The Forge Archives

Hello All,

There's a style of role-playing that I've found to be far more common among gamers than I originally thought.  Personally, I'm having trouble understanding it mainly because I don't understand what the "point" of it is.  So, from a GNS stand point what exactly is this:

1) The style I'm thinking about is highly improvisational.  The GM basically comes to the table with little more than a situation. "You've been sent out to find the Widget of Something or other."  The players are expected to show up and just play their characters in whatever manner they see fit.

2) The rules are usually ignored or improperly employed.  Usually, character creation is either intact or left looser than the rules suggest.  Only the core resolution mechanic is used and most other elements of the system that would other wise faciliate some kind of GNS style are simply left out or are often not even known by the participants.  In other words the rule system is litteral used as just a randomizer to say Yes or No to disputes with little care for the actual outcome.  Character improvement systems are left intact but the GM generally hands out disproportionate amounts of "XP" or what have you.  Either too little or too much.

3) These games generally devolve into silliness with most of the roleplaying consisting of the players laughing at their characters slapsticky antics.  As such these games usually take place with games that already have some element of this such as Tales of the Vegabond, Paranoia or Toon which wouldn't baffle me so much if it weren't for #2 and the fact that I have seen this style done with slightly more serious games such as In Nomine or Changling.

Notes: I hesitate to call this style dysfunctional because those who engage in it seem to be having a good time.  I also hesitate to call this style "munchcanism" mainly because I don't necessarily see power tripping or ego boosting going on.

What is this style of gaming and why is it so prevalent among gamers?  Or is it not as prevalent as I think it is and I'm just hallucinating?

Jesse

I think that this gets outside of GNS and what you are seeing is people slipping towards Collaborative Storytelling or Interactive Fiction. In it's regular form, there are few if any rules to this, as people just take turns making stuff up. BTW, it's remarkably common.

In your case you probably have people who feel that they have "evolved" past the need for a lot of rules and that their penchant for telling a good story will keep them in line in a better fashion than the rules could. I see Narrativism as an attempt to reach those same ideals while still employing mechanics. And I think that it works in that you can have mechanics in a narrativist game that can prevent it from spinning off into that silliness that you've noted. The mechanics can help keep the players hooked into the Premise.

OTOH, if you had the right group I could see doing Collaborative Storytelling and keeping a tight focus. Just not my bag.

Remember that GNS pretty much only applies as designed to Table-top Role-Playing Games. Which are diferent from CS, IS, LARP, CRPG, Wargames, and any number of other forms which are generally not the subject of discussion on The Forge, but have distinct similarities.

Mike

Quotejburneko wrote:

There's a style of role-playing that I've found to be far more common among gamers than I originally thought.  Personally, I'm having trouble understanding it mainly because I don't understand what the "point" of it is.  So, from a GNS stand point what exactly is this...?

After reading your description the first thing that jumps to mind is a series of games I have run that everyone around here now refers to as 'Anime Smash.'  Only the first few had any basis on animated cartoons from Japan or widespread violence, but the name kinda stuck.

I have to agree with Mike on the GNS orientation here, the games like you are implying do not fit in the GNS hierarchy (Although I expect Ron to chime in with "we don't have enough to go on" any second now).  What I would say is that they pretty much matches what I suggested was finding gratification (or enjoyment) in the extrinsic value of the personal frame of reference as explained in my Get Emotional! (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=457&forum=4) article, some time ago (when I finally parted company with GNS theory).

Notice the connotations (in that article (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=457&forum=4)) between how I comprehend your example as compared to Gamism, except Gamism (as generally described) does not appear to allow play that uses no mechanical basis for consistency (but defining Gamism right now is probably a lost cause).  Still, this would be the closest the GNS seems to offer, Gamism where a 'social' aspect takes the place of the mechanical.

And I would not liken it to storytelling however, because, if I am not mistaken, the 'plot' is not cared for in the least (and that would rip out one of the main purposes for the narrative in a story being told.)

Likewise, Collaborative Storytelling and Interactive Fiction are noteworthy because, in general, they are usually created from a detached, third person type of perspective, not at all like what you sound like you are describing.  As I said in the article (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=457&forum=4) before, I see gaming, at its most fundamental level, as "thinking in the context of the sequence of in-game events."  While this is occasionally practiced in the creation of fiction and storytelling, gaming does not exist without it.  That's why I do not think what you described has anything to do with either fictionalization or storytelling or even dramatization.

Just my 2¢.

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-12-05 18:37 ]

Fang's right about my call - I'd prefer to watch or participate, and get an idea of the GOALS involved, and then find out the answer. In other words, I suspect that this "method" may be employed for a variety of goals or goals-combinations.

Boy, that's about as aggravating a response as I can imagine. Friggin' academics, never give a straight answer, mumble grumble.

Anyway, more specifically, it looks to me like we are really talking about the group turning to DRAMA methodology and not GNS necessarily. Games to check out for this sort of thing include SLUG (which comes free with Fudge, also available on the internet, I think) and The Window.

Best,
Ron

Quote
On 2001-12-05 18:28, Ron Edwards wrote:

Fang's right about my call - I'd prefer to watch or participate, and get an idea of the GOALS involved, and then find out the answer.

I think that's what I was sort of asking too.  If I knew what the goal was I wouldn't be asking this.  This style of game, which I've encountered more than once and with alarming frequency, seems to suffer from GNS apathy.  Everyone is there 'just to play' but nobody has any idea what that means.  It feels like a structureless mishmash of random events with not a lot of rhyme or reason.  Yet everyone at the table (but me, usually) seems to be laughing and having a good time.

Of course, I quickly disasociate myself with these groups when I encounter them but that doesn't mean i don't want to UNDERSTAND them.

Jesse

Most likely the goal here is the  "other S" - socializing.  People get togther and bullshit, over the trappings of an RPG rather than the trappings of a poker game (or whatever).  A perfectly valid recreational activity, but not one that really needs much analysis to make "work well".

At least, that's my guess.  I've certainly seen it - for both RPGs and card/boardgames.  It annoys the heck outta me in the latter case (if I'm playing a flat-out competitive game, I expect a certain focus, darn it!).  For RPGs - not my thing, but at least I can see where some people would enjoy it.

Gordon

In my opinion, if it has no rules or the rules are ignored, then it's not a game. It's an activity, therefore GNS does not apply.

Peace,
Bret

Seems to me that if the games you're talking about are mostly Toon and Paranoia and so on, what you're seeing is the players ditching the prohibitory mechanics and playing the game how it's funnest.  I mean, the last thing I want to do during a Paranoia game is worry about my kombat modifiers.  Not playing by the rules is almost a side effect of wanting to be silly.

