somewhat balanced for once! It looks as if my GNS is 5G, 5.75N, 5.25S.
GNS predicts nothing. It's not a theory.
6.5 Narrativism, 5 Simulationism, 4 Gamism (EDIT: I've been a player/GM of various systems for about 15+ years and learned from my father a GM/player of 40+ years)
@@LB_adventurer Do you think the results are reflective of how you see yourself as a player/GM?
@@thebountifulmimic the answer is a yes but like anyone my mood and feelings do change. But the one thing that remains consistent is that i do not play TTRPG's for any gamification reasons. I like mechanics because they add elements of random chance to increase the dramatic tension of the role play. Which is much different than the mechanical gamified aspects of something like a video game where it exists for the purpose of competition and challenge
another bountiful video from the bountiful mimic
I don't think you were being "too simulstionist" in that vampire example. It's also narratively compelling to have a "big bad" (even if just the arcs big bad) show up and display their overwhelming power, so that the party can see its progress when they grow strong enough to defeat that power later.
It's fair to say this should have been a "session zero" discussion. But I think it should be expected that things they can't beat will occasionally show up in the parties path, and they need to use their brains to not get themselves killed rushing into those battles. You don't jump in the pits in a Mario game. Avoiding hazards is also part of "gaming" in even the most loosely simulated world.
Hey look! my quiz results are blank!!
It's ok, I'm a simulationist.
@@kylelind6239 Is the quiz not working for you? Sounds like I have some troubleshooting to do
Sim 7, game 2.5, narrative 8
5:40 A simulationist, has these demons come from somewhere that can be interacted with in a unique way. You don't strike me as a simulationist.
You only cover the other two in this case.
A simulationist realizes there is history behind why the creatures are conjured, it comes from somewhere, and the conjurer has "sacrifices" or otherwise related to the costs and effects.
This part of the video was about Gamism vs Narrativism while the other 2 (N vs S and G vs S) are later on. The scenario itself was constructed just to explain the contrast, not to bring Simulationism into the picture. Apologies for the confusion!
Could you people help me figure out the meaning of this question in the quiz?😅 I am not sure if it's my second-language English, or am I not as sharp as I believed? And for the sake of fairness I will tell you, beyond two options there's a third as well, but sometimes silence justs as much as fairness, as well as fairness sometimes kills a man😯
What exactly am I supposed to answer to this:
Placing fun, in depth puzzles in dungeons or hideouts is more important than not including them? because it wouldn't make sense how they got there?
Which in essence means:
You should place puzzles in dungeons BECAUSE it is unrealistic and makes 0 sense.
Idk, It's so confusing to me 😓
Hey thanks for taking the quiz! Let me try to help. So that question specifically is about Gamism versus Simulationsim. Puzzles in dungeons are a big part of the game and go way back to classic D&D. From a gamism perspective, puzzles are challenges to overcome for the player and can add complexity and variety to dungeons. From a simulationism perspective, a question might arise: "Why is this puzzle in this dungeon in the first place? Who puts a puzzle in a dungeon?" Remember simulationism is about emulating a world that makes sense. So if the party is traveling through a crypt, why is there a puzzle where you have to move statues around? Who put that there and thought it was a good idea?
Back to the question. Phrased another way, this is asking "Is it more important to place a puzzle into a dungeon or for the dungeon to make sense in the world?" Hope this helps!
@@thebountifulmimic Much thanks for this explanation! It illustrates the opposites alright!
But would you be so kind and map for me the scale with measures: "Strongly Disagree
Neutral
Strongly Agree"
onto this bipolar scale you've just described. Of course if it will not burden you
@@stanislavpogorelij3910 If you think you should include fun puzzles in a dungeon even if they don't make sense in the world, then you agree.
If you think the world making sense is more important than placing puzzles in a dungeon, then you disagree
Oh my god I haven't found this theory discussed in years! I think as a method to label player preferences, it isn't terribly useful. You will find that all players enjoy all three elements, and if everyone enjoys all three elements, trying to divide player into categories is pointless. The theory was really great at providing a framework for thinking and criticizing the design of any game system or campaign. You highlighted some great ones at the end of your video. Floundering narratives is a problem I have seen in many a campaign. A classic gamist complaint is that a lack of certain elements in a game may cause class feature to be useless. For example, a Wizard has a feature that they can copy spells into their spellbook, however that feature is dependent upon the GM remembering to sprinkle scrolls as treasure throughout a campaign. These three elements are not actually directly connected either, like DnD 3.5e was both more simulationist and more gamist, but not necessarily better than DnD5e turned out to be. DnD 3.5e had strict and complicated rules surrounding encumbrance, traveling, how much you can push and pull, carrying capacity, exhaustion effect, and very strict limits of what creatures can accomplish. 3.5e was also more gamist because it allowed unbounded level growth. Leveling up always gave a +something, and they could grow as quickly, and old challenges would become impossible to fail. 5e uses quick and dirty rules for stuff like carrying capacity (strength x10) and it was designed with "bounded accuracy" to prevent unchecked growth of characters, .
