Mixing Styles Across The Table

[TrizzlWizzl]

On 2001-10-17 18:18, Ron Edwards wrote:

I invite you to examine my essay in the Articles section. It is clear that you are working with perceptions of the three modes of play, as well as with a perception of my agenda, that are completely inaccurate. You will find a full disclosure of all of these in the essay.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Thank you for the invitation, but I've already read your essays and come to my own conclusions.  Like the conclusion that "the universal role playing game is a moronic concept" and that I should wake up in the morning and tell myself, like some recovering alcoholic, that such an objective is objectively unattainable is total garbage.

I'm not trying to be insulting, but I find your presumption that I haven't checked my source material before posting my feelings on this board to be vaguely derogative.  Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I haven't read up on the subject (although the wording in 'GNS and Other Methods' is so vauge and unnecessarily verbose there' s plenty of room to say that I'm 'generalizing the terms' or 'committing synecdoche').

The fact is that your conclusions are only valid if one takes it as a given that the way people enjoy playing roleplaying games is some kind of objective, knowable entity that can be classified with the sufficient vocabulary and then using that vocabulary to approach system design.  Am I wrong?  Have I misunderstood the point?  I don't think I have.  I am of the opinion that such a given is flawed in it's most basic conceptualization.

I think I "get it" and I just plain disagree, and seeing as how this is the "RPG Theory" section of these boards this would be the place for me to voice my disagreement.  The stated point of "GNS" is to "have fun".  In my opinion, "GNS" is an ineffective model to base RPG design on because it seems like it says (again, this is based on what I've been able to drag out of the amorphous academic verisimilitudes of the "GNS" essay): Within a given system, certain players will not have fun; therefore, RPG design must be approached with a specific player-type in mind (so that those certain players can have fun).

If I'm wrong, you're welcome to clarify.  But don't just pop in to say "you obviously haven't read my essay".  I've read it in all it's exhaustive perponderance, and I'm just not in agreement with the basic theory.  This doesn't mean I'm being presumptive, it doesn't mean I heard about GNS from a die hard narrativist and wanted to make your lives difficult, it doesn't mean I'm assuming you all think 'narrativism is better', and it certainly doesn't mean I'm just looking to kick up dust.  RPG design and theory is something I care about very much, and it's because I care so much that I want my opinion voiced.

I've read your essays.  Throughly.  With a pencil to underline key concepts and phrases.  It's dense.  You're obviously a very intelligent person,  I just disagree with you in a very fundamental way.  Because I disagree, does that mean I'm "wrong" or "ignorant  of the content of the GNS essay"?  No.  It means I think that GNS Theory is as much a bad idea as you think the "universal game" is.

Am I allowed to disagree without being labeled "ignorant of the issue"?

[Mike Holmes]

If I might, I think that the reason that Ron referred you to his essay is that you seemed to not be understanding our use of the terminology. You see, this is our fault. We have devised this terminology for our own edification and use it in overabundance. The problem is that when other people come in they tend to assume that we mean certain things that we do not simply becuse we don't stop to define things. All the terminology that we use has other potential meanings, and we find that refering people to the essay or somewhere else with the vocabulary listed out tends to help them be able to translate what we are discussing.

Since you have rejected the use of such terminology in such a fashion, then you and we are bound to have trouble communicating, unless we here try to explain in a more elaborate fashion what we mean. If you wish to continue participating, I will do what I can when writing to you. But, in general, I doubt if we can all just stop using our phraseology for the sake of just one person when writing to each other. Sorry. I hope misunderstandings do not continue to happen because of this.

Anyhow, on the other note, I'm interested in why you particularly think that such discussions of GNS topics are so useless. You wouldn't be the first, BTW (S. John Ross, if your familiar, is a famous example of someone who has problems with GNS). But what do you see as the problem with GNS speciffically? You mentioned divisiveness, but we try to go a long way here to be against that. What about GNS would divide people in your opinion? Our opinion is that we're just describing an existing phenomenon. We don't say that people should choose only one mode and ignore the others. Just that some people do. Is it that observation that you find inaccurate? Or is there something in addition to the whole divisiveness thing?

