Side Issues

[Gordon C. Landis]

EDIT: Uh, it'd be fine with me if this got merged in with the response Clinton made when he split-off Steve's post . . .


I wanted to respond to something GB Steve said over in the "Seven major  misconceptions" thread . . . I think it is relevant to GNS in general, so I'll leave it here in this forum, and maybe this thread can attract any other side issues that the misconceptions thread brings up for folks.  Now, the wise and (presumably) Anglophillic GB Steve wrote:

There is however a tendancy to the Cult of GNS here. It's difficult to talk about anything without immediate reference to GNS, of which Ron, with good reason given that he wrote it, is held to be the chief proponent.

After all, when people, such as I perhaps, misunderstand what Ron means by GNS, he is always there to lead them away from the Valley of Evil (that is a joke btw).

I always get the feeling that it is I who am wrong and GNS that is writ in stone. As has been explained to me by various Forgers, this is really just down to personal perception so I'll try to leave such things aside.

I think this (jokes and all)  is a pretty accurate description - GNS is the foundation on which a lot (but by no means all) of the discussions here occurs.  Folks have decided to think through issues in RPGs, they're looking for useful ways to do that, and the GNS vocabulary seems to be one.  It's pretty understandable that someone would feel like they're being "attacked" when they're frequently/continually corrected about their understanding of GNS, but . . .

The thing is, there's no way around it.  There are *huge* misconceptions about GNS out there.  Christopher gets huge kudos from me for "fighting the good fight" over at RPG.net - I tried some months back, it was a mess (personal attacks on Ron, Clinton, the Forge, me, attempts to "prove" malicious behavior . . . ugh).  I've somewaht given up "fighting", as it *can* come across as an irrational defence of what is, after all, just some ideas about a kind of game we happen to enjoy.

But if you're trying to have a conversation that involves some concepts, and some of those participating in the conversation continually misuse/misconstrue the concepts . . . what is there to do?  Correct the misunderstanding (or start a "Seven Major Misconceptions" thread - good move, Ron).  That doesn't mean the person with the misunderstanding is necessarily wrong in general, or that GNS is without flaws/issues, but . . . 90% of the time, what I see pointed to as reasons GNS is flawed are merely misunderstandings.  The other 10% can lead to changes in the theory, or agreement to disagree, or whatever, but there's no way (that I can see) around the "correction" process.

Way back when I first started posting to the Forge, I remember Ron saying this GNS stuff was really just the start of what he found interesting to discuss in RPGs, and it could frankly get tiresome revisting that ground instead of moving on to what's really cool/fun.  These many, many months later, I think I know exactly how he feels.  It's really, really hard to YET AGAIN go through and explain the intricacies of foundational-Explorative "story" vs. Narrative-goal Story every time someone gets tripped up.  In the long run, it serves the theory well to find new and perhaps better ways of covering the same ground - but man, it is wearying!

Especially when you've got a game to prep for on Friday . . .

Gordon

[Ron Edwards]

Gordon,

As you know, most of the discussion necessary from your post got hashed about on the split thread, but I thought your final point called for this ...

Some sort of chromed awards must go to Mike Gentry and to Christopher Kubasik, whose tolerance, patience, and persistence at the RPG.net discussion was amazing. I sincerely appreciate it.