> The trick is understanding not just the distinction, but also
>that all games are all three to some extent, and that personally
>weighting one higher than the others doesn't mean that the others
>aren't important. Its not about separating us into three tribes, its
>about understanding motivations for particular rules. Different
>reasoning can be appropriate in different places.
> There are obviously rules in HW that are not there for
>narrativist reasons, but gamist or simulationist ones. Nothing wrong
>with that. But reasoning from one basis when you should be reasoning
>from another can make an awful mess of things.
I *understand* the concept fine. It simply isn't a taxonomy that I find *helpful*. Compare it to, say, John Hughes' "Do Ducks have teeth" essay, which makes similar points, but in a framework that actually applies (more) to the games I run.
The GNS system, to me, seems to say very little. All rules are automatically G (otherwise they wouldn't be rules), are probably trying to represent something in the game world (S) and should be trying to help you tell stories (N) - at which point you are left with a little bit of arguing over the balance between the three, but really, so what?
If we *have* to have a framework, lets work with the four levels from John's essay. At least this allows us to hold debates such as : Nick's (level 1) objection to the Lunar multiplying magic rules can be countered with the level 3 or 4 argument(*) that, yes, the Lunars *can* do things that seriously unbalance the universe, which is why they are soon to be in for some Giftcarrier style divine retribution, unless they can carry out the delicate balancing act of aquiring power but not actually using it.
Cheers,
Graham
(*) Not saying I *believe* this, but it can be argued...
-- Graham Robinson graham_at_... Albion Software Engineering Ltd.
Powered by hypermail