Crash Course on GNS Theory
I'm going to regret this.
Today I'm starting a post series on tabletop game / TTG theory! It'll be mostly applicable to all TTGs, more-so for TTRPGs, and in some cases for video-games. The goal is to communicate the TTG fundamentals (as far as I understand, modify, and apply them) to my readership. For those of you who are more well-versed in the design space, this will all feel very elementary. For others, it may feel unnecessarily complex. That's just how it's gonna be.
Speaking of goals, today's post will be re-capping the Threefold Model and GNS Theory as broad concepts, then dive into the related CNE Theory that I've derived of GNS. I should probably make the 'Player-Roles and System-Roles' post first, but eh, whatever, I want to talk about this.
Terminology
I'll setup a continuously updated TTG Terminology post soon, and begin each theory post with a section on the relevant bits. That's what this is.
CNE Theory -- My take on GNS and the Threefold Model. CNE Theory is a system for understanding Game Contracts and is an abbreviation of Challenge-Narrative-Exploration. A subtle and important shift in terminology, but otherwise essentially the Threefold Model.
Creative Agendas -- The individual, system, and by-consensus intentions of the Shared Imagined Space. That is, why are we creating an imagined context in the first place?
Game / Group Contract -- Similar to Creative Agendas. The how of a game being played, including rules, player and system roles, assumptions, etc.
GNS Theory -- A (very influential and oft criticized) model to describe the different intentions a player or system can hold. An abbreviation of Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist.
Shared Imagined Space -- The fictional consensus created when players sit at a table and start playing. More emphasized for TTRPGs than other TTGs, generally. If I were to draw a line between the two categories, the SIS is where I'd do it.
Threefold Model -- The original DGS (Drama-Game-Simulation) model. Essentially, three ways to think about how TTRPGs are played.
The Threefold Model
All of the abbreviations we're going to be talking abut today -- DGS / Threefold Model, GNS, and CNE -- are ways of understanding how and why players play games. Some of these labels come with more baggage regarding exclusivity (eg. can a game prioritize both strategy and narrative?) or preference (eg. is gamism bad?) than others. Regardless, I think they're worth talking about because, with the exception of my darling baby CNE, they've:
A) been around for a while
B) are pretty influential and
C) are kinda useful in understanding games
The first of these was the Threefold Model, which tries to understand the way both players and systems operate as consisting of three broad categories. Specifically, it refers to something called the game (or group) contract, which is, very broadly, how the game is played.
According to this model, there are three general categories of contracts:
1. Dramatist -- facilitates a storyline
2. Gamist -- facilitates a challenge of player strategy and skill
3. Simulationist -- facilitates a simulation of a fictional world
These categories are specifically not mutually exclusive. A game can lean heavily gamist, while also supporting a moderate level of simulationism (see: AD&D 1E). Thus, the Threefold Model imagines a sort of arrangement of sliders that dictate how a game plays out.
It is also important to note that the Threefold Model does not limit categorization to the games or their rules. Instead, this categorization is applied to game contracts, which include player preferences, actions, and assumptions. The model isn't "how does this game play?" but "how do these players play this game?" Players bring their assumptions and preferences, as does the system. Then, if they love each other well enough, they make a game.
GNS Theory
For some odd reason, after the Threefold Model (which I personally enjoy, despite "simulationism" as a term), came GNS, which describes much the same thing with a few new terms and is generally more well-known and criticized.
Like the Threefold Model, GNS Theory attempts to broadly categorize play games with a set of three sliders, but does so with extra lingo.
First, is the Shared Imagined Space -- the fictional understanding that is created when a group of players sit down at a table (usually) and play a game. The Shared Imagined Space is generally limited to TTRPGs. In my opinion, it's what sets them apart from other TTGs; less-so the role-playing (I believe we're all playing roles in games, even in Catan, but we'll touch on that later) and more-so this group hallucination thing.
Second, is the Creative Agenda -- the intentions we bring into our shared imagination. The system facilitates the shared imagination with intention (baked into its rules and language), as do individual players. All of these intentions are creative agendas into the shared imagination, and those creative agendas can be categorized.
GNS Theory has three categories for creative agendas.
