Why the GNS Theory is bullshit
Tags: Game Design, Games, Roleplaying Game

Why the GNS Theory is bullshit

a short essay by Garraque

The GNS Theory is the theory that there are three main types of roleplaying game, being gamist, narrativist and simulationist, and that in order to make a “coherent” RPG, the design of the game must ascribe to one type to the exclusion of the two others. Otherwise, the game is “incoherent” by including contradictory design elements.

Such a theory is plain and utter bullshit.

GNS Theory misidentifies the three main styles of roleplaying as distinct types of roleplaying game, when really they are the three component parts of RPG design and play. One element can perhaps be emphasized to some extent over others, but not to the exclusion of the others. A proper RPG, according to common usage of the term “roleplaying game”, must have all three components in substantive measure. Lacking one or more of those elements creates a completely different game.

A set of game mechanics without a desire to tell a narrative or simulate some kind of real-world or hypothetical scenario is simply an abstract game, like chess or go. It is certainly a game, and there’s nothing wrong with an abstract game with objectives, pieces and rules to adjudicate play. Chess, go, mancala, etc. are not, however, roleplaying games.

Similarly, narration without rules to determine how certain actions are accepted or rejected into the narrative and without a desire to create a believable scenario is simply… storytelling. In order to incorporate other people into telling the narrative, which is rather one of the points of playing RPG’s, rules must be set up and a baseline for simulation and credibility of the scenario must be established. Otherwise, it’s a collection of TV writers brainstorming a TV show, with a head writer being in charge of the ultimate creative direction. TV shows aren’t bad, they’re just not roleplaying games.

And a strict simulation which does not desire to construct a narrative is a wargame. Which is the parent of RPG’s, certainly of the original Dungeons and Dragons booklets, but Gygax made a clear distinction between playing a wargame of leading armies and playing a new game where the player embodied a single hero. Even if the original D&D booklets and modules had fewer story elements than we are accustomed to today (“You find yourself in front of a tower, you have heard stories of untold wealth guarded by monsters, what do you do?” lacks the exposition we expect today), common usage identifies D&D as a “roleplaying” game and Chainmail as a “wargame”. D&D was designated as such because it was aping the Conan the Barbarian novels, Jack Vance’s Dying Earth series, etc., as a game to recreate such narratives. Wargames are not concerned with narrative, they are concerned with simulation and the rules that govern such simulation. Wargames aren’t bad, but they certainly aren’t roleplaying games.

Oh, and simulations without rules and narrative are mathematical models we use to… predict the weather and stuff. Again, not bad, but also not RPG’s.

So there you have it. GNS Theory is wrong, you need G, N and S in substantive measure to qualify as a roleplaying game, otherwise you have a completely different beast on your hands. Whoever came up with GNS Theory is, in my professional opinion, full of bullshit.