GNS Theory is widely known to be kind of shit. That's true.

File: water_simulation_smaller.png (142KB, 600x390px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 600x390px

GNS Theory is widely known to be kind of shit. That's true. But that doesn't mean that the three "categories" don't still refer to purposes or goals that a gamer (or a game designer) may have in mind. A person can want to play an RPG because he or she wants a challenge, because he or she wants to experience a story, or because he or she wants to experience an internally consistent world. There are probably other purposes as well, but the goals of narrative and simulation are the only ones relevant to the point I'm about to make.

I think that choosing a system and planning a campaign with simulation in mind is more conducive to role-play that can be compared to great literature than is focusing on narration.

I say this because the focus on "telling a story" leaves less room for character agency, and for exploring what characters do and want.

A simulation style game, with the right players, allows for immersion and freedom in tandem, such that players can do whatever they want but aren't inclined to do random bullshit. Instead, "it's what my character would do" gains actual meaning instead of being an excuse, and players enjoy developing their own characters and learning about their relationships with others, watching them succeed or fail based on their own decisions and the capricious winds of fate.

Focusing on story means insisting on pacing. No time to explore whatever comes up, lest the players lose interest in the thrill of the plot.

Focusing on simulation means letting things unfold in the most internally consistent way possible, watching a character struggle with alcoholism or grieving, taking the time to recognize that living in a world with dragons or a virtual reality Internet won't eliminate loss or render all obstacles external.