1. Gamist -- we've been here before! It's the intention of skillfully and/or strategically overcoming challenges
2. Narrativist -- essentially, the Threefold Model's dramatist. The intention of experiencing a good story
3. Simulationist -- another repeat! The intention of immersing into a fictional reality
Unlike the Threefold Model, the GNS categories were generally understood to be mutually exclusive. Some games were strictly narrativist and prioritized the story above all else. Others were purely gamist or simulationist. Games that mixed creative agendas were dissonant and made for poor design. From here, it's a quick hop to "there's a right way to play" and "gamism/simulationism is bad-wrong-fun." This is, presently, generally known to be a bad position to take.
There's a lot more to GNS Theory (and the whole Big Model, developed later) than this, but again, we're covering basics. The important notes here are that A) we're looking at intentions rather than playstyles, though they tend to overlap, B) we've oriented toward game systems over players and tables, though they tend to get confused, and C) we got (in)famous.
And that's GNS, sorta.
Critiques
The critiques of GNS are/were many, and the most common ones are fairly simple conclusions to come by. Here are a few.
Creative Agendas Aren't Mutually Exclusive
Self-explanatory and generally understood now-a-days. A game isn't "narrativist" or "gamist" only, it can prioritize multiple creative agendas and/or to different extents. That being said, the GNS lens does make it easier to understand how a game is intending to be played, and what mindset a table must approach it by. A game of D&D 5e (2024) with milestone levelling is generally going to prioritize a narrativist agenda over a simulationist one. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy a strategic dungeon-crawl -- just don't expect it to get full support from the system.
GNS Should Describe Actions, Not Intentions
The second critique returns to the Threefold Model, where categorization is not applied to system or player intentions, but rather to system and player activity. The argument goes that these sorts of three-piece classifications are useful for understanding the types of things players do in TTRPGs but not the types of games that exist.
Generally, I'd agree with this critique, though I am of the opinion that systems can facilitate different orientations of play and therefore intend themselves for various play-styles. That being said, I don't believe it's as useful to classify system intentions as it is to classify their uses.
Simulationism is a Wholly Different Concept
This critique is less common in my opinion. It states that the system intentions of gamism and narrativism are fairly good descriptors of play, while simulationism -- the extent to which mechanics simulate the fictional reality -- exists on an entirely different axis. Any game can be made more mechanically complex or convoluted, and what GNS (and the Threefold Model) tries to describe with simulationism could better be described as the intention / play-style of exploring the fictional reality.
Under this critique, "simulationism" ought to be removed or reworked. It's a different concept, with a different basis, and shouldn't be taken to be just another creative agenda.
CNE
Like all TTRPG designers, I aspire to invent three-letter acronyms.
I don't like GNS (for all three of the above critiques) but I do find a general classification system useful, especially for conceptualizing actual game activity. The Threefold Model is my starting point then, as I prefer how it communicates actual play as a product of the system, players, and player consensus / table.
That being said, I find the term simulationist to be too different a concept than the other two involved terms, for which I have similar issues with terminology. The switch made in GNS from dramatist to narrativist is something I'd like to keep. Further, I'd rename gamist -- it describes nothing at all, especially when it appears what everyone's really talking about are skillful and strategic challenges.
The Concept
Thus, CNE, a set of (non-exclusive) descriptors of game contracts: challenge, narrative, and exploration.
Like the Threefold Model, this system is useful for thinking about games, how players behave, how systems behave, and how tables of players operate. It proposes that there are three primary ways that games play, and that players/tables and mechanics/systems may lean towards preferring one or more over others.
This could be the starting point for a whole Theory or Model like the Big Model but I doubt that it's a good idea. CNE (and similar classification systems) is useful because it's simple. As a broad concept of game styles, this is helpful. It can guide players toward systems that support their interests and inform designers about the way their mechanics might operate at the table. As an extensive model of system design, it would try to do too much.
Anyways, enjoy another three letter acronym. I am now, officially, a designer.
Further Reading
The Threefold Model, an FAQ by John Kim
Posts by Ron Edwards (on GNS)
Posts by Eero Tuovinen (on GNS)
Another Post on GNS: Simulationism Was Real
Song-of-the-Post
Make You Mine by Madison Beer! I'm thinking of buying locket and/or Silence Between Songs on iTunes. Been listening to her a bit recently.