GNS Conflict with the Referee

[M. J. Young]

In the thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8452">GNS and Social Contract,

Problems only occur when players don't like the play of [t]he other players.

That is, it's not enough to ensure that the Gamist player gets to play Gamist, to make them happy. Some also want the other players to play the same way that he's playing. I use the Gamist example because it's easy to imagine the response from that sort of player when they encounter players not playing the same way. That is, if he's not comfortable with other players, playing in other modes, it may be that those percieved offenses will prompt him to say that those players are "cheating".

What this really means, is that the players in question are engaging in two different sorts of entertainment. For the one player, it's a competition that requires a level playing field. For the other player, it's something else. So, if the Gamist player isn't on-board with the other player getting to play a different game, then he'll be annoyed. This is just an example of one potential source of friction between players as a result of mode.

There is an implication in this (and maybe it's clearer in the original post) that

[*]GNS problems only occur when one or more of the players is intolerant of the play styles of one or more of the other players, and[*]such conflicts would not exist if everyone at the table was content to let everyone else play the way they want at least some of the time.[/list:u]I am not persuaded; and I think that the thread in question provides an example of why it can be more complicated than that.

It is generally agreed that narrativism has to be to some degree player-driven. It is absolutely impossible to have a narrativist game with an illusionist referee, and probably not with a participationist or trailblazer either. I would take it as probably given that you can't do trailblazing narrativism (although I will allow that certain illusionist and trailblazing techniques can facilitate narrativist play).

If the GNS conflict is such that the referee is catering to a particular player's interest by running a game in a way that is incompatible with the goals of the other player, such as trailblazing an adventure for a simulationist/gamist group in which there is a narrativist player trying to drive his own morality play, you've got a conflict that can't be resolved merely by the narrativist letting everyone else have their moments, because his moments are de facto impossible in that situation--he can't drive play, because the referee is guiding it and the rest of the group is following.

I do agree that the other happens, and that often groups cohere because they are accepting of each other's play styles, but I don't think that's the only way GNS problems appear or that they can always be solved that way.

--M. J. Young

[Anthony I]

It is generally agreed that narrativism has to be to some degree player-driven. It is absolutely impossible to have a narrativist game with an illusionist referee, and probably not with a participationist or trailblazer either. I would take it as probably given that you can't do trailblazing narrativism (although I will allow that certain illusionist and trailblazing techniques can facilitate narrativist play).

Why is the above quote necessarily true?  Once the players discover the Illusionism (regardless of the term they use) the only way it continues to work is if the players agree to it.  Why wouldn't the same be true for Nar play- as long as the players are ok with it?

[Mike Holmes]

If I run one game, with one player one day, and another game with another on another day, then you'd agree that I could satisfy both, right? Well, the theory behind how to satisfy all the players in different modes is essentially to be doing something similar to running multiple games at the same time. In this case, you could say that what the other characters are doing is much like the actions of NPCs in another game.

Will this work for every player? No. But if the players agree to play this way, then why can't it work? Or are you claiming that no player would agree to play this way? I mean, what are you questioning, my assumptions or my conclusions?

You are deliberately mixing up techniques with modes. That is, in a trailblazing game, sure some players can't be satisfied. Basically, I'm saying that to accomplish this, you have to create a special technique that involves a lot of technique shifting in order to appeal to all the different modes sought.

I'm not prepared to debate how easy or hard this is, and I'd admit that it certainly sounds difficult. OTOH, it's what Robin's Laws is all about, for instance. Again, I think that some players will not accept this style, but then I think that there's always some player who will not accept some style, no matter what it is. I'm not prepared to abandon this idea based on the notion that it might be difficult or rare.

Mike

[M. J. Young]

Once the players discover the Illusionism (regardless of the term they use) the only way it continues to work is if the players agree to it.  Why wouldn't the same be true for Nar play- as long as the players are ok with it?

I believe that participationism and narrativism are essentially incompatible, if I understand each correctly. Narrativism requires that the players have the power to address the theme, and thus to impact the relevant events of play. Participationism (which is illusionism when accepted by the players) postulates that none of the significant events can be affected or altered by the players, who are only adding color to the story which the referee unfolds. If the referee has complete control over the "story", then the players are disempowered from addressing the theme in any meaningful way, and narrativism cannot happen; if the players can meaningfully address the theme, they can de facto alter the events of the story, and thus take control of the story away from the referee, thus derailing participationism.

I could be mistaken somewhere, but these seem to be essentials of the forms. Trailblazing is a lot more difficult to figure, since the players do have the power to get off the trail and might thereby address the theme, although in some sense it would be choosing to fail in order to make a thematic statement, and so ending the game. (We could I suppose postulate a trailblazing game in which the players are supposed to be the Armaggeddon crew that goes and blows up the asteroid before it hits the earth, but the players decide that they don't want to risk their lives to save the world. We've made a statement relevant to the theme, but we've also pretty much ended the game by doing so.)

Well, the theory behind how to satisfy all the players in different modes is essentially to be doing something similar to running multiple games at the same time. In this case, you could say that what the other characters are doing is much like the actions of NPCs in another game.

O.K., I see what you're saying; and as Multiverser manages to cater to various modes in essence by letting each player define his own game in isolation from the others if he so desires, I have to agree that it is possible to do something very like that. However, my problem lies in this conflict between the referee knowing what is going to happen well enough to trailblaze for one player and at the same time not knowing what is going to happen in order to provide the necessary freedom to another player to play in a narrativist form.

Now, I suppose taken the way you put it, if the referee actually doesn't have a plan, but is using trailblazing techniques to guide the one player into providing a referee-inspired response to the narrativist's course, that could work.

I'll withdraw my objection; and unless someone needs to respond to my comments on modes and goals, I think we're done here.

--M. J. Young