Does GNS Make Me Happier?

[deidzoeb]

Count this as another testimonial for use in GNS ads on back covers of comic-books.  "I was a 98 hit point weakling, getting sand kicked in my face by the big simulationist in my group, until I read GNS!"

I found Ron's main GNS essay a month or two ago, but the terminology was a little tough to chew through, so I didn't read the whole thing.  I came back about a week ago and finished it.  Finally I understand why the others in my gaming group frustrate me so much, spending all their time tweaking their characters, improving their fighting abilities, getting every new supplement so they can add new feats and skills and on and on, while I just want to get to the meat of the plot.

The GNS articles and the discussions I've read here really give a whole new vocabulary for understanding what we've been groping for and missing in my gaming group.

Thanks!

a happy camper

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Hold on - is this really what GNS is supposed to do? "I knew the other people I gamed with bug me, but I never knew how to put it in words until now." That seems - well, seperatist and an easy way to place blame. I thought it was a way to quantify what you want out of RPGs, not a way to figure out why others are wrong.

I totally get what you're saying, deidzoeb - different people want different things from RPGs. Just remember that what you want isn't any better than what your friends want - just different. I see a lot of people read GNS for the first time and really grab on to something, blurring their sight from the big picture - I hope that doesn't happen here.

[Ian Cooper]

I was an unhappy gamer - but I found the solution, Narratavist games (Hero Wars and Sorcerer) before I found GNS (in fact they led me to it). I think that GNS is intriguing, though I'm still wading through a backlog of material before I could say that I am up to speed on it, but I am more interested in the tools it gives me than the rightness or wrongness of its propositions.

It did give me the ability to comprehend why some people liked Hero Wars and others felt it was a failure. It also gave me the beginnings of a vocabulary to explain to others what Hero Wars goals were (and in some cases recognition of those goals made some people who did not get it happier).

But, that identification over,  I find more value in tools like Relationship Maps, Bangs, and Kickers than the theory which suggests that they are what I need to use. To me GNS is a guide to which clubs I should be pulling out of the golf bag of RPG tools, in order to play the game I want.

I can see Ian's point about suffering analysis paralysis, I think this could be a danger. However, recognize that you have been using many of these tools all along. Just let GNS help you decide which tools to use, which to put to one side. for the game you want to run. Run a game. Fail. Learn. Run another. Fail better. Keep failing until one day, maybe, you get it right.

[Bankuei]

I think a lot of people assume that if someone takes the time to write an essay, it's some form of religious dogma.  GNS is just something that says, "There are different goals for different games, here's one way to measure them, and if you get that, then you will be able to better understand what kind of game you want to play."  Taa-daa! Not hard right?

Everyone pulls the "golden rule" out of their ass when they've just spent $40 on a game with broken rules("Just change it, right?"), but gets all up in arms when someone gives you a concept, game tool, for free on the net :P

I do agree that many folks tend to overanalyze, or overthink rpging in general, but that would've happened with or without GNS.  There's probably a lot of folks doing it right now with Robin's Laws, who've never heard of GNS.  I'm sure you can look on other forums and find root issues that people are asking over and over, but have no critical method of analyzing it.

Many people both for or against GNS, forget, it's true test is in the gameplay.  I think a lot of folks get lost in the GNS theory(whether for it or against it) and forget that the original idea is to go out and play.  GNS is like a wrench or a socket to tighten something on your bike, you can use it, but you don't need it.  And the tool by itself isn't going to do you as much good as the bike.

GNS is just a tool.  It itself isn't going to make you happy.  Your games are.  And give up on the idea of the "perfect game" or session, it's like the perfect job, house, relationship, or sex.  Everything got its moments.

Chris

[WhistlinFiend]

Hold on - is this really what GNS is supposed to do? "I knew the other people I gamed with bug me, but I never knew how to put it in words until now." That seems - well, seperatist and an easy way to place blame. I thought it was a way to quantify what you want out of RPGs, not a way to figure out why others are wrong.

Clinton's got it right here. I haven't gamed since a very frustrating Rolemaster campaign many, many years ago. After I read GNS, I got on this kick about how much that group stunk, how wrong they were, etc. Then it struck me...I was the oddball. I was the speed metal guitarist at the jazz session. There were 6 other people at that table perfectly happy with an Illusionist campaign, more than thrilled to pick up that new skill in RMC II...6 people who looked at me like I had two heads when I tried to introduce a love story subplot. GNS is about knowing what you want and what others want...careful about pigeonholing.

-dave

[deidzoeb]

That seems - well, seperatist and an easy way to place blame. I thought it [GNS] was a way to quantify what you want out of RPGs, not a way to figure out why others are wrong.