FWIW (probably not much), I started out arguing with Ron about exactly the same thing. I thought that GNS was about splitting people into camps. But I've found that this is quite not the case, personally.

Hope that helps.

Mike

[Valamir]

TW, I'm going to take a stab at this because I think perhaps in the preponderance of information being presented you are missing the most important concept of the whole thing.

The sum of your posts to date assert the following:

1) RPGs are about having fun
2) If players aren't having fun its the GM's fault for not fullfilling their needs properly.
3) Any GM can keep his group having fun if only he's creative and flexible enough.
4) Given the above all of this talk about models and structure is a waste of time and counter productive.


Now let me try to explain what it is you're missing.

Re 1):  No arguement.  Thats been the goal from the beginning

Re 2):  One of the core beliefs of this site is that this idea is totally wrong.  It is not the GM's fault.  In fact, it is often no ones "fault" if a group does not function well.  Some groups simply will not function well because the expectations of what individuals want out their gameing may not be compatable.  To say essentially "can't we all get along" is fruitless and the answer is "no, sometimes we can't"

One use for GNS is to identify where some of the sources of dysfunction are coming from.  Few groups will be a perfect mesh of styles and objectives and expectations.  But just like any therapy acknowledging there is a problem and identifying what it is is a key step.  Often times all it takes is for players to become aware of these differing priorities and to be willing to accomodate them.  What GNS provides are tools (and a lexicon) enabling players to discuss issues in detail that we only had a vague sense of before.

Re 3):  Sometimes that is not the case.  Sometimes the different needs between players are so divergent that the only solution is to find a new group.  This doesn't mean the player was disruptive or a bad roleplayer, nor does it mean the GM was not accomodating or a bad GM.  It is simply a matter of recognizing that some styles and expectations are not compatable.  Instead of a group wallowing around with increasing levels of disatisfaction the GNS tool kit enables the participants to recognize the source of the disatisfaction and, if the situation cannot be salvaged, at least diagnose the issues in such a way that all parties can part amicably and in appreciation of the others preferences.

I can say from personal experience that a D&D group I was in split in half.  It was a sizeable group of 6-12 people (usually about 8 ), and of the two halves only 1 person is still even on speaking terms with other half.  If we had known about GNS at the time we might have saved friendships (though not likely the group) rather than the GM and his "faction" hating us for ruining *his* game and us hateing him for being a crappy GM [refer to Jared's comment on another thread about his "chamber pot" episode.  That is exactly the kind of GM I had].  

To think that all groups can play happily together if only the GM is good enough is IMO quite naive.  One use for GNS is for players to articulate their play preference in advance so they know before they even start if they are going to have trouble playing with each other.  Many a group mismatch and hours of discontent could be avoided if every gamer understood the concepts being compiled here [and note I used compiled here with a reason.  Ron's article comes complete with a bibliography of "outside" sources that have influenced GNS]

Re 4):  So no, it is not a waste of time.  All forms of artistic expression have their lexicon and their tools for disecting and analysing anothers work.  Role playing games are not children's toys. They are a vibrant, real form of personal expression. They can be as expressive as any painting, as inspiring as any piece of music, as thought provoking as any piece of literature and are more interactive than any form of theatre.  Why then should they not be as rigorously analysed.  Is there disagreement and debate among would be analysts?  Absolutely.  There is in every field, be it literature, theatre, fine art, or even investments.  

The depth and breadth of such debate and disagreement is proof positive that there is true meat to these topics and that roleplaying is NOT just a game.



[ This Message was edited by: Valamir on 2001-10-18 16:51 ]

[jburneko]

Well said, Valamir, well said.

Jesse

[Laurel]

TW, I'm really new to the Forge too.  As I told Clinton in private mail, I spent over a week just reading the forums and old topics and conversations.  I've been reading about GNS and related models on other sites and in other forums.   I feel like a real novice, but an educated novice and I'm here to learn more because the topics really interest me.  No one has been anything but kind, polite and helpful.  

One of the things I've most liked about the Forge is the courtesy that all the regulars try to extend to each other.  I've never seen so much intelligent, open-minded dialogue in an RPG forum.  So little trolling, flaming, baiting, patronizing.  Even more then the topics, it was the supportive atmosphere that made me decide to start posting and I haven't regretted it one bit.