Especially with games like Changeling and In Nomine, where the premise of the game is frankly pretty silly, and the mechanics are just one big wad of trying to get you to take it seriously.

Anyway, I think that a game's mechanics are as likely to disrupt focus as they are to support it.  When that happens, throwing them out is often your best option.  And not just for silly games either, of course.  Any game where the mechanics don't support the group's goal.

System Matters, right?

-lumpley Vincent

[ This Message was edited by: lumpley on 2001-12-05 21:01 ]

I don't think there's much point likening Jesse's example to theatre (I believe that's where Ron's going with "DRAMA methodology" stuff).  Acting (not to be confused with Actor Stance from Ron's Essay) is all about presentation; there is hardly anything resembling 'exploration' per Ron.  Even in the most closed improv exercises (like the ones where the actors explain they are 'exploring' their characters) are about having the right presentation, giving the viewers the expected 'show.'  No matter what the actors say to the contrary, they are not practicing 'exploration' per Ron's writing, but more 'exploring' how they present their characters.

Heck Storytelling is also all about presentation too.  Sure an author might call it 'exploration' for the first few drafts, but past that fiction writing (and maybe others) is about presenting the findings; Storytelling must be closely related in my thinking.  The same would be true about Interactive Fiction (at least the kinds that are mostly branching Storytelling).

I don't think that people who "show up and just play their characters" are there trying to impress anyone with their performance; remember GNS is all about goals not methods.  (Isn't it?)  I've seen things like Jesse's experiences in action, and the participants were there purely 'to have fun,' "just [playing] their characters."  If anything, it would be pure 'exploration' for the sake of instant gratification.  (While "other S" 'social' interaction could be occuring, I don't think it necessarily needs to be the goal.)

But then I'm just griping about what I think is lacking in the GNS model again, sorry.

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-12-05 21:41 ]

I'm confused.  I presumed that Ron was talking about DRAMA, as in the resolution mechanic found in games like Theatrix.

- Scott

Lumpley,

Just for the record, I've always regarded In Nomine as a serious game and I played in a serious In Nomine campaign which was extremely enjoyable. :wink:

Peace,
Bret

Fang,

Scott is right; I'm talking about Drama in the strict DFK terms of the essay, not in the sense of theatrical or literary drama.

I do agree with you that the Exploration factor seems to be very low in the situation that Jesse is describing, based as well on my own observations of similar groups.

Best,
Ron

QuoteRon Edwards wrote:

Scott is right; I'm talking about Drama in the strict DFK terms of the essay, not in the sense of theatrical or literary drama.

I stand corrected, sorry for the misunderstanding.  (Perhaps it might be less confusing if you mention which drama you're referring to each time you use that word?  Or maybe come up with a new word entirely, considering the GDS DFK GNS mess?)

QuoteI do agree with you that the Exploration factor seems to be very low in the situation that Jesse is describing, based as well on my own observations of similar groups.

Then you don't agree with me at all.  What I attempted to suggest was that actors, whether on stage or in workshops, are not 'exploring.'  I sought a point that these were not actors because they were 'exploring.'  I would emphatically suggest that the situations that Jesse describes contains people who are definitely 'exploring,' exploring the realm of instant gratification via role-playing gaming. [Snip.]

[Snip.] Instead of trying to analyze Jesse's situation without being there, I tried steering him to a different essay in which he might find some answers (with a little editorial guidance on my part). [Snip.]

[Snip.] The reason everyone is having such a hard time figuring out where in the GNS things like Jesse's example (as written) are is because the GNS model does not include play with the only goal of having fun.

This usually leads to either one of two reactions (so I have seen); either model proponents turn their noses up at this kind of play as being 'beneath' the model (the argument is usually 'all modes of GNS are playing for fun'), or they try endlessly to analyze the examples for hints or tiny glimmers suggesting some vague kind of modal play ('Aha!  If anyone, at least once, uses directorial stance it must clearly be a degenerate form of Narrativism.').

As I have said on numerous occasions in the past, this is not always the case.  Analyze as much as you want, but in some games none of the GNS goals are in play (even sporadically).  [Snip.] as likely designers, all reading this probably take their gaming a lot more seriously than the bulk of gamers out there.  On many occasions in my personal experience, I have played with people who have none of the goals of the GNS either explicitly or unknowingly in their interests.

As Jesse describes, they "show up and just play their characters."  They do not care about immersion or setting, issues of balance and consistency mean nothing, neither do plot, story, nor even do consequences of actions make a difference, nothing in their play even remotely resembles what the various modes of GNS are after.  They simply play for the fun of it.  And before the "other S" argument is resurrected, I should say that some of these groups have had people who do not even get along privately.

[Snip.]

[Snip.] since I cannot prove the GNS is missing something using Ron's Essay's terminology¹, [Snip.]

Fang Langford

¹ The very idea of using terminology from an essay you are trying to invalidate is pointless.  Said terminology should only support the essay, how could anything be proven against it with its own [Snip.]?

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-12-07 15:04 ]

Hi Fang,

It is perfectly all right for you to say, "These folks may be role-playing and they may not be according with GNS theory." That's an interesting point. However, I don't think you have made the case to support it, yet. Please elaborate if you want.

The most difficult aspect of dealing with your post is that you have determined to ignore any established definition of the terms until forced to do so. When you do that in reference to others using the terms, it derails argument. For instance, I used Exploring with a capital E, meaning the term defined in my essay, and you have turned it into a synonym for simply "employing" or doing," and then disagreed with that. I simply do not have the time to rein you in, soothe you, turn your head, and then point out this definition, hoping that you will then back up and see that my point was valid in reference to (and agreeing with) your previous post. This is the sort of behavior I have to take with balky sophomores, but not, I hope, with folks on the Forge.

When this happens, the whole argument stalls out. I'd like to see what you're saying, and as I said, I think I am agreeing with most of your points. It's fine if you don't want to use the terminology of the essay, but it's aggravating for others to use it, with the definitions laid out for all to see, and be ignored and read as saying utterly different things, in the manner described above.

More importantly, the rest of your post is a broadside about the utility of my posts and about the GNS essay in general. Both are off-topic. The first one might be taken to private email if you feel strongly enough about it, but it doesn't belong on a forum. You're welcome to start up the latter as a new thread.

Best,
Ron

QuoteRon Edwards wrote:

It is perfectly all right for you to say, "These folks may be role-playing and they may not be according with GNS theory." That's an interesting point. However, I don't think you have made the case to support it, yet.

