Well, I tried really hard to read GNS theory and my impression is that it is pure gibberish. It can’t even describe the bedrock TTRPG experience as anything but “ …(A) halting and incoherent mix of Gamism and Simulationism”. I actually didn’t set out to condemn it, but I sincerely cannot think of a more damning condemnation of a ttrpg theory than that.
Let me illustrate just how wrongheaded the theory is;
Imagine that you’d never heard of roleplaying games and had no concept of even playing them like games at all. You come up with an idea for an activity, let’s call it “labyrinth explorer”, where you design a huge, elaborate labyrinthine world and its denizens, and your friends all take on the role of explorers creeping through it.
There aren’t any rules to speak of when you start; just a very fundamental “call and response” style play, where:
You describe the surroundings to the players (based on your map and notes of the area)
They each tell you what activity they’d like to engage in, and for how long
You describe the outcomes of their activities
So you have this diceless, mechanicless experience with only a few concrete boundaries:
The labyrinth and everything in it is “real”; you, as the narrator, deny yourself the capacity to edit anything you’ve written down during the game. You can edit things prior to play if they haven’t been encountered, but after they’re a part of play, they’re “concrete”
The world of the labyrinth operates on generally the same physical and psychological principles as our own; you, as the narrator, and to a lesser extent your players, are all committed to upholding this integrity so that the world can be “explored” as genuinely as possible
As you continue to run sessions of labyrinth explorer for your friends, you find the desire for the unexpected creeping in. It feels somewhat arbitrary to say one explorer can succeed at a task while another fails, and there’s no real tension to a violent encounter, since you’re certain of its outcome unless the explorer’s tactics really surprise you.
So, you introduce a few simple randomizers. Roll a die and get over a target number sort of things, rock simple but satisfying because:
They take the outcome of reasonably uncertain but possible actions out of your control, allowing the world to surprise both you and the explorers
They create true tension and stakes, despite their simple framework
A simple extension of these principles leads you to devise what we would call “wandering monster charts” based on the untrackably complex movements of the denizens of the labyrinth. Now, the time spent performing tasks risks encounters with the roving inhabitants of the labyrinth, adding another exciting and tense element to exploration.
And so it goes, I’m certain you all see where I’m heading with this. You eventually evolve something very similar to our collectively well-known alliterative hobby, keeping the principles I outlined above intact.
This is, essentially, the most intuitive and reasonable way to develop a TTRPG, but I’m eyeballing the “simulationist” description on the current GNS page and, well…
“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.”
“Does D&D exist?!” Apparently, that’s a sincere question that was asked by the author of this theory. He was proud enough about this to write it down and make it widely publicly available.
Conclusion: I’m not going to waste any further neurons on GNS theory and I suggest you don’t either. You can read it, in its entirety, at this link if you really want to swallow an ocean of brain poison, but I advise you to spend your time productively instead. The author’s skill at fundamental elements of argument, like definition, is so exasperatingly poor that I can’t even properly describe it. Just, I mean look at this passage, where he flails at, and ultimately totally fails to, define his own re-definiton of “Exploration”:
“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.”
Notice how, twice, he derails his explanation of exploration into the assumed, imagined psychology of the people involved? I underlined those, if you missed them. Absent from this definition? A FUCKING DEFINITION
How someone could see something that fails this spectacularly and grant it even the most merciful of credence totally perplexes me. This fails basic reading comprehension rules, people, it isn’t written by a genius but an idiot who desperately wants to be perceived as smart.
Whatever telephone game passed for knowledge transmission in the early aughties internet has obfuscated the reality of this drivel to the point where EVERYONE and their mothers refers back to it. People: I take back what I said earlier. I urge you to read this, in its entirety, and earnestly compare it to your actual experience playing TTRPGs. It will reveal itself as nonsensical ramblings within minutes.
My fundamental point: this is so catastrophically incorrect that even taking it seriously enough to correct it is a fundamental error. This is, plainly put, utter nonsense