So what I'd suggest you do is if you are interested in the topics is to just keep an open mind and friendly attitude.  I don't think anyone is saying "you must agree with Ron 100% of the time".  From what I've seen, the purpose of the Forge forums isn't (like many forums) to act superior and flaunt 3+ syllable words or attitude but to *gasp* help each other make good Indie RPGs and cause GNS and other RP theories to evolve through discussion and application.  What's more, it seems to work!  :smile:

[Ron Edwards]

Hey TW,

Reading or no reading, your posts, to date, illustrate either misunderstanding or a priori hostility.

For one thing, you've paraphrased the essay as stating (a) what you, a reader, SHOULD do; and (b) how games SHOULD be designed. None of that is present in the essay. The most important phrase is in the intro, which is to say, if role-playing is fun for you, then I'm not writing to you.

I smell Something Not Right. You claim not to be pre-influenced by any, say, Narrativist who has got in your face, or anything else. I disagree. Your entire profile of posting indicates a prior beef of some kind. Can you honestly say I'm being paranoid? I do not think so.

Moans that "you can't get along at the Forge unless you agree with Ron" are inaccurate. You are welcome to disagree - hell, Gareth (contracycle) just front-loaded a serious disagreement all the hell over the place. We're into it. But it has to be disagreement that is intellectually honest.

The more you object to what I "must be telling you to do," then the less you are presenting worthwhile discourse, and the more you are merely yelping, "You're not the boss of me." I don't expect people to agree with me, but to demonstrate comprehension, in which case all objections are fair.

Best,
Ron

[TrizzlWizzl]

Beginning with Valamir's post and working my way back, I feel I first must first address whether or not I feel the GM has total control over a particular game's "fun".  The fact is I don't.  As someone (probably Mike Holmes) pointed out, all kinds of crazy things can happen over the course of a game that might result in things going awry that the GM has no control over.  Granted.  What is within the GMs control, however, is the ability to ascertain a player's preferences and take affirmative action to ensure that he (or she... when I say "he" can we just make it gender-neutral?  I don't know how y'all handle this situation on this board) sees those preferences in his gameplay.  Does the whole game have to be played within the scope of a single given preference (or GNS model, what have you)?  No.  Assuming (this is the important given of my particular theory) that everybody actually wants to play, that everybody has already agreed on the rules and there's a basic understanding that different players are going to want different aspects in their gameplay (by both players and GM), you can have any number of players of whatever 'mode' sit down and game happily together regardless of system.

It's been my experience as a GM that players don't really care how you handle other people as much as how you handle them.  A looooooong time ago (more than a week), when I was first introduced to GNS, I brought it up with my group, explaining that different players were going to have different preferences and that I was going to be handling them all in a slightly different way.  After countering initial objections from my players with the good ol' "well, let's just give it a try and see how it goes", I have to say it's been going great.  I have all kinds of different players in my group: one narrativist, one simulationist, and three gamists.  I know what they want.  I try to give it to them and at the end of the session everyone seems genuinely happy.

For example: I know my narrativist likes to take the director stance once in a while to add stuff to her character I probably would never even think of (GNS helped me a lot in figuring out what it was about this player I wasn't delivering as her GM).  So sometimes I prompt her with "well, what does [NPC] do about that?" or let it slide when she threateningly pokes someone in the chest with her rapier.  From what I can gather from GNS, this would lead to the simulationist having some kind of massive quadrilateral coronary implosion (that's supposed to be funny, not accurate with regards to GNS... okay?).  In fact when the narrativist was describing the scene, poking the evil cabalist in the chest to keep him from running off, the simulationist piped up "Melee touch attack!?".  "Nah."  I said.  Getting back to what I said earlier about players caring more about their own gameplay than the gameplay of others, the simulationist later tried a similar tactic and I had him roll for it.  Did he mind the duplicity?  Nope, not one bit.  Now the gamists started giving me weird looks until I pointed out that my total God-like control as far as the rules adjudication went was, in fact, a rule (we're playing, surprise, D&D).  They quit it with the weird looks and moved ahead with the game.  Which turned out to be fun.  For everybody.