[Snip.] I thought that was both Jesse's job and his original point.  He described a real-world example of exactly that in a request for help defining it.  So far no one has been able to find which GNS mode it belongs to.  That, to me, makes exactly this statement, [Snip.]

I see the burden of supporting this case is not on me to show that it is not one of three modes, but instead on you to show that it is.  (In philosophy, it is generally accepted that you cannot prove something does not exist unless you show all parts of reality and find it lacking.  The same applies here; by you, I would have to show that Jesse's example exists as something never before discussed in your essay.  And I'd have to do it using only the terms set forth in that essay.  Personally, I'd have to say that as purveyor of the known set, it would be incumbent upon you to show what it was within such, [Snip.])

QuotePlease elaborate if you want.

[Snip.]

QuoteThe most difficult aspect of dealing with your post is that you have determined to ignore any established definition of the terms until forced to do so. When you do that in reference to others using the terms, it derails argument. For instance, I used Exploring with a capital E, meaning the term defined in my essay,

Which would be defined where? [Snip.]

Is the definition, "The imagination in action, or perhaps for the attention given the imagined elements, is Exploration," maybe it's "the imagined (Explored) content of the role-playing experience," or even "Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play."   No?  How about "Exploration might be, 'What does it feel like to be a...'" because all but one of the other incidences of the word in your essay do not define, but instead rely upon, it.

(About the other one:) I especially like "all three modes are social applications of the foundational act of role-playing, which is Exploration," [Snip.]

Quoteand you have turned it into a synonym for simply "employing" or doing,"

But you define role-playing gaming thus, "When a person engages in role-playing, or prepares to do so, he or she relies on imagining and utilizing the following:..." and then you write, "The imagination in action, or perhaps for the attention given the imagined elements, is Exploration." [Snip.]

Quoteand then disagreed with that.

[Snip.]

My point has always been that role-playing gaming is 'thinking within the context of the sequence of in-game events.'  I choose not to use the term imagining, because in a few forms of resource-management play, you are not 'imagining' the resources as actually being anything other than numbers.  (Exactly what do you 'imagine' character points are when you are making up a character in Champions?  I count character generation as part of role-playing gaming and making a character for a game is 'thinking within the context' of that game.)

Regardless, let's say my "thinking" is analogous to your "imagining" just to simplify the discussion.  But by your essay, Ron, this imagining is "Exploring."  (Correct the essay if I mischaracterize.)  You'll note that "attention given the imagined elements" pretty much parallels "within the context of the sequence of in-game events."  Thus your "Exploration" is a [Snip.] buzzword for something very like what I have in my 11-word description.

What I want to know is how "imagining and utilizing" which equals "Exploration" is not "'employing' or doing" things in a game? [Snip.]

QuoteI simply do not have the time to rein you in, soothe you, turn your head, and then point out this definition,

[Snip.]

Quotehoping that you will then back up and see that my point was valid in reference to (and agreeing with) your previous post.

[Snip.] Backing up: I said, "I don't think that people who 'show up and just play their characters' are there trying to impress anyone with their performance" clearly meaning they're not actors (little 'a,' not the stance).  Then I state my point about them, "If anything, it would be pure 'exploration' for the sake of instant gratification."  Meaning I see that the people of Jesse's example are 'Exploring' (meaning "imagining and utilizing" the elements you list, "Character, System, Setting, Situation, and Color").

Then you say, "I do agree with you that the Exploration factor seems to be very low in the situation that Jesse is describing."  How did I say that they were not "imagining and utilizing the following: Character, System, Setting, Situation, and Color?"  [Snip.]

QuoteThis is the sort of behavior I have to take with balky sophomores, but not, I hope, with folks on the Forge.

[Snip.]

QuoteWhen this happens, the whole argument stalls out. I'd like to see what you're saying, and as I said, I think I am agreeing with most of your points.

Just to be clear, [Snip.]:

• Actors don't explore.
  
• Jesse's exemplars are not acting.
  
• They are 'Exploring.'
  
• Thus they are definitely role-playing gaming.
  
• They are not applying GNS goals consciously or unconsciously.
  
• They are having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion.
  
• They are not unique or rare in this practice.
  
• Therefore something is missing from the GNS model.
  
• Most arguments about this missing element(s) fail because they have to use proprietary terminology (that by natural design supports GNS).[/list:u][Snip.] I am not trying to change your mind, just making myself clear.
  
  

  QuoteIt's fine if you don't want to use the terminology of the essay, but it's aggravating for others to use it, with the definitions laid out for all to see, and be ignored and read as saying utterly different things, in the manner described above.

  The only term I misread (as far as I know) was your use of Drama.  Don't you think capitalizing every letter "DRAMA methodology" makes it sound like you are 'shouting' about regular theatrical arts and not the usual capitalized 'Drama Resolution Systems' that carries the connotation of DFK, [Snip.]?
  
  [Snip.]
  
  

  QuoteMore importantly, the rest of your post is a broadside about the utility of my posts and about the GNS essay in general.  Both are off-topic.

  How is suggesting that the GNS cannot cover something in a thread calling for a GNS diagnosis off-topic? [Snip.]
  
  [Snip.]
  
  

  QuoteThe first one might be taken to private email if you feel strongly enough about it, but it doesn't belong on a forum.

  [Snip.]
  
  

  QuoteYou're welcome to start up the latter as a new thread.

  [Snip.]
  
  Fang Langford
  
  [ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-12-07 15:08 ]

Fang Langford broke down his arguments into points thusly:

Quote
   * Actors don't explore.
   * Jesse's exemplars are not acting.
   * They are 'Exploring.'
   * Thus they are definitely role-playing gaming.
   * They are not applying GNS goals consciously or unconsciously.
   * They are having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion.
   * They are not unique or rare in this practice.
   * Therefore something is missing from the GNS model.
   * Most arguments about this missing element(s) fail because they have to use proprietary terminology (that by natural design supports GNS).

Fang,

Here's my take, from someone who's had a long-standing interaction with the GNS model, and finds it good.

Let me quote from Jesse first, for a little source background:

Quote
There's a style of role-playing that I've found to be far more common among gamers than I originally thought. Personally, I'm having trouble understanding it mainly because I don't understand what the "point" of it is. So, from a GNS stand point what exactly is this:

1) The style I'm thinking about is highly improvisational. The GM basically comes to the table with little more than a situation. "You've been sent out to find the Widget of Something or other." The players are expected to show up and just play their characters in whatever manner they see fit.

