Does GNS Make Me Happier?

[Laurel]

This is a split off of Top Concerns for GNS based on Clinton's response that GNS was influential on Donjon and Donjon's success as a topic of conversation is making him a much happier game designer.

I want to agree with that.  I'd made a comment earlier on another thread that I considered my experiences with GNS and the Forge to have led me to a new level of advancement as a game designer, GM, and player-- and all three make me incredibly happy.  

For that matter, unraveling the jargon and feeling myself fit into a niche somewhere is incredibly pleasurable.  In some ways, RPG theory fufills much the same basic desires as "gaming" (fun, socialization, personal development) and somehow brings with it this endowment of depth and perspicacity that I really don't get from table-topping, no matter what the intentions are of the group.  Its a different kind of fun, but something the 30 year old me cherishes in the way the 10 year old me cherished spending HOURS mapping dungeons and killing imaginary monsters.

But that's me.  What about you?

[Christopher Kubasik]

I posted elsewhere on this ("RPG Theory: Threat or Menace?"), before you set up this thread, so I'll add on quickly...

Though I haven't had a chance yet to put my GNS education into gaming practice, GNS has opened the possibility of gaming again.  Never thought I would.

The fact that it breaks out the parts of gaming that I really wanted in my gaming but couldn't quite find; contrasts these elements against the parts of gaming I thought were necesary to gaming but in fact weren't needed for the gaming I wanted to do; and gave me a handle on why some people liked aspects of gaming I couldn't find enjoyable at all  and allowed me to see these choices as specific preference for specific players and not inherent in the act of gaming itself -- has proven ridiculously valuable.

So, while the theorizing may not be my thing, the work everyone has done has been informative, eye-opening, and inspiring.  Allowing me back into a hobby I really thought I'd never touch again.

Christopher

[J B Bell]

I'd like to chime in on this (finally, GNS discussion that is not either very boring {to me!}, nor too abstruse for me to feel comfortable commenting on).

GNS changed my life.  I had planned on having my first post here be an extended gush about what it did for me.  Now I think I'll be more sober about it.

I had, like others I have heard on here, mostly quit gaming.  I was running a game with non-gamers (a good first step) and once again feeling really frustrated even though my cleverness didn't seem to have diminished since my long-lamented Good Ol' Games of the 80s.  I didn't understand why facing the game filled me with such dread, I didn't understand why a group of very smart players didn't "get it", I didn't understand why I could barely tolerate even hanging out with most other gamers.

I read The Essays.  A few times.  They helped me analyze my whole gaming history, the conflicts I'd had with players and the impotent solutions I had tried to apply to them, the rules and worlds I had tweaked and tweaked, each change failing or greatly increasing my workload, leading to GM Burnout.

Everything became much, much clearer.  I knew why I was unhappy.  I knew why even the great games I had run still left me feeling so worn out.  I knew why my then-current game had sand in its gears.

I unloaded about it all on my players, ditched the existing game completely, detailed world and all, and we started playing Sorcerer.  It hasn't been perfect, but it's just getting better, and most important I'm having fun.  More fun than I had when I was putting on performances that my old players still talk about, because I'm playing games the way I want to and I know how to advocate for what I want clearly (and I no longer use the GNS terminology to do this--it isn't necessary--but I never could have arrived at my own vocabulary without it).

I think this experience isn't too uncommon, and somewhat accounts for Ron's "cult" status.

--TQuid (J B Bell, having Clinton change the moniker)

[AndyGuest]

Can I add a second question to this thread ?

If GNS has made you happier is it because you've now made a move to more Narrativist gaming ?

I get the impression that GNS is useful to those who don't know they are Narrativist or haven't been able to explain to others they way they want to play. Instinct tells me that Gamists and Simulationists are able to find groups and games to suit them easily, but I've no evidence for this.

So, if GNS has changed the way you game, how has it done so ?

(This isn't intended as a dig, or a flame or anything, I'm just curious)

[Ron Edwards]

Andy,

That's a damn good question. I will speculate that a fairly large proportion of people who have been helped by GNS fit the profile you're describing. A lot of them (us) would already have been "Hack Narrativists," to use the term introduced a couple of days ago, in that they (we) used a lot of patch rules or rules-ignoring in order to mutate the means of play (of Champions, in my case) toward these goals, often sliding into Illusionism sensu lato on the way.

I'm not too surprised about this disproportionate focus on "happy Narrativists." My own enthusiasm for getting an already-existing mode of play into recognition and utility is well-known, and I can certainly offer better advice or support for that mode of play.

However, is this a problem? (I know you did not imply as much; I am bringing it up.) I don't think so. Simple reality-constraints keep me from expecting a 33-33-33 split of participation and utility among people who encounter GNS. It would be a problem if the ideas and discourse here at the Forge discourage the same phenomenon of increased enjoyment among role-players with different goals.

My hope for the future is that Simulationist and Gamist play can be similarly "helped" if necessary through activity at the Forge. I don't know whether, pound for pound, it's as necessary for players with these inclinations as it demonstrably is for those with Narrativist priorities. Probably not for many Simulationist-oriented role-playerss; the range of coherent Simulationist designs in RPGs is pretty wide and most people I know with these tastes seem comfortably ensconced in one design or another. I suspect some Gamist-oriented players might appreciate it.

