Icarus Studios News

In the past several years, one of the central theories of tabletop RPG design has been the Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist (GNS) model. Put simply, the concept is that a game can pursue three different agendas when figuring out how to resolve tasks and structure play: do what makes a fun game, do what makes a good story, or do what seems to best simulate reality. The theory as a whole is much more involved, but it basically breaks down to priorities when gaming. Should the game be set up to feel realistic or feel like a movie or novel? Should the game have fun internal rules that don’t necessarily support either of these factors?

These questions are relevant to virtual worlds, MMOs, and other video games in that designers may try to hit all three agendas and not satisfy any. A user might wonder why he had to walk his character all the way to a remote teacher to train a special skill, but the training itself was just a button click rather than an actual montage or instructional video. Why make your characters eat, sleep, or visit the bathroom if these activities are just going to take control away from the player for several seconds or minutes? Why make crafting take an arbitrary thirty seconds, rather than a realistic amount of time or no time whatsoever? In each of these cases, the user that craves realism is not truly mollified, and the user that wants a fun game or a compelling story is wasting an arbitrary amount of time.

GNS theory was developed so game designers would think about these agendas when developing games: the idea is that a game system or session that targets one of the three agendas and supports it well (only supporting the other two when it doesn’t detract from the primary) will be much more fun than one that makes an attempt to be all things to all people. When putting together your world, which agenda will be primary? If you have an excellent game system, tailor your story and realism to highlight the intricacies of the game. If you have an amazing story to tell, make sure your game engine and nods to realism don’t pull your players out of the narrative. If you want a world that feels like a living, breathing place, tailor the systems and storylines to reinforce the feel of a real world as much as is possible and reasonable.

Ultimately, if you resist the urge to water down your primary agenda to placate the other two, you will have a stronger and more coherent world or game. Trying to balance all three may alienate fewer users, but it will also mean much less passionate users. Particularly in a subscription-based environment, a number of dedicated users that will subscribe for years is likely to be better than twice as many initial users with a fast attrition rate. A strong focus on agenda is a good way to gain the loyalty of those who enjoy that agenda, and you will keep them for a long time.

-Stephen Cheney, Virtual Worlds Team