2) The rules are usually ignored or improperly employed. Usually, character creation is either intact or left looser than the rules suggest. Only the core resolution mechanic is used and most other elements of the system that would other wise faciliate some kind of GNS style are simply left out or are often not even known by the participants. In other words the rule system is ... used as just a randomizer to say Yes or No to disputes with little care for the actual outcome. ...

3) These games generally devolve into silliness with most of the roleplaying consisting of the players laughing at their characters slapsticky antics. As such these games usually take place with games that already have some element of this ... which wouldn't baffle me so much if it weren't for #2 and the fact that I have seen this style done with slightly more serious games such as In Nomine or Changling.

Notes: I hesitate to call this style dysfunctional because those who engage in it seem to be having a good time. ...

What is this style of gaming and why is it so prevalent among gamers? Or is it not as prevalent as I think it is and I'm just hallucinating?

I would first take issue with the fact these players are 'Exploring,' in the Edwards definition of the term (The best term for the imagination in action, or perhaps for the attention given the imagined elements, is Exploration. Initially, it is an individual concern, although it will move into the social, communicative realm, and the commitment to imagine the listed elements becomes an issue of its own.)
These players are using their imagination to make a humorous situation, however, they are not imagining the listed elements, where the listed elements are the context of the RPG. They are, in Jesse's words, "laughing at their characters slapsticky antics."

This does not fit into the GNS model, because the point is not roleplaying. The point is social joking, in an RPG context. This may seem contradictory. Consider a parallel activity, spoofing, or "MST3K"ing, a movie. The movie watched is usually considered bad, and the point is not actually to watch the movie, but to make jokes, in the context of watching a movie. (I find that often the people that enjoy the activity described in Jesse's post enjoy MST3king movies.)
---

That said, if we ignore this point and consider that they are roleplaying, do they fit in the GNS model, and how do they? You point out:
   * They are not applying GNS goals consciously or unconsciously.
   * They are having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion.

They obviously are not applying GNS goals to the RPG experience. That is an acceptable given in this situation. Are they having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion, however? Jesse mentioned that this activity wouldn't bother him, if it weren't extended to more serious games, like Changeling or In Nomine.

While it has become fashionable for RPGs to say, "Ignore the rules if they get in the way," I think we can follow this logic:
* RPG rules should be written to facilitate a game's premise or goal, whatever that may be, GNS or otherwise.
* If a rule does not facilitate that goal, it is dysfunctional.
* Therefore, removing rules because they 'get in the way' is a sign of dysfunction.

I would say that the question "are they having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion" has multiple answers.
- They are having fun.
- Their goal is obviously to laugh, and in that, they are not dys-functional.
- They are not fulfilling the game's goal. This may be their fault, or the game's, but it is dysfunctional.

To your last points:
   * They are not unique or rare in this practice.
   * Therefore something is missing from the GNS model.

It is fully admitted by Edwards that "GNS is the central concept of my theorizing about role-playing ... However, it is not sufficient, and the three modes themselves do not address any and all points about role-playing." He speaks specifically about the social aspects of roleplaying here.
Your argument that this is not included in the GNS model has already been agreed to. I think you mean this to prove that the GNS model is flawed, however, from the adversarial tone of your last posts.

I don't think it proves that. A lot of effort has gone to prove that the GNS model is flawed in some way, and I think they all miss a few points:

* The GNS model is a way to model games. It is not the way.
* If a game cannot be categorized in the GNS model, it is considered flawed according to the model. That does not mean that it is flawed, but that it does not fulfill a goal in GNS.
* Arguing with defined terms in a model, is, to be blunt, moronic. The terms are defined in the context of that particular model. If you define them differently, you are speaking outside that context.

I don't think this proves the GNS model is flawed because, as I stated in the beginning, these players do not have the goal of roleplaying. Their goal seems to be purely social, and in that, they succeed. As GNS tries to model roleplaying behaviors, and not social behaviors, it cannot be validly used to characterize this activity.

---

With all that said, I have an aside. No one will have a civil argument with you, Fang, if you do not return civility. I read your post, and found it purposefully argumentative and hostile, thereby proving charges of sophomoric-ness. Do as you like, but I suggest asking probing questions instead of foot-stamping. These will get answers much like above.

As for the thread locking, that was my decision. I felt that each side had ample discussion, and a point was not being reached. I also delete duplicate posts. I consider it my job to clean up and maintain forum quality. If you think I have been remiss, please e-mail me, or start a thread in "Site Discussion."
_________________
Clinton R. Nixon
Heartburn Games
indie-rpgs.com webmaster
www.acid-reflex.com

[ This Message was edited by: Clinton R Nixon on 2001-12-06 19:59 ]

Apologies in advance to everyone - I'm writing this post at work in between doing other things, and it may jump around. Please bear with me.

I think we might be able to argue that there are, in some sense, two distinct activities going on round the table here.

1) The players are participating in a role-playing game (which they definitely are).
2) The players are laughing and joking, deriving some or all of their enjoyment from the fact that they're roleplaying in what even they themselves perceive to be kind of a crap manner.

I would argue that any GNS application, conscious or unconscious, goes on in 1). So player X may bring his mild gamist leanings to the table, while player Y brings her desire to be part of the creation of a good story. But while the players may have these inclinations, little or nothing is done to apply them. The game system's default position (and I'm guessing it's Gamist or Simulationist) and the GM's are expressed a little, probably... even if the rules are, in general, being ignored.

I don't know - are we seeing some kind of "next level of removal" in the enjoyment of RPGs, like those people who come to LARPs and don't play but just sit around and watch? (Is this "audience" behavior? Hell if I know.) But let me say one thing...

I always kind of assumed, (from an early age...) that it was understood that most RPG play was hard to categorize, because it was a mish-mash of priorities from the different players and the system. In this case, I'd say that we're probably seeing that, but at a very low priority. The social dynamic (or meta-enjoyment of the game by poking fun at it) is seen as more important than any GNS priority, because the players derive more enjoyment from the heckling than they do the gameplay itself. * And I think this is particularly interesting because this isn't some unrelated social activity like random chit-chat or flirting, but is a game-related social activity, like flexing character nuts (another popular gamer pastime).

So what GNS category does this fall into? Well, we'd have to look at the gameplay itself to understand that, but I think it's more significant that the gameplay is so deprioritized. I think analysis of this kind of player behavior may fall outside the categories of GNS.**

Now, I'd like to propose a very tenuous, almost tongue-in-cheek method of analyzing the GNS priorities of the players. I think that humor in these situations derives from deviation from the norm. Spot what each player is most amused by, and you may figure out what he or she considers to be normal or "desirable" gameplay... and you're off and running.