Sometimes that is not the case. Sometimes the different needs between players are so divergent that the only solution is to find a new group. This doesn't mean the player was disruptive or a bad roleplayer, nor does it mean the GM was not accommodating or a bad GM. It is simply a matter of recognizing that some styles and expectations are not compatible. Instead of a group wallowing around with increasing levels of dissatisfaction the GNS tool kit enables the participants to recognize the source of the dissatisfaction and, if the situation cannot be salvaged, at least diagnose the issues in such a way that all parties can part amicably and in appreciation of the others preferences.

I'll agree with both you and Jesse, Valamir.  Well said.  I don't have any issues with using the GNS model (or any classification model, for that matter) to determine what a player is going to want from a game.  Where we disagree is at the crossroads of Figuring Out What Players Want Dr. and Giving Them What They Want in Their Actual Gameplay Ave.  I feel that if one uses a 'player characterization model', one can then address the gaming desires of his players, as long as it's understood that the treatments of one player might be different than the other (as long as these treatments stay within the 'rule umbrella' and as long as balance is maintained, but that's a whole other topic... literally).

So do I feel that the GM has all the power in whether or not a game is fun?  No.  I feel that the players have a role to play (heh) in the 'fun factor' as well by understanding that not everyone in the group is going to want to play the game in the exact same way, but that everyone will be subject to the same mechanics.  Given that, then, the fun is indeed in the hands of the GM.  Once he has license to build his game with regards to individual player preference, he should do it (Should.  Yes.  I will go right out and tell people what they should do.) if he wants his game to be fun for everyone.

To think that all groups can play happily together if only the GM is good enough is IMO quite naive.

With all due respect, I feel the thought that no matter how good a GM is, certain groups just aren't going to play happily together is also quite naive.  IMO what makes a 'good GM' is not only writing good games but being a good politician, consensus builder, intermediary, team leader and educator.  I guess I feel that a good GM is like a good teacher; when a student isn't actively engaged in class, a good teacher doesn't just kick him out... he finds a way to engage the student so that the student will learn and contribute.  I guess I see an RPG environment more like a study group or symposium than a band.

Quick note: this whole Lil' Theory That I'm Sure Has Been Shot Down Before comes from my observation that role playing groups aren't a dime a dozen, at least where I live.  If one is lucky enough to find a group's worth of gamers, it behooves one to figure out a way to actually play with them, as opposed to meeting, discerning GNS models and going separate ways if they don't coincide.

Seeing as how this thread is supposed to be about 'RPG Theory' though (not 'Actual Gameplay'), I'll move on.

But what do you see as the problem with GNS speciffically? You mentioned divisiveness, but we try to go a long way here to be against that. What about GNS would divide people in your opinion? Our opinion is that we're just describing an existing phenomenon. We don't say that people should choose only one mode and ignore the others. Just that some people do. Is it that observation that you find inaccurate? Or is there something in addition to the whole divisiveness thing?

These are all very valid questions, and thank you Mike for attempting to draw my opinion out of me.  A quick point on divisiveness: I have no problem with GNS if it helps a GM to bring his group together.  My personal experience, however, has been that it has been used as justification for the GM to be nonresponsive to player preference  while assuming a game should be run a certain way given it's design ("this is a gamist game, so I'm going to run it totally gamist and I don't care what you want").  This is the real-life consequence of GNS that I'm dealing with, and I feel it should be part of the discussion.  My GM has obviously been influenced by the "System Does Matter" idea and I've found it leads to worse gaming, not better, to more exclusionist practices, not inclusive, and an overall sense of frustration for everybody.  Yes, I know that the overall opinion on this board is that GNS is supposed to eliminate the 'frustration' but for me GNS has caused more problems than it has solved and I think that should be understood by people who don't understand what my deal is.

System doesn't matter IMO.  What matters is whether or not everyone agrees on the system and whether or not the GM is going to attempt (just try) to address player preference given that system.  From what I can tell, GNS would say otherwise.