Yar.. good insights. Just commenting for the algo.
Not even a minute into the video, D&D 5e labelled as "popular easy introduction" already killed me. That is as untrue as it gets.
Haha I don't know if that's entirely untrue. 5e is incredibly popular and much more digestible than many many other systems I can think of (older D&D editions come to mind, but also some of the systems I showed in the video). 5e is very approachable. It doesn't take a lot to set up a character and get going.
I DESPISE the idea of just scaling the monsters to the players wherever they go. So, ah, no test needed I guess
@@davidharper238 I’m curious. How do you continue to challenge your players? Does the plot drive them forward and the areas they end up in coincide with stronger monsters?
@@thebountifulmimic Thanks for asking! That is a big part of it. Might be a bit of a cop out but to me 'as the players follow a plot they end up in more dangerous situations/stronger entities take notice of them' feels WAY better than 'enemies scale to your level because game'.
However, if everything just auto-levels to your players the world feels arbitrary and I just hate it. So I will also use encounters and enemies that are at a level that "makes sense" which sometimes means below.
Influenced by the Alexandrian blog post about encounter scaling, I often throw weaker monsters as well. When I do so I try to give them a strategy or something like that that's engaging if not necessarily challenging.
'These bandits are going to have their wolves try and knock you down. Then they're going to grab something off you and book it. The challenge is to stand tall or stop them from running off with your stuff'.
This isn't a miracle solution but it's worked well enough for me in the past that I keep doing it. And in theory it also means players get to feel that they've advanced 'in world' instead of just 'in theory'. Some places become safer than before.
Worth saying, this blends into my actually having multiple combats per 'adventuring day'. Someone who doesn't want that, their mileage may vary.
@@davidharper238 Great approach! You and I have similar simulationism perspectives!
@@thebountifulmimic Thanks!
I got G7 N6 S6
The quiz isn't working for me :(
Sorry to hear that. Which part isn’t working? Are the results not generating or can you not access the link
@@thebountifulmimic the results :( I tried in other browsers and pcs even
@@yukitxz If you'd like to, you can download the quiz locally. It's open source on GitHub. github.com/Dng52/GNSQuiz/blob/main/index.html just click the download raw file button on the right and double click to open in a browser.
Wizard juice to gay new spells by finding spell books. And wizards develop their own spells from the knowledge they learn in books
i got a 5
I'm having trouble with the following question in your quiz: "If a player’s action makes sense within the established lore, but breaks game balance, you still allow it to preserve the world’s consistency." I don't see how a single action can break game balance. Are we talking about them gaining some new ability? Or in some way breaking the rules of the game? Are we talking about something like becoming a lich? Because with the last one, there's ways of accomplishing that without breaking the game balance.
Let me try to explain where my head was at. This was a Gamism vs Simulationism question. It can definitely be a new ability. A lich is a good example, or maybe a character gains a major boon from a God or has different sets of rules because they're a fiend or fey. Even moving outside of D&D, Star Wars TTRPGs have to contend with this when one character is a strong force user like Luke Skywalker and another is a bounty hunter or pilot more like Han Solo. Similarly, I've noticed this with the Avatar: The Last Airbender TTRPG where benders and their abilities heavily outclass the strength and utility of non-benders. Ultimately it asks, is it okay for the game to be unbalanced if it better simulates the world?
@@thebountifulmimic For me, I think it's been easy enough in my experience to satisfy both if you really want to. I have played a few different systems, but I'm not the most varied roleplayer out there. So maybe my problem with the question has to do with that lack of variety. It just doesn't seem like something you *have* to choose between for me.
@@JarShar if a players turns into a werewolf in dnd they probably will gain a lot of mechanical boons for it (immunity for non-silver or magical weapons, for example). It might unbalance and even feel unfar to other players for it, especially at lower levels. What I would do as GM is allow the player to play as a werewolf but I would change it's habilities a bit so it's still fun to play but it doesn't feel unfar to other players. In this case, I'm sacrificing Simulationism for Gamism.
There's a good reason why GNS is dead and there are better theories to replace it with. Why choose did u choose to use GNS instead of those?
@@coronal2207 I’d be interested to hear your reasons. Ultimately, I find GNS interesting as a lens to view TTRPGs through. It’s hard to say if other theories are “better” or “worse” because they’re usually suited for other things. This video goes over how I have found GNS useful in analyzing DMing D&D
Technically it's a hypothesis not a theory The way you're
Using theory is a colloquialism The same colloquialism responsible for flat earth foolishness
@@TheinternetArchaeologist I didn’t come up with the term GNS Theory, but even if I did, there are other definitions of the word the encompass more than the strict definition ascribed to scientific theories. Just like how Graph Theory in math is just about the principles of graphs and their applications, so too is GNS Theory about the principles of GNS and some applications towards TTRPGs.