But I guess my main point is that this is confusing because while the enjoyment doesn't seem to be what you or I might call gameplay, it's definitely an activity that's involved with and interconnects with gameplay.

I think this merits further discussion. And I think this post makes no sense, or not very much anyway. Sorry.

* Man, I wish I knew how to do them cool footnotes Fang does. Anyway, I'd like to say here that we've been running on the assumption that mish-mashy, no-clear-GNS-priority gameplay is bad and makes players unhappy. And I think that's true for some players: I'd argue that it made Jesse Burneko unhappy. But I think it makes you unhappy only if gameplay is a high priority for you. Then somewhere in the middle we've got that guy Ron keeps ragging on, the guy who says "this game sucks, but I stick around because these people are my friends." And then at the far end of that priority is the guy for whom gameplay is actually a low priority and heckling (or whatever other social activity) is the highest one.

** Although maybe an essay on this might make sense, since it's an ancient and accepted gamer behavior - in fact, I distinctly remember someone (was it Greg Costikyan? I think it was, but cussit, his site seems to be down) writing an article back in the day in which he advocated doing things like naming your character stupid names and deliberately acting like your character was aware of his own nature as a game character, all in the name of humor.  Man, that was a long runon sentence. In fact, I guess that's Narrativism, huh - total disregard for competitive gameplay or immersion or whatever, since the point is to make a funny story, specifically one which relates to gaming in some way. I don't know if Jesse's example kids are doing that, though.

Let me preface this by saying I tire of problems called upon the GNS model always collapsing into "Why should we change what works?" with the response of "Because it's too confusing to the rest of us." and then silence.

On no occasion have I seen has anyone ever substantiated a case where sticking with terminology that has proven confusing is good for any reason outside of tradition and familiarity.  I do not accept those reasons when, because of the terminology, time and again people come to the Forge and launch arguments out of that confusion.

As has been said (yet not effectively responded to), if terminology causes confusion, change it.

Anyway, on to my response.

QuoteClinton R Nixon wrote:

Fang broke down his arguments into points thusly:

Quote

• Actors don't explore.
  
• Jesse's exemplars are not acting.
  
• They are 'Exploring.'
  
• Thus they are definitely role-playing gaming.
  
• They are not applying GNS goals consciously or unconsciously.
  
• They are having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion.
  
• They are not unique or rare in this practice.
  
• Therefore something is missing from the GNS model.
  
• Most arguments about this missing element(s) fail because they have to use proprietary terminology (that by natural design supports GNS).[/list:u]

Here's my take, from someone who's had a long-standing interaction with the GNS model, and finds it good.

Okay, now you are making incorrect assumptive implications.  I do not believe GNS is bad (or for that matter, even 'not good').  Can you understand how I can like something passionately and yet see it wanting?  I am no longer a fan (as in fanatic) of the GNS, but neither am I an extremist who goes straight from love to hate.  I am rather fond of GNS, but as Gordon mentions in another recent thread, it fails as a 'theory of everything' (yet most 'fans' fall back to using it that way, at least unconsciously).

QuoteLet me quote from Jesse first, for a little source background:

QuoteThere's a style of role-playing that I've found to be far more common among gamers than I originally thought. Personally, I'm having trouble understanding it mainly because I don't understand what the "point" of it is. So, from a GNS stand point what exactly is this:

1) The style I'm thinking about is highly improvisational. The GM basically comes to the table with little more than a situation. "You've been sent out to find the Widget of Something or other." The players are expected to show up and just play their characters in whatever manner they see fit.

2) The rules are usually ignored or improperly employed. Usually, character creation is either intact or left looser than the rules suggest. Only the core resolution mechanic is used and most other elements of the system that would other wise facilitate some kind of GNS style are simply left out or are often not even known by the participants. In other words the rule system is ... used as just a randomizer to say Yes or No to disputes with little care for the actual outcome. ...

3) These games generally devolve into silliness with most of the role-playing consisting of the players laughing at their characters slapsticky antics. As such these games usually take place with games that already have some element of this ... which wouldn't baffle me so much if it weren't for #2 and the fact that I have seen this style done with slightly more serious games such as In Nomine or Changelings.

Notes: I hesitate to call this style dysfunctional because those who engage in it seem to be having a good time. ...

What is this style of gaming and why is it so prevalent among gamers? Or is it not as prevalent as I think it is and I'm just hallucinating?

I would first take issue with the fact these players are 'Exploring,' in the Edwards definition of the term ("The best term for the imagination in action, or perhaps for the attention given the imagined elements, is Exploration. Initially, it is an individual concern, although it will move into the social, communicative realm, and the commitment to imagine the listed elements becomes an issue of its own.")

Hold on!  Are you saying that not one of Jesse's exemplars is using his "imagination?"  Where in "highly improvisational" or "play their characters" do you see a lack in "imagination?"  That sounds clearly like "imagination" to me.  Perhaps you have a problem with them not being "social" or "communicative?"

No?  Then perhaps it's the "commitment to imagine the listed elements" (being "Character, System, Setting, Situation, and Color").  Well, since they "just play their characters" it can't be "Character."  "Only the core resolution mechanic is used" means they have a "commitment" to "System" (and I might point out that because "System Does Matter" and there are no systems - apparently - that support things like this, outside of GNS, it goes without saying that "most other elements of the system that would otherwise facilitate some kind of GNS style are simply left out").  Maybe it's "Setting," except the use of "In Nomine or Changelings" means there must be some kind of "commitment" to "Setting," because they're certainly not playing those games for the rules.  That leaves "Situation and Color;" if I read Ron correctly, you do not have to emphasize all five "elements" in every game, so three out of five sounds sufficient to me to qualify for "Exploration."

But perhaps you are reading something into Jesse's post that I'm not seeing.

QuoteThese players are using their imagination to make a humorous situation, however, they are not imagining the listed elements, where the listed elements are the context of the RPG. They are, in Jesse's words, "laughing at their characters slapsticky antics."

Wait! You're right, they do have "commitment" to a situation (even if you believe that humorous situations don't count – what about the game Toon?), a humorous one, "sent out to find the Widget of Something."  And now that you bring it up, it occurs to me that slapstick is a "Color," even if it wasn't the one the game designer intended.  So I see them having "commitment" to all five listed elements.  Do you agree?  Is this an issue where we can agree to disagree, or is there a right answer/wrong answer thing going?

And which "context of the RPG" are you speaking of?  Is it 'as written,' because then you are saying that they fail to be role-playing gaming simply because they are not following the published materials' intent.  Or is it 'as played,' because in a humorous game (even unwritten), "slapsticky antics" are the context.