We can all agree that there are gaps between the way people enjoy games, right?  My impression of GNS is that it defines those gaps, measures those gaps, gives precise terminology for those gaps, the depths of the gaps, the breadth of the gaps, what might have caused the gaps in the first place, and on, and on.  My concern is more about how to bridge those gaps.  I don't see a whole lot of bridging in discussion on these boards.  Maybe it's cause I'm new and you all have ended that conversation a long time ago.  Maybe it's because you've already decided that those bridges are impossible to build, a "moronic concept", unattainable.  But I disagree.  I think those bridges are possible to build and in building them one can make a far more entertaining game (notice how I keep posting in this thread, "Mixing Styles Across The Table"?).

Further, my 'real beef' with GNS is based on it's theory of RPG design.  I totally disagree with the concept that a mixed-bag approach will result in an 'incoherent' system.  I feel a mixed-bag approach, executed well, can give the GM the tools he needs to more comprehensively address player preference.  Having base mechanics for gamists and optional rules for narrativists and simulationists can allow a group to agree upon a basic set of rules given the preferences of the players within said group.  That's my opinion, and I feel an important point needs to be raised: that opinion is just as valid as the opinion of anyone else here.

Which brings me to Ron Edwards.  Ron, bubby:

Moans that "you can't get along at the Forge unless you agree with Ron" are inaccurate. You are welcome to disagree - hell, Gareth (contracycle) just front-loaded a serious disagreement all the hell over the place. We're into it. But it has to be disagreement that is intellectually honest.

First, I'm not moaning, and you characterization of my tone as such is... lame.  Second, I don't recall ever making that statement... I think you might be drawing on your experience with past objections.  Third, I don't think I have to agree with you to "get along at the Forge"... Mike Holmes, Laurel, and others have been astoundingly patient with the 'new guy' and it seems like they're giving the new guy a chance to adjust before criticizing him personally.  Finally: what about my disagreement is "intellectually dishonest"?

If I generalize the GNS Theory in a way that seems to cast it in a negative light, that doesn't mean I'm ignorant, it's doesn't mean I'm declaring that "you're not the boss of me", it doesn't mean anything besides 1) I've read GNS and understand it and 2) I don't agree.  That's all.  No intellectual dishonesty, no yelping, no moaning.  I just don't agree.  What do I have to do, aside from agreeing with you, to "demonstrate comprehension" so that my "objection can be fair"?   Looking back on what I've written I don't think I've said anything to lead you to believe I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about so please let me know what I have to do so that I'm not "yelping or moaning" and that my arguments are "intellectually honest".

P.S. Either really explain your characterization of my argument with specific quotes or just stop posting these unproductive rebuttals.  Either be specific or just don't post anything, please.  Please?  I mean, just telling me I don't know what I'm talking about (when I think I do, at least to some extent) isn't a big help.  So if you don't have the time to be comprehensive in your criticism of my intellect, I'm fine if you don't post anything at all.  I'll just assume your opinion of me is that of a juvenile rabble rouser and pay attention to those interested in actual discussion and debate.  Thank you.

[joshua neff]

TW--

Here's where I have a problem with your argument: the GM.

I disagree that it's up to the GM to ensure that all the players are covered in their gaming preferences. I disagree that it's up to the GM to ensure the players have fun. I think it's up to the group as a whole that all players, GM included have fun. Yes, GNS can be divisive in the sense that a GM could say "this is a gamist game--if you're not into that, play elsewhere". I do that all the time, because if I'm not running a strongly narrativist game, I'm not enjoying myself, & if I'm not enjoying myself, why the hell am I playing? I don't GM out of any sort of duty to make sure other people have fun, I do it to run the games I want to run & have fun with my group. That's it. There's nothing magical about being the GM. Similarly, as a player, if it's obvious the group isn't going to be playing in a narrativist style I enjoy, I won't play (such as when I dropped out of my group's D&D game). Why would I stick around if I'm not having fun?

Let's go back to the band metaphor. If I want to play 80's New Wave & everyone else in the band wants to play death metal, I'm not gonna stick it out, even if it's the only band in town. I'll go write or play computer games instead. And if I'm the bassist (the GM), setting the groove for everyone else, it's not my job to make sure we're playing a fusion of jazz, metal, & adult lite contemporary, just so that everyone will stay in the band.

Now, if you have a group with mixed goals & play styles (as I do) & everybody's happy with the way the game is being played (as mine is), then you don't have a problem. Groovy. But people will be divisive regardless of GNS or any other model (humans don't need an excuse to exclude). GNS may help identify why people aren't happy with the games they're playing (it helped me).

