Criticisms of the Threefold

[greyorm]

This may be a bad example of a problem *requiring* GNS terminology--but I see no reason that a player who was unhappy with how the movement rules were appling to his character couldn't make a statement either *exactly* like, or incredibly similar to the above without GNS.

Marco, the central point you seem to be missing here -- by focusing on the details -- is that Bob and his GM are unable to have the above conversation and achieve actual resolution of the issue without a theoretical framework of understanding they both can use as a baseline.

That is: the baseline's the thing.
If they've developed this already in their group without GNS, then no problem. But in the example given, they definitely haven't. They both have very seperate ideas of how role-playing works -- how each believes it MUST work, in fact.

The second big point I think you might be missing is that Bob and his GM aren't just characters I've made up and made to dance with strings; as I've said, they're me and my GM, and one of my players and I. This is a real situation that has happened more than once -- twice with me as the GM, once with me as the player.

Without that GNS theory framework, the situation was unresolvable because neither individual understood the exact source of the problem --that is, "I want movie-type action stunts" is not the source of the problem.

Even if they play Exalted, as you suggest, there's still going to be a style conflict underneath it all -- and Bob's going to find something else that doesn't mesh with his desires, or Bob's GM is going to be tweaked by the player control involved in the stunts.

This is why I said "you can tweak, and tweaK" and still not find a resolution without that base understanding -- whever you get it from.

---EDITED for (hopefully) clarity---

[Marco]

Well, I'm focusing on what you've given me--which I have to--because I don't accept your premise that things are unresolvable without the GNS framework.

Gareth seems to think the two people can't have a respect for each other without that framework--but that's clearly not the case in your second example.

You say that tweaking won't work because it doesn't address the source of the problem. Treating the symptoms as it were.

But surely whatever solution for functional play you envision would involve some form of change of observable behavior on one or both sides that would resolve the problem.

Certainly the right "tweaks" would lead to that behavior change as well. Or does "treating the source of the problem" rely somehow on intent?

-Marco

[greyorm]

I think what has been lost in the whole either/or black/white argument is the idea of chance and time. Let's start over.

Having a theoretical framework for mutual discussion and understanding leads to respect for another individual's play style, and moreso, understanding of how that playstyle actually works (even why and how it is to be enjoyed). Note: this happened in my case.

Respect and understanding do not necessarily come solely from theory, however, but they increase the chance that an individual will have such. All things being equal, if you have someone who knows the GNS theory, the chance of that individual being respectful towards and understanding other play style preferences are greatly increased simply because of the basics of the theory. Agree?

Respect and understanding also take a great deal of time and effort for a group where they do not already exist. Having a foundation such as GNS to explore and understand differences results in less time taken trying to form such through conversation and re-invention of the wheel (as it were). That is, everyone is not starting out with a blank slate and trying to figure out what the other person means or wants when they say something, which takes a great deal of time, frustration, and experience. Agree?

This assumes the individuals involved realize the common vocabulary (munchkin, rules-lawyer, roll vs. role, etc.) and understanding of gaming (anti-Lumpleyism, etc.) are misguided and so loaded or skewed as to be useless for the purposes of honestly effective communication.

Also, there must be desire to engage in such a discourse and hash out a common understanding instead of just saying, "These are the rules, play them this way this time. We'll try something you like next time." While that is a functional response which neatly solves the issue, it is also one that doesn't actually solve the long-term problem, nor does it promote understanding of the reasons behind the problems in the first place.

[Paganini]

This isn't *exactly* on the subject of the Raven / Marco dialogue, but one thing about GNS that I really like that seems to often get lost in the shuffle is that it's enlightening not just for solving group difficulties, but for identifying personal preferences.

I was confused for a long time about what I liked in RPGs. See, conflicting GNS priorities can ocurr in an individual gamer, not just in a group. Understanding GNS helps you understand your own personal preferences, so you can identify and separate conflicting desires. You can enjoy many different games, depending on your mood. You can even successfully play (and design!) games that you don't particularly enjoy, if you want to for some reason. Say, your group is trying something out that you don't particularly like. You don't want to be a party pooper, so you play anyway. By understanding GNS, you can "appropriatize" your play mode to the situation.

[Marco]

Actually, that was my dead-bang on point about personal preference (which I was describing as intent-to-play-a-certain way) that started this whole thing.

I think that's mega-value.

-Marco

[Paganini]

Oh.

Well... cool! :)

[Marco]

I think what has been lost in the whole either/or black/white argument is the idea of chance and time. Let's start over.

Having a theoretical framework for mutual discussion and understanding leads to respect for another individual's play style, and moreso, understanding of how that playstyle actually works (even why and how it is to be enjoyed). Note: this happened in my case.

Respect and understanding do not necessarily come solely from theory, however, but they increase the chance that an individual will have such. All things being equal, if you have someone who knows the GNS theory, the chance of that individual being respectful towards and understanding other play style preferences are greatly increased simply because of the basics of the theory. Agree?

I Agree. I think my response that started this whole thing was interperting someone as saying the theory was necessary to resolve the conflicts.

Respect and understanding also take a great deal of time and effort for a group where they do not already exist. Having a foundation such as GNS to explore and understand differences results in less time taken trying to form such through conversation and re-invention of the wheel (as it were). That is, everyone is not starting out with a blank slate and trying to figure out what the other person means or wants when they say something, which takes a great deal of time, frustration, and experience. Agree?

Almost totally. I think respect can be had for another friendly person even if you think their request is unreasonable--and the presence of that--a recognition that a bud who'se not enjoying themselves for reasons you don't see as vaild is as worthy of assistance as someone whose reasons you do see as valid--is high up on the list of things that make any creative team work.

After all, not every breakdown will be a GNS related issue.

So I think understanding can take a great deal of time. I'd suggest at least some focus on reminding people that holding everyone at the table at a certain level of regard will minimize dysfunction too. And that shouldn't take a whole lot of time.

This assumes the individuals involved realize the common vocabulary (munchkin, rules-lawyer, roll vs. role, etc.) and understanding of gaming (anti-Lumpleyism, etc.) are misguided and so loaded or skewed as to be useless for the purposes of honestly effective communication.

Also, there must be desire to engage in such a discourse and hash out a common understanding instead of just saying, "These are the rules, play them this way this time. We'll try something you like next time." While that is a functional response which neatly solves the issue, it is also one that doesn't actually solve the long-term problem, nor does it promote understanding of the reasons behind the problems in the first place.

That response was an example of a vaild one that would be impenetralble to GNS. Sometimes it might even be a "good" choice if "next time" is right around the corner and both parties can see the benefit of driving on for the moment.

-Marco

[contracycle]

After all, not every breakdown will be a GNS related issue.

[

Who ever said that it was?