QuoteThis does not fit into the GNS model, because the point is not role-playing. The point is social joking, in an RPG context.

How can anything done "in role-playing game context" not be considered a form of role-playing gaming?  Are we actually arguing past each other on the issue of what is or is not role-playing gaming (even before we get to the issue of "Exploration")?  Which is it to you?  Not role-playing gaming first or not "Exploration" second?  We cannot discuss both simultaneously.  I believe, by Ron's definition, it is both.  Can you show me the earliest break in the chain?

And how can you say "the point is social joking" (as if the point isn't role-playing gaming)?  Jesse said "with games that already have some element of this," which says to me that the games, as written, have "some element of this" as their explicit goals.  (Even though he adds games to his example that do not, they serve more as examples of what gives him discomfort, not of what is played because those examples have "some element of this" "slapsticky antics" the way I read it.)

QuoteThis may seem contradictory. Consider a parallel activity, spoofing, or "MST3K"ing, a movie. The movie watched is usually considered bad, and the point is not actually to watch the movie, but to make jokes, in the context of watching a movie. (I find that often the people that enjoy the activity described in Jesse's post enjoy MST3king movies.)

You're right that does seem contradictory.  The way I read it, Jesse's exemplars aren't spoofing the game they're playing; they're enjoying the antics of their characters.  That would parallel watching a good movie and sharing personal anecdotes sotto voce.  But Jesse never mentions anything that happens outside of play (except laughing), so I think even this is a poor parallel.

QuoteThat said; if we ignore this point and consider that they are role-playing, do they fit in the GNS model, and how do they? You point out:

• They are not applying GNS goals consciously or unconsciously.
  
• They are having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion.[/list:u]They obviously are not applying GNS goals to the RPG experience. That is an acceptable given in this situation. Are they having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion, however? Jesse mentioned that this activity wouldn't bother him, if it weren't extended to more serious games, like Changeling or In Nomine.

And he specifically says "I hesitate to call this style dysfunctional."  Since I take his words at face value, that means I assume it is not dysfunctional (even if it might be).  And since I have had similar experiences, which I know to be non-dysfunctional, I don't think this assumption is much of a stretch.  (Unless we begin using something like a circular line of definition like, if it doesn't follow the GNS model, it's dysfunctional, and vice versa.)

Besides, Jesse has not asked us why he is the only one not having fun.  He was asking which GNS mode these games (and there are obviously a number if they play In Nomine, Changeling, and others) belong to.  He implies that only his play was dysfunctional (in the named games only) and because of it he wondered which GNS mode of play it appealed to (since it wasn't his at those points).

QuoteWhile it has become fashionable for RPGs to say, "Ignore the rules if they get in the way," I think we can follow this logic:
[list=a]

• RPG rules should be written to facilitate a game's premise or goal, whatever that may be, GNS or otherwise.
  
• If a rule does not facilitate that goal, it is dysfunctional.
  
• Therefore, removing rules because they 'get in the way' is a sign of dysfunction.[/list:o]

Except:
[list=a]

• No game had been written that facilitates this style of gaming's premise or goal, by the way Jesse describes it.  (This makes sense if it is non-GNS.  Didn't Narrativists have to "ignore the rules if they get in the way" until Narrativist rules appeared?  What about other, yet to be discovered styles?)
  
• Thus a non-GNS style would require either rules that have not been written yet or they would have to "Ignore the rules."
  
• What about the Narrativist on the forefront ten or fifteen years ago?[/list:o]Besides this argument is not logical.  The removal a dysfunctional 'thing' (in this case a rule) is not in and of itself dysfunctional.  In fact, I would say removing dysfunction would have to improve function.  Such removal would therefore make a game more functional, especially from a writer's point of view (which you seem to be using).  When trying to play in a style not covered by any of the rules sets available, does it not make sense to be "removing rules because they 'get in the way'" or are (as the written is compared to the intent of play) dysfunctional?
  
  

  QuoteI would say that the question "are they having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion" has multiple answers.
  

  • They are having fun.
    
  • Their goal is obviously to laugh, and in that, they are not dysfunctional.
    
  • They are not fulfilling the game's goal. This may be their fault, or the game's, but it is dysfunctional.[/list:u]

  They are definitely not fulfilling the game's goal as it was written, but what if they are playing in a style that no rules sets support like the earliest Narrativists did?  Were the early Narrativists dysfunctional?  If you can say definitively that these people are clearly dysfunctional based on this line of reasoning, then you are also either saying that earliest Narrativist play was dysfunctional or that all modes or gaming have been discovered and nothing is left to look for (except dysfunction).  I think both of those statements are patently untrue but subject to opinion.  What do you think?
  
  

  QuoteTo your last points:
  

  • They are not unique or rare in this practice.
    
  • Therefore something is missing from the GNS model.[/list:u]It is fully admitted by Edwards that "GNS is the central concept of my theorizing about role-playing ... However, it is not sufficient, and the three modes themselves do not address any and all points about role-playing."

  That means that if these people are practicing something outside of GNS, they are not, by Ron's essay, inherently dysfunctional.  Since the case must therefore exist where people may be exploring new and valid forms of role-playing gaming, ones that may not have rules with goals to suit, it cannot be said they are necessarily dysfunctional by definition.
  
  

  QuoteHe speaks specifically about the social aspects of role-playing here.  Your argument that this is not included in the GNS model has already been agreed to.

  Actually I wasn't using 'Social' mode.  (In fact I was specifically trying to avoid using it as an example.)
  
  

  QuoteI think you mean this to prove that the GNS model is flawed,

  It is only flawed if you consider missing something (not necessarily the mythical 'Social' mode) a flaw.  I may have said "flawed" in the past, but what I meant was 'unfortunately limited.'  Sorry for the mix-up.
  
  

  QuoteI don't think it proves that. A lot of effort has gone to prove that the GNS model is flawed in some way,

  Are you asking me to do the impossible?  Prove something exists for which terminology that is not allowed (see the "define them differently" part below) in the current model.
  
  

  Quoteand I think they all miss a few points:
  
  [list=1]

  • The GNS model is a way to model games. It is not the way.
    
  • If a game cannot be categorized in the GNS model, it is considered flawed according to the model. That does not mean that it is flawed, but that it does not fulfill a goal in GNS.
    
  • Arguing with defined terms in a model, is, to be blunt, moronic. The terms are defined in the context of that particular model. If you define them differently, you are speaking outside that context.[/list:o]

  Point by point:
  [list=1]
• Can you rephrase that, it reads self-contradictory.
  