But as far as I'm concerned, the GM is just another player, & doesn't shoulder any responsibilities to make sure everyone is having a good time. That falls to the group as a whole.

[Ron Edwards]

Well, then. Examples of moaning and yelping? Sure. Invective like "total garbage" is a good tip-off. (On the other hand, I thought that "amorphous academic verisimilitudes" was pretty funny, almost good enough for a band name, or at least a Yes album.) But really, that's not the point. I'm referring to a more important issue.

You have stated this almost correctly:
"Within a given system, certain players will not  have fun; therefore, RPG design must be approached with a specific player-type in mind (so that those certain players can have fun)."

But not at the most important level. It all comes back to the "should." Who said "should?" Not me, not in my essay. Again, if it doesn't apply to your play and enjoyment, then be happy. Pay me no mind.

That is where you have incorrectly read the essay, in perceiving it as a moral directive. "I see no reason!" you say. Good. Be happy. Pay me no mind. (So I call something "moronic?" What's it to you? If you are a happy role-player using such systems, then what's the harm of the Bad Old Man nattering in the corner?)

"Because I disagree, does that mean I'm "wrong" or "ignorant of the content of the GNS essay"?"

No, of course not. This forum is rife with disagreement. However, paraphrasing incorrectly at the most basic level is not a disagreement - it IS a misunderstanding. Protesting against the (absent) moral directive is yelping, whatever vocabulary or diction you use. Discourse requires shared understanding, and effort in that direction.

So, here's my clincher. You write,

"My personal experience, however, has been that it has been used as justification for the GM to be nonresponsive to player preference while assuming a game should be run a certain way given it's design  ("this is a gamist game, so I'm going to run it totally gamist and I don't care what you want"). This is the real-life consequence of GNS that I'm dealing with, and I feel it should be part of the discussion. My GM has obviously been influenced by the "System Does Matter" idea and I've found it leads to worse gaming, not better, to more exclusionist practices, not inclusive, and an overall sense of frustration for everybody."

Now there's the topic. So it's not my essay. It's not anything I'm saying. You're pissed about a PERSON and some interaction you've had. You have arrived with a chip on your shoulder, and until this last post, you've been swinging hard in the attempt to connect with someone to fight with about it. It also explains where you got the idea that the essay is a directive - that's how it was presented to you, perhaps, or it's being inappropriately used as some kind of club to change YOUR behavior.

I sensed such a thing and called you on it. And lo and behold, this last post has changed your tone completely - you've stated your points clearly, explained your argument, and most importantly TOLD US WHY you are raising them. That is honesty. Its lack in your previous posts is exactly what I was talking about. I'm glad to see it in this one and hope that you stick with it.

Since that personal situation is the real issue, then I think it needs to be addressed. It may be utterly between you, or it might be an appropriate (general) issue for the forums. It's up to you.

Best,
Ron

[Laurel]

TW-
You have brought up some points I agree with.  The idea that GMs who deliberately try to force-feed a game or style of game to a group of players who are clearly and consistently seeking something else isn't being very fair to the group and making it almost impossible for everyone to have fun.  I think the fun factor goes higher when GMs-Players-Game System itself are in the same general groove, and I think GNS is a great tool for discovering what you like and why you like it.

I admire your ability to mix-and-match and give every player what he wants.    Clearly, you are doing something right.  I'm still recovering from the nightmarish experience of 16 months of trying to co-maintain a online game for 1000+ ever-changing players and their 6000+ ever-changing characters. (I will *NEVER* do that to myself again. LOL)  It did not matter how hard I worked, how congenial and organized and motivated I was, how knowledgeable I was about the rules, how talented I was at putting together a story: the game (New Bremen) was, in my opinion, a dismal failure because people hardly ever had fun and the rules became more and more restrictive and meta-game issues tore all hope of in-game coherency apart.  

((Maybe, in the name of good dialogue, some of the rancor that's hitting this thread could be set aside and people start over with each other, back on more neutral and congenial ground?))

