I’m 20, at university for whatever, and delving further into a past-time without knowing why. This article is part of all that for me.

OK, this comment stumps me, because it seems to be saying that GNS are the only three categories of play style ever developed. That seems incredibly narrow-minded — ignoring not only everything outside of the Forge, but a considerable amount of discussion wihtin the Forge. Worse, it seems to be a viscious cycle — by focusing attention only on GNS, you’re continuing the fiction that others may believe and continue.

However, contrary to your statement, people have been classifying RPG play direction in many different ways for a long time and in many different contexts. Even if you only read what is on the Forge, there have been many suggestions of different modes. I might suggest my own History of Fasion in RPG Design, but there are lots of others. In my opinion, GNS Sim is one of the worst-developed play directions. No one agrees on it, and about the most that can be said is that it indicates lack of Gamism or Narrativism.

For example, I’d suggest “dungeon crawl” as a much better developed RPG genre, which actually has meaning to people. Just because there isn’t an official Forge essay on it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have clear meaning and developed direction.

“Hi, Jon!

That post was in response to Brand’s original, not yours. I sent it
to him ’cause the blog was broken, and at the time there were no
comments.

On being involved at the Forge: The site exists to help independent
game designers. If a designer is helped by not participating, not
reading, or by “being there” and then “leaving” (scare quotes for the
wierdness of internet space) that’s cool with me. Whatever makes you
go.”

Because in his day Shakespeare would have been expected to be writing things that Vin Diesel would star in. Whereas now he’s taught by snooty professors in tweed coats.

Away from the Forge, I feel like I’m able to do design work without thinking about GNS at all. This is really important for me. I totally agree that trying to artificially create new genres is crap. My point is that I feel like, when I was at the Forge, I was only able to create games solidly within the existing GNS genres, because that’s most of what people talked about.

Yes, I agree with that. The most likely way to come up with something
good and lasting is through examining actual play — not trying to make
up a new genre. Really, that much at least is the same as in just about
any field. How many people have ever successfully created a new genre
without creating a work in that genre? It isn’t like you could have made
the Western genre without telling stories and writing dime novels.

> Exploration for its own sake, in art, often seems to lead to
> incomprehensibility.

Word.

I’d also like to reinforce that finding and defining new genres of play
isn’t easy either. You can do it organically with your play group, but
turning it into something repeatable even in your own group takes some
self awareness and work. Communicating it to the point where others can
do it as well requires a lot of self awareness and work. The amount of
work Ron and others have done to get GNS to where they are is
staggering, and deserving of mass respect. I don’t know if it will be
necessary to do that much work in the future, groundwork having been
laid, but you shouldn’t just expect to up and say “this is my genre of
play” and watch it start a revolution.

I don’t find it necessary to search for non-GNS creative agenda. Rather, I think that we should just play and have fun and if we find that we’re having fun in an interesting and novel way, then we’ve probably hit on something new.

Exploration for its own sake, in art, often seems to lead to incomprehensibility.