• And that means that the common use around here of 'the GNS models everything' is clearly the problem I have.  Since this cannot be prevented with Ron's essay as written (too few even acknowledge the "However, it is not sufficient, and the three modes themselves do not address any and all points about role-playing" part often enough), I would like something different.
  
• That's what I have been saying (poorly I know).  It is also moronic to try and discuss things outside the model with the terms from the model because "the terms are defined in the context of that particular model."  And because of the nature of how this model is used, there has, so far, been no tolerance of terms outside of the ones used in the model.  This scores heavily back into the problems I associated with new terminology earlier.[/list:o]Put simply:
  
  • You say arguing with the terms is moronic.
    
  • You say the terms are defined in the context of that particular model.
    
  • I say that the model is limited.
    
  • Therefore other terms must be used outside those of the model to discuss things outside the model.
    
  • Any use of the words that have been taken as the terms of the model in question draw complaints of trying to "define them differently," yet many of those same words tend to be the best for describing issues related to the analysis of role-playing gaming.  (The worst thus far is 'narrative,' it does a really good job describing 'what goes on' in a game, but since it has been co-opted by Narrativists, there is no way to use it here.  The alternative has been to use 'the sequence of in-game events' and as long as that is, it still does not capture all of the meaning that 'narrative' does.)
    
  • This means any attempt to discuss alternative models is at least hamstrung at the terminology level.
    
  • Not only that, but there is intense social pressure to conform to the GNS model theories.[/list:u]The problem here is I LIKE THE GNS MODEL!  I like it so much I want it to be better.  I want it to include more.  I want the terms used in it to be intuitive to newcomers.  I want it to be capable of being used pro-actively (not just to analyze problems).  I think it can be all those things, except I am not allowed to add to it, call for any of the terms to be improved or rearranged, or even suggest how it might be expanded to advisory capability.
    
    

    QuoteI don't think this proves the GNS model is flawed because, as I stated in the beginning, these players do not have the goal of role-playing.

    That doesn't change the fact that it is has been no more than an opinion from the beginning, a foundation that I disagree with.  I do not intend to prove my opinion to the contrary, I just want to call some of your assumptions into question so as to state my case more clearly.
    
    

    QuoteTheir goal seems to be purely social,

    To you.  I see more to it than that, from my experiences.
    
    

    QuoteAs GNS tries to model role-playing behaviors, and not social behaviors, it cannot be validly used to characterize this activity.

    Thus you both agree that the GNS is limited and pass on any attempt to discuss its expansion or improvement.
    
    Let me try a different (though no less hopeless) tact.
    
    Here are examples of the shortcomings I see in the 'old' GNS model:
    
    What about games where the player is pursuing a goal along the lines of a romance novel, 'to get the girl.'  The closest mode of GNS to what I am suggesting is Gamism, except that there is no 'scorecard,' character improvement, or mechanical consistency.  There are no player-operated narrative elements and yet a thematic metagame goal.  It is approached not at all Narrativistly, but in a 'love is a game' fashion (cat and mouse and all) without any of the familiar stance questions (being entirely Actor stance).  (Because of all the controversy lately, I am not altogether sure this is outside Gamism, but by Ron's essay, it sounds like it to me.)
    
    What about cartoon style role-playing games?  When they use no Authorial and Directorial stance and have no attention paid to issues of tension or denouement, what are they?  So far, I have only been able to liken them to Simulationism except the frequency of deus ex machina defeats any attempt at verisimilitude (or "internal logic and experiential consistency" or plausibility) and the requirement of one and only one "metagame" concern that appears to be humor.  (Many of the Teenagers from Outer Space games I have played in both match this and Jesse's example.)
    
    Further how about all those "I can't wait to play Sorcerer" comments.  Or playing a game to review it.  Don't all GNS goals become subordinate to the goal of experiencing a new game (and trying out all its 'parts')?  That certainly isn't 'Social' mode, but I liken it to Narrativism because both look at the game from an 'outsider' perspective (similar to 'what makes it a good story,' and no co-authorship but more 'how well does the writing achieve its goal').  'Theme' cannot be the ultimate goal, because all games played thus are not necessarily Narrativistic, and yet 'how it works' over all (a "value-judgment" crucial per Ron's definition of Narrativism, just not about 'theme') is the focus of attention (as 'theme' is the focus in Narrativism).
    
    Lastly, what about players who "show up and just play their characters" for escapism's sake alone?  Many times it does not matter whether issues of verisimilitude or consistency are even addressed.  Likewise, they clearly want to avoid the stresses of paying heed to co-authorship, stances (outside of actor), or Narrativism.  Personally, when I am in 'escapist' mode, I also care little about rules or success, resource management, or even who 'wins.'  This only barely looks like 'immersive' play and certainly isn't a match with Simulationism.
    
    And these are not the only limitations noticeable (only four that I've found).  Why can't we advance the GNS model so that it includes these (without adding adjuncts and listing exceptions to be included)?  What is wrong with taking the strengths of the GNS and increasing them?  Why can I get no discussion on this?  (It always turns into an argument over me "finding flaws" that "don't exist," changing the terminology, or misusing the model.)  Everyone seems ready to say that the GNS model is limited and doesn't cover everything, why is no one willing to talk about what can be done to change that fact?
    
    

    Quote---
    
    With all that said, I have an aside. No one will have a civil argument with you, Fang, if you do not return civility.

    Point taken, I will go back and delete my breaches of civility now (even if you never call this point on people like Greyorm (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=951&forum=12&start=15) or lock their threads.).
    
    Fang Langford
    
    p. s. Hey you're the Site Maintenance Guy, why is there no 'Alternatives to the GNS' forum?  That way there'd be less of these arguments altogether.  (Since the GNS forum would be used to discuss the model as is and the other could be used for complaints and replacements, but not defensiveness.)
    
    [ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-12-07 15:34 ]

Hey Fang,

I am rather fond of GNS, but as Gordon mentions in another recent thread, it fails as a 'theory of everything' (yet most 'fans' fall back to using it that way, at least unconsciously).

Can you blame the theory for this? Somehow I think it's a human tendency to over-extend the significance of any theory. Have you ever had that 2:30 a.m. conversation with a drunken college student, the one where he tells you the freshman psych solution to inner city crime? Take a look at university press journals  or the collected papers of student conferences and you'll see a zillion examples. "Objectivism in the Novels of Charles Dickens." That kind of crap.

Is it the fault of the theory that enthusiastic fans generalize it beyond its intended context?