[TrizzlWizzl]

Ron, thank you for being specific.  I appreciate that.  I can understand you taking my 'total garbage' comment personally, but it wasn't directed at you... personally.  It was directed at an impersonal document posted on the World Wide Web for all to see, read, and (I assume) critique.  I won't take back what I said because that's how I feel, but I will apologize if you took it personally.  Totally understandable; keep in mind if I have a problem with GNS it doesn't necessarily mean I have a problem with you.  Also, I'd like to point out that labeling the main thrust of GNS theory "total garbage" doesn't make it an inaccurate paraphrase.  It's just an opinion.  So far, the only paraphrase it seems that you're considering "inaccurate" is: "Within a given system, certain players will not have fun; therefore, RPG design must be approached with a specific player-type in mind (so that those certain players can have fun)."   To which you replied: "But not at the most important level. It all comes back to the "should." Who said "should?" Not me, not in my essay."
   
Pardon me if that seems like a bit of a cop-out.  Labeling a mixed-bag approach to game design "incoherent", and stating "we would all to better to look in the mirror and tell ourselves there is no universal game" seems to support my original statement.  Notice nowhere do I indicate that you say anyone "should" do anything.  I'm not saying there's some kind of moral imperative prevalent in your essay.  What I am saying is that in your essay you most certainly outline what will be most effective at providing fun for players and what will be least effective, and as the stated goal is to 'have more fun', I think it's duplicitous to come back around and try to claim that the document lacks at least the semblance of an inherent directive.
   
So: I'm not saying you're on a soapbox proclaiming what people should and shouldn't do.  What I'm saying is that you're on a soapbox proclaiming what will bring the most fun to roleplaying groups who are suffering from the 'dissonance of GNS incongruity' (my term... I think), and the substance of that proclamation is what I disagree with.  I feel other approaches than the ones outlined in the GNS Essay would be more effective.

I would also like to say at this point that while my arguments with my GNS buddy might have helped me to figure out how I feel, how I feel at this point has nothing to do with him personally.  He's a bit too involved in attempting to realize "pure GNS implementation" in my opinion, but that's between he and I.  I still have strong opinions on the topics of discussion this board is attempting to address, so henceforth I shall be yoinking emotive prose from my posts (unless appropriate).
   
I hope I'm being a bit more intellectually honest here. :smile:

On to joshua:

But as far as I'm concerned, the GM is just another player, & doesn't shoulder any responsibilities to make sure everyone is having a good time. That falls to the group as a whole.

I agree with that last bit about the good time of the group falling on the group as a whole, and I would gladly argue with someone who felt otherwise.  However GMs are not 'just another player'.  They are everything the players are not... whatever that is.  So if the GMs are responsible for Everything Else, how then can they possibly see themselves as 'just another player'?

My basic feeling (which I'm sure will not be taken very well) is: if you don't think you're up to the task of 1) figuring out what the players want through whatever means you feel appropriate (GNS discussion, metagame planning, 'test-run' one offs, whatever), 2) finding a system capable of addressing those wants and modifying it if need be (for example, developing a role playing award mechanic, a method to involve the director stance in gameplay, etc.) and 3) providing the desired elements to your players to the best of your ability, then you plainly should not be trying to run a game.

IMO GMs are a special breed.  They are capable of memorizing the ins and outs of a system.  They can build a consensus among a group of people.  They are most commonly natural born leaders, and as such they accept the task ahead knowing it will be hard but knowing also that the depth and rich texture of the story they are about to create will be well worth it.

I understand people disagreeing with that.  It seems far-fetched.  It seems overly simplistic and unrealistic.  "What do we do, Triz, when we have a group where one guy really likes playing with miniatures and one guy hates them?"  Answer: I dunno.  That's what makes good GMs good GMs.  They figure out cool and inventive ways to handle that type of thing, which (in my experience) leads to a heightening of group cohesion as a whole.

I find the fact that this isn't the aspiration of more GMs a bit sad, really.  That's why I'm not a huge fan of GNS... because it seems to say "it's okay if you're incapable of getting your game off the ground... it's not your fault".  Bullocks I say!  Bullocks!  Where's the discussion about how to make things like this work?  Where's the "I've got a gamist who won't participate in the system's director stance mechanic" thread that isn't about how to get the guy to change up his playing style or else get booted from the game?

