So GNS theory has largely been debunked as far as RPG-design theory goes but would it be fair to say that it’s a better descriptor of types of players rather than design? The simulationist player preferring to inhabit their character in a living world, the narrativist player preferring to partake in a collaborative narrative where everyone has some degree of influence in how the world works and finally the gamist players who want a challenge to overcome?

>>96114644 (OP)
>GNS theory has largely been debunked
proof?

>>96114644 (OP)
>GNS theory has largely been debunked
What the fuck is GNS theory and do you have a single source to back up this claim?

>>96114644 (OP)
The fuck are you talking about?

>>96114644 (OP)
No. WotC's polling, which is the closest thing to empirical research on TTRPG players, found a taxonomy of about 8 player types, and that went into the best play aid WotC has ever written - the 4e DMG. There's also the Timmy, Johnny, Spike taxonomy.

The board gamers and video game designers might have something better, but I'm not aware of it. I think they use variations of Timmy/Johnny/Spike.

>>96114757
>Timmy, Johnny, Spike taxonomy.
Isn’t this a magic thing more suited for competitive games?

>>96114772
Not really. In non-competitive stuff
Timmy - likes big, splashy effects
Johnny - looks for interesting synergies or expressing specific interactions or subsystems
Spike - charop and raw efficiency

>>96114644 (OP)
I think it's most useful to say that any particular game can please (or displease) a player on those three metrics (and many more). I don't think many people are pure gamists or the like.

Whenever I've engaged with online discussions, anyone who uses -ist/-ism terminology tends to be inconsistent with not only the meanings of the terms they use, but with their own general logic too. The same with anyone who asserts their buzzwords are "widely accepted" or "widely used" as an excuse for using them, regardless of whether or not they provide their own definition or context.
People who use these terms out themselves as obnoxious wannabe sophits who will flip-flop and deflect whenever it's convenient for them; they care more about defending the use of their terms than about delivering any point in a clear or cohesive way.

>>96114881
It's interesting as a novelty or to experience a heterodox game design pov. However, there's a reason it never caught on outside the RPG game design ghetto.

>>96114644 (OP)
I don't think GNS works to describe types of players. It didn't even adequately describe types of play (at least by the arcane definitions the Forge was using for "gamist", "narrativist", and "simulationist"). Anyway the Forge has been dead for over a decade and all the people who were most involved have moved on since then or been rendered irrelevant

>>96115211
I think it's safe to say it created a unique branch in the RPG family tree of storygames, but the taxonomy has a hard time describing anything outside of the storygames built to emphasize their definition of "narrativism".

>>96115241
Even the high concept indie "storygames" directly inspired by the Forge have been replaced/outpaced by newer games whose design is disconnected from the Forge's original game theory and design philosophy

>>96115299
Yeah, I think they just end up being too abstract for many players to enjoy. But a sprinkling of those storygame mechanics are often enjoyable.

>storygames

>>96114757
Do you honestly think GURPS players are going to respond to a Wizards of the Coast poll?

>>96115542
Nobody else was even trying to collect that data, just masturbating to theorycrafting. I don't think the actual poll is floating around, but they supposedly tried to reach out to fans of other systems like VtM. Probably by including questions like. "Do you play other RPGs? If yes, which ones?"

>>96114757
Player types are horoscope-tier bullshit and you actively make a game worse if you try to tailor it to them.

>>96114644 (OP)
No. People can play more than one game, and enjoy them for different reasons. They can even play the same game in different ways. An definitive categorisation of players just isn't going to work at all.
Maybe stop and consider what the fuck you'd want to do this for anyway. There's probably a better way to do it.