I think I get it now

[rulvestad]

I posted this DitV AP (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20642.0) a while back and since then I've been following and participating in a couple other threads.  I've also reread the some of the original GNS essays and threads in the old theory forum.  I think I get it now.

Let me rehash that DitV session to see if it makes sense.  We didn't like the setting because we approached it as Simulationists.  We were primarily interested in exploring character and setting.  The players approached it as "We're Dogs, so this is how we act.  The Faith says this, so we're going to enforce it."  I, as GM, approached it as, "This is what's going on with these people, so they would act like this."

Whereas, it seems the intent of the game and a more Narrativist approach would be, "As players with a 21st century, urban outlook on life, the Faith and the Dogs are kind of messed up, how do I feel about that and how do I want to express it through my character?"  My role in that Narrativist game would be, "I know you, my friends, have certain opinions, whether I know what they are or not, so how about we test those with this situation?  How about if I push it even further?"

Also, one of the players engaged even less than the others.  I think he strongly prefers Gamism, since he loves to have an unambiguous problem to solve by applying his character's abilities.  The system wasn't geared specifically to hook him in and his goal didn't perfectly mesh with the rest of us.  It makes a lot of sense, because he and I have a lot in common concerning a search for something more coherent than our typical D&D game, but we often differ on specifics.  Now that I realize (I think) that I default to Sim and he defaults to Gam, most of our differences make tons of sense.

Are those appropriate characterizations of the GNS modes?  Does it sound like I actually get it or am I missing something?

thanks,
-Reed

[Callan S.]

Are those appropriate characterizations of the GNS modes?  Does it sound like I actually get it or am I missing something?

I think the thing to look for is the practical upshot, rather than your grasp of the theory. Is it helping you see what might be the cause behind problems? And possibly even suggesting solutions to you? Then cool - only delve into understanding the theory when you feel it might help you further in such matters.

As a pure affirmation, I think your kicking ass so far!

[rulvestad]

I think the thing to look for is the practical upshot, rather than your grasp of the theory. Is it helping you see what might be the cause behind problems? And possibly even suggesting solutions to you? Then cool - only delve into understanding the theory when you feel it might help you further in such matters.

As a pure affirmation, I think your kicking ass so far!

I totally agree.  It seems the biggest benefit of understanding the theory is recognizing the source of issues that arise and setting expectations correctly to avoid or fix them.  Or at least realizing that your style might never mesh with your buddy's.

To that end, I was pleased when it clicked for me, because the root of some issues I've had were suddenly clear.