I refuse to let GNS make me pessimistic about the capability of gamers to sit across the table from each other with a capable DM and hash out a method that works for everyone regardless of gameplay preference. I mean... it is just a game, not a mid-east peace talk for crying out loud.

Now I'm sure there've been guys like me coming through here all the time with all kinds of starry-eyed optimism about the potential of a method allowing for a disparate group to come together, given the optimum circumstances.  What I'm looking for is a way to have that happen under even  less than optimum circumstances and I believe it starts with the GM knowing what he has to do and knowing how to do it.

New guys.  Sheesh.

P.S. Laurel- I agree that GNS is a very eloquent tool for discerning player preference and I think it's definitely a part of this weird "ubbermeister" idea I have stuck in my head.  In fact, I believe I stated in another post that I actually used GNS to explain my GM style to my players and it was so comprehensive they just went along for the ride, to the heightened fun of everyone.  But just chapters 1-3.  4 and up is where things get dicey for me :smile:

[joshua neff]

TW--

See, I just can't get past that. I don't think the GM is inherently "everything the players aren't". I think s/he could be, depending on the group dynamic, the system being used, & other factors. But the GM could just as easily be "just another player". And I don't agree with your statment that "if you're not up to it, maybe you shouldn't be a GM", not because it makes me feel like I shouldn't GM (cos it didn't make me feel that way) but simply because I disagree. Yes, not everyone is up for being the bass player, for keeping the rhythm going while the others solo. But it's not the bass players job to make sure the other members of the band all get along & have a good time. That's the shared responsibility of everyone involved. And I think it's the same with gaming groups.

As for the whole GNS thing...I'm not going to argue that you must recognize the "inherent worth" of GNS or anything. You don't buy it? Fine by me. I will however make the point that GNS has never made me "pessimistic" & think that "oh, only a suitable group of gamers can get along". Of course I think it's possible for any group of gamers to get together, come to a consensus about what they want to play & how they want to play it, & arrange the game so that everybody is happy. It's also possible for any two people on this planet to get married & live together for the rest of their lives in marital bliss. It's possible, but not all that probable. You're right, this isn't a UN peace conference. But it is people interacting, which always makes things complicated. Add to this that many people take their gaming styles & preferences very seriously & personally. Going back to the band metaphor: of course it's possible for any group of musicians to get together & play music that will fit all of their own individual styles & preferences. And if they can do it, great. An essay claiming "there are three different kinds of musical preferences, & here they are" would likely be of no use to them. Then there are those of us who simply don't have fun playing certain styles of games. I've been playing RPGs for...jeez, 20 years now. And most of it wasn't all that much fun. It wasn't horrible (usually), but it was like mediocre sex--good enough to keep me coming back for more, but not good enough to make me write about it in my diary. I had a great time gaming with a group in college, long before anyone had thought of GNS. And now, thinking about & using GNS, I have a great time gaming. Even better than in college (er, no offense Lon). I'm a much, much better GM than I used to be. But no, I wouldn't play with just anyone, just like I wouldn't collaborate on a poem with just anyone, nor would I have sex with just anyone. I know what I like to do for fun, & I know what bores or frustrates me. I know what RPG systems work for me & which ones don't, & this makes it easier for me to jack with the ones that don't to see if I can make them more enjoyable for me.

And nowhere has Ron said you can't play any style with any game. What he has said (& I agree with) is that some mechanics facilitate a certain style of playing better than other styles of playing. In my experience, I've found that to be very true. Using the ever-popular White Wolf as an example, I've found that contrary to their claims, the "Storyteller" system AS WRITTEN doesn't facilitate "story-creation" any better than any other system, & worse than quite a few. Now, any gaming group could, of course, take the "Storyteller" system & use it to create a dynamic collaborative story. But the mechanics aren't facilitating this, & that's Ron's point (& my personal problem with the games).

Good lord, look at me, I'm writing epic posts. Hey, just call me Fang!

[jburneko]

Hello Gang,

I've started a new thread in The GNS Forum that both distills this argument down to it's essencial components and provides a bit of perspective on where it is all coming from.  I suggest that we take this discussion there.

Jesse