Paul

Quote
On 2001-12-07 14:34, Le Joueur wrote:
I like [the GNS model] so much I want it to be better.  I want it to include more.  I want the terms used in it to be intuitive to newcomers.  I want it to be capable of being used pro-actively (not just to analyze problems).

First, let me say I agree with most of your post, specifically the point that the behavior examined does not fit in the GNS model. I think I said that plenty above.

Here's my take on the rest: I don't think GNS is the end-all categorization of role-playing games and their associated behaviors. I think that is such a diverse subject that there's no real way to encompass it all in one model.

(Aside: for some interesting models that do examine the social behaviors in RPGs, check out The Fantasy Role-Playing Game: A New Performing Art by Daniel Mackay. Mackay also examines models for RPG aesthetics. It's a brillant book, if a little master's thesis-esque.)

I think this is where we disagree (and I where I disagree with a lot of people on GNS): it's a model solely to examine the three major goals of role-playing game system design. It's not supposed to be used to examine every aspect of role-playing.

If you want to suggest a model to examine personal reasons for role-playing, and the social behaviors that result, I'm all for that. Robin Laws has actually examined this quite a bit in his recent Dragon articles.

To touch on your other points:

Cartoon-style roleplaying games - well, it depends. I'm not going to make a guess here, because I haven't played any. I would suggest:

- If the system tries to make things work according to "cartoon logic," that's a Simulationist trait.
- If the system uses techniques to evoke humor, that sounds like a Narrativist trait.
- If the players are dropping rules in order to make the play more to their tastes (as in Jesse's example), it sounds like straight-up drift. It sounds like the game does not fulfill its intended purpose, or at least the goals of the players.

---

By the way, thanks for returning the civility. I truly do appreciate it. I'm sorry you think that there's been favoritism in the past. I assure you that running a forum has been a learning process for both Ron and I, and we've probably both made mistakes in judgment. We do tend to deal with different people differently because of our personal relationships. If someone I knew well was acting uncivil, I'd probably be quicker to e-mail them and let them know. I know that's hard, because that sort of thing isn't seen in the public arena. If you do see something that doesn't seem kosher around here, please let me know privately.

As far as an 'Alternatives to GNS' forum: I'd recommend taking it up in RPG Theory. I'd love to see a thread about models for the social aspect of roleplaying. If there's enough interest in a thread, I'll expand it into an entire forum.

QuoteClinton R Nixon wrote:

QuoteFang wrote:

I like [the GNS model] so much I want it to be better.  I want it to include more.  I want the terms used in it to be intuitive to newcomers.  I want it to be capable of being used pro-actively (not just to analyze problems).

First, let me say I agree with most of your post, specifically the point that the behavior examined does not fit in the GNS model. I think I said that plenty above.

Here's my take on the rest: I don't think GNS is the end-all categorization of role-playing games and their associated behaviors. I think that is such a diverse subject that there's no real way to encompass it all in one model.

True enough, but as the centerpiece to the essay everyone here uses to do all that, does it bother you if I want the part that describes the major goals to include more than three if there are more?  (I think there are, but that's a topic for another debate.)

[Snip.  Thanks for the book reference; I will look into it.]

QuoteI think this is where we disagree (and I where I disagree with a lot of people on GNS): it's a model solely to examine the three major goals of role-playing game system design. It's not supposed to be used to examine every aspect of role-playing.

This illustrates my problem.  To you it's just about design.  Because it does not clearly say anything like that in Ron's essay, all the people you disagree with use it more widely.  How can we fix this?

QuoteIf you want to suggest a model to examine personal reasons for role-playing, and the social behaviors that result, I'm all for that.

I did already (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=457&forum=4) for all the discussion it got.

QuoteTo touch on your other points:

Cartoon-style role-playing games - well, it depends. I'm not going to make a guess here, because I haven't played any.

I'm beginning to think that might be the problem I am encountering here.  Too few of the regulars have actually tried an escapist cartoon game like Teenagers from Outer Space (that might have to be the oldest edition, I haven't looked at the new ones yet, they don't come with a little bag of mini-dice).  Thus when I try to go on at length about 'escapist' play, most don't get it.

QuoteI would suggest:

[list=1]

• If the system tries to make things work according to "cartoon logic," that's a Simulationist trait.
  
• If the system uses techniques to evoke humor, that sounds like a Narrativist trait.
  
• If the players are dropping rules in order to make the play more to their tastes (as in Jesse's example), it sounds like straight-up drift. It sounds like the game does not fulfill its intended purpose, or at least the goals of the players.[/list:o]

Point by point (sigh, agin, aren't youall gettin' a bit tired o' it?):
[list=1]

• Not in my edition of TFoS, the rules are written in a Simulationist fashion, yet with absences so that the 'cartoon' motif can play through uninhibited.  (The designer probably was only beginning to realize that "System Does Matter.")
  
• The humor is brought out strictly by the "Color" and the examples, remember this is a 'classic era' game, back before explicit Narrativist texts.
  
• No 'droppage' is really necessary; the game designer did that for us.  And yes, there is some text describing how to play in this absence.  It specifically talks about being humorous and fun, the only part we ever drop is the "pretend it's an episode" stuff implied by the game suggestion section in the back.  We saw that as a short road to railroading even though the book never mentions pre-scripting the endings.[/list:o]

  QuoteAs far as an 'Alternatives to GNS' forum: I'd recommend taking it up in RPG Theory. I'd love to see a thread about models for the social aspect of role-playing. If there's enough interest in a thread, I'll expand it into an entire forum.

  That's just it, how do you measure interest in splitting complaints into their own forum?  Complaining surely makes enough bandwidth to deserve a forum, right?  With no defensiveness necessary, these complaints can be dignified and explored and the perpetual reactionary responses would disappear, shortening both 'parent' and 'child' forums (giving rise to calls to "take it to the 'Alternatives to GNS' forum").  Likewise the 'parent forum' would no longer have to suffer these voluminous quasi-flame-wars.
  
  Also, I seriously doubt any single new theory will be dignified enough to grow and gain the following you are requiring so that they rate an entire forum of their own.  I am suggesting a single forum for all proposed alternatives combined.  That might reach a traffic minimum to be worthy and if you add in the 'complaints' part I think it will get plenty of traffic.  Much more than any individual GNS 'stepchild' would get or support.
  
  Likewise I think that the GNS and related theories might benefit from seeing parallels evolve (it would be hard to not be informed by the observation of this process), something impossible in all the 'noise' in the RPG theory forum.
  
  Do you want me to take this to the 'Site Discussion' forum?
  
  Fang Langford
  
  [ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-12-07 16:30 ]