Sorry, I didn't mean it like that.  If I felt that way, then my story would have ended, "-so I told them our gaming styles were incompatible and I quit that Gamey/Simmist group."  The real story is that I'm going to try to pass this GNS vocabulary on to my group (although I doubt they'll make the effort to read articles on Forge), and see if it reduces the tensions we had before.  It's not that I want to convert them into Narrativists, but if I can get the ideas through to them, we'll have a better time deciding what to play and how to play it.

Maybe I should have said that in the past I felt annoyed by my gaming buddies' behavior, but now I understand we can peacefully co-exist and have more enjoyable games if we recognize the different gaming styles that each of us prefers.  It's like we all had little squares and triangles of paper that we were trying to assemble into a larger shape, and reading about GNS is like taking a geometry class.  The question is whether or not my weekend hanging-out pals will listen to what I'm going to tell them, when it may sound as difficult and boring as a geometry lecture coming from me.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Clinton's right, of course, but my impression of deidzoeb's point is that he (she, etc?) is not violating those principles - we're talking about preferences and how to deal with them, not "better/worse/you suck."

So far, it sounds like another Aye for the general topic of this thread, as expressed in its title.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

My recommendation Dieb (and I think it would be echoed by many others) is *don't* use the vocabulary at all, and don't try to set aside a time for a deep discussion.  You're right that will likely turn into a boring lecture...no matter who's doing it.

I'd suggest poking around the Forge resources looking for a game that could be introduced as a quick 1 session game, maybe during a regularly scheduled session where some players are not able to make it and it would be better to not continue the existing game without them, or just a quick gathering on a different night.

Inspectres is a great game to introduce in this regard because it has just enough recognizable trappings to not be intimidating (unlike say the Pool, or the Word the Flesh and the Devil), but it very subtly (or not so subtly depending on how the GM handles it) asks players to begin to do things they would never have thought to do in a traditional game.

Donjon is also good in this regard, has the added advantage of having a more traditional fantasy RPG setting.  The game puts itself out there as a basic dungeon hack, but the power players are given to control the game through the Fact mechanic is fairly radical.

I'd also take a look at Dust Devils, although that game can be pretty intense and requires a good bit of player committment.


In other words, instead of hitting them over the head with a treatise on game play, Stealth 'em.  Give them the opportunity to spread their wings on just a small piece at a time (like player authoring power in the games mentioned above) where they have no prior vested interest in the game (and thus no fear of screwing the whole campaign up).  When they become accustomed to that, start trying to integrate the concepts into your other games.

For players that seem particularly interested "holy cow, I never imagined you could play like this, this is great", invite em on over.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Ralph makes a good point that a lot of people have validated in the past, including me. Theory-discussion is a turn-off; examples and fun play are a turn-on.

I also suggest that one doesn't have to turn to Narrativist games for these fun "try it" exercises. If that's what you want, then InSpectres, Dust Devils, etc, are great. But someone who's more into the deliberate and solid Simulationist/System approach might be interested in JAGS, for instance.

Best,
Ron

[Blake Hutchins]

I dunno.  A basic, under two minutes overview of GNS can be pretty helpful in at least introducing the idea of the different modes of play.  I had a short talk with my group prior to running The Pool last fall, and I think it helped orient the members before we embarked on what turned out to be a really different style of play.  I'd agree that a long, detail-riddled discussion of GNS and RP theory would be off-putting.  Save that talk for the post-mortem.

Best,

Blake

[deidzoeb]

Maybe a compromise.  I'll try to get them interested in other gaming styles by trying one they haven't played before.  Already told them about Dust Devils, which looks awesome, although I'd like to see more in the way of examples or scenario suggestions for it.

On the other hand, I give them enough credit to learn some of the GNS ideas if I describe it briefly (not really a lecture), but I don't give them enough credit to intuitively arrive at these ideas through incorporating them into play.  I'll take it under advisement that they may be turned off if I present it like a lecture, or present it like a doctrine we must all adhere to, but I see no reason to keep it a secret.

On a side note, I didn't mention it earlier because I was gushing about GNS, but I have to add that I've run across dozens of mind-blowing and hilarious amateur games & websites from links on The Forge.  (Should I start a new thread "Has The Forge made you happier?")

[edit to add] And by the way, I've had two people thank me on the wizards.com Call of Cthulhu d20 message boards for pointing them to the GNS articles here.  (Why do I suspect this will not be regarded as a good thing by all Forge regulars?)  Those boards are full of arguments over whether "classic" Cthulhu is better than d20 version, or whether CoC is "more mature" than D&D, etc.  If only they had a common vocabulary to compare, half their conversations would be moot.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Oh, it's a good thing, I think. I'm pretty sure (he said, nervously) that folks who are thanking you for the reference are 1:1 exactly the folks who will be fun to have around.

Overall, many thanks for your comments. I appreciate the compliments and it sounds as though your group will have some good times ahead. Please let us all know about it in Actual Play, too.

Best,
Ron