It seems inevitable that in a blog about gaming that I should address one of the biggest theoretical frameworks in the scholarship of the role-playing game: GNS. This theory has proven controversial and useful, and while I have significant problems with it, I think it does provide a useful potential heuristic device for examining game design.
So, What is GNS? The idea of GNS is that there is a division between gaming styles, effectively that different people play games for different reasons. The theory divides those reasons into thress separate styles: Gamism, Narrativism and Simulationism. Different games meet those styles in different ways, some addressing individual styles more than others. Gamist style play focuses on the overcoming of obstacles and challenges, the solving of puzzles, the meeting of strategic challenges. Narrativist style play focuses on being part of a story, serving out a narrative role. Simulationist style play focuses on experiential parts of game, playing out a set of experiences in a fictional context.
Now, I call this a heuristic. What do I mean by that? I mean that such a division is artificial and meaningless outside of its own parameters. These styles are a way of analyzing aspects of game design, but are not pure categories. You can't really say something is a gamist game, per se. It is more or less a meaningless category, but I think that it can be a useful meaningless category.
Gamism, Narrativism and Simulationism are best seen as linked aspects of a game. What narrative exists where the characters do not have to overcome some form of challenge to achieve resolution? Can a story exist where people don't engage with the experience of the character? Doesn't an understanding of internal perspective enrich the experience of playing a game in a way that goes beyond the mere challenge? These things are inherently linked. An experience might engage one dimension more extensively than others, but they can't be truly separated and that does, to a certain extent, render them meaningless outside of context.
But that doesn't mean they aren't potentially useful. I get pleasure from engaging each of these categories, whether its playing a tactical simulation, telling a grand narrative or delving into the subjective experience of a different person. Not everyone has the same level of ambiversion that permits them to get pleasure from all three, and understanding how different players engage with the same game material can help you design games that appeal to all three experiential styles and can do so mindfully.
Mindful experience design allows for a number of options. First, because these different styles can be engaged in different ways, you can choose how you engage those styles. For instance, the gamist style of play and experience can be engaged by the inclusion of puzzles or riddles or breaks within narrative necessitating problem solving. It could also be engaged by a robust system and the opportunity for tactical challenges. By choosing one of those styles for an individual game, the Storyteller can be more mindful of the styles of engagement being provided within the game. They can better plan for how to provide those experiences and include increased transparency as to what players can expect.
Ultimately, this ties into two upcoming posts. First, the potential for transparency in game. By making mindful decisions, you can be transparent about those decisions and help your players engage with game. Second, the potential for selective gaming. Not every game needs to be for every player. By being transparent about experiential styles, players can make choices as to whether a game will meet their needs for participation. While I will address these ideas in later posts, they are extremely relevant to the idea of using GNS. GNS is best used as a form of mindful design. It is not a useful way of describing a game, but it can be a way of thinking about a game in aspects. In essence, it is a perfect heuristic; useful, but pointless out of context.
No comments:
Post a Comment