That's why I've tried hard to promote respect for Gamist play. I think the real groundwork for that was laid by Cheapass Games, so fortunately I'm not dealing with the gaming culture of the early 90s, in which Gamist play was anathemized. I think ... although it's slow ... that Gamist design and goals are already here at the Forge and will soon occupy a very well-defined, recognizable part of the activity. (I date this process all the way back to Lugzan's legendary thread on GO; can someone hunt the link for me?)

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Very simply Narrativism is new, and therefore the novelty is part of what causes the urge to explore that aspect of GNS. So, while not finding Narrativism to be my personal favorite form of play, I've focused on it some in design of late.

But it has definitely helped me in all my designs, I think, as well as improving my play in some ways. I learned that most of my players are completely disinterested in Narrativism, for example. Knowing that I can focus on improving the aspects of play that they are interested in. Which makes it more fun for all.

So, I'd say that I, for one, am an example of somebody who has benefited from GNS outside of the area of "finding narrativism". And I suspect that there are others as well like myself. More important, however, is the related discusssion that GNS has generated. This material has been really useful to me. So I see GNS as a sort of foundation, not so much of an overall theory of RPGs, but of the beginning of real, cogent theory regarding RPGs in general.

I see the continuing debate about GNS here as having two purposes. First it serves as a model of how to develop future theory in a coherent way. And secondly, it may, of course, lead to other important theories by extension or revision, or even by accident (as so many other theories are generated).

Mike

[contracycle]

I can only largely say "me to" to Mikes post.  I would also say that while I have quibbles, it has been very well worked and thus provides a good springboard for all sorts of things.  It is a more complete theory than merely a breakdown of elements, as the GDS was.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi everybody,

Quick clarification (damn, I've been sucked into the word-game after all!)

I don't think Narrativism is new.  At least, I don't veiw it that way.  In my book it was always there, but was off the map.

The value of GNS for me is that it extended the known map of RPGs.  A lot of us were trying to get there.  Couldn't find it.  The new map blotted out the "Here there be dragons" part of the map and laid out the geography of Narrativism.

(This is a parallel analogy to my Narrativism as non-euclidian geometry on another thread.)

Salute,
Christopher

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Christopher is totally correct. I have stated in the past that all three goals of play have existed within role-playing since the moment it began (which was obviously not a single event, as documented). The interesting issue about Narrativism is that it was never acknowledged except in editorial form, some very early in fact, and then it was, to my way of thinking, later eclipsed by "storytelling" rhetoric. I do not consider my work to have invented it, but rather to have exhumed it in terms of recognition and (with any luck, for those who are interested) function.

Best,
Ron

[Laurel]

And to directly answer the question, I don't think GNS has made my gaming ~more~ narrativist... but it sure did make my gaming more thoughtful- particularly towards the goals/objectives of other players (those are both more narrativist-oriented than myself and those who center their play on gamist- or simulationist-goals).    

The Forge serendipitously opened me up to Independant games the Window, Over The Edge, Persona, etc., which fit my personal gaming style better than the game I've played and GMed for 10 years: the WoD/Storyteller system.  I wouldn't say that GNS in itself made those games more desirable to me and I probably would have enjoyed any one of the above tremendously if it had shown up in my life without the GNS in the package.   I never did like the rules systems for  RIFTS, Gurps, "by the book and only the book" WoD, Fudge, In Nominae, Kult or most of the games I'd played.  I might enjoy game sessions *despite* the rules system, but I didn't like the rules systems.  Now, I'm discovering rules systems I like, and they all seem to have the narrative label attached.  Hmm.    Could I still play non-Narrative games and have fun though?  Sure, absolutely.

[unodiablo]

I'd like to chime in and agree as well. I don't concern myself much with GNS, I've read the articles, and get the gist of most of them... But the Forge (and go, in the beginning) showed or taught me a lot about gaming, and from there I picked my way through the rubble and figured out WHY I didn't like playing D&D and some other old games I used to enjoy.

And instead of just giving up on it, which I was about 30 seconds away from doing, I found some games that I LOVE to play. (and not just Nar-RPG games, some card games as well, like Grave Robbers From Outer Space) I even wrote a couple that I, and my friends, love to play!

In retrospect, I wish I would have bought Prince Valiant and GhostBusters when they first came out!

So I don't know if GNS makes me happy, but The Forge sure does!

Sean

[Gordon C. Landis]

Dedicated Gamism

[Seth L. Blumberg]

Has GNS helped me? I think so. Maybe not as much as it's helped some of the people here, who would, without it, remain Narrativists manqué, but it's helped.

My experience is somewhat like that of Mike Holmes, in that most of my (current) players don't seem to be interested in Narrativism. They're Simulationists, some interested in Exploration of Character, some in Exploration of Situation. One of them is intrigued by WFD, but we haven't made time to play it yet, and probably won't for a while.

The oddity in my experience is that, while I seem to be a Narrativist player (I think this because I have identified the cause of my dissatisfaction with a couple of campaigns I've recently played in as the failure of my attempts to introduce Narrativist drift), I have never GMed in a Narrativist style, and am not really that interested in starting. I am an extremely skilled Simulationist (more specifically, Illusionist) GM, and I enjoy running games in that style as much as my players enjoy playing them.

I guess I'm just a control freak--whether I'm the GM or a player, I want to maximize my authorial power.

Anyway, consider me the leader of the "Yeah, I'm an Illusionist, you got a problem with that?" brigade.

[Ian O'Rourke]

I'm not sure whether The Forge has helped. I think it further ensconced me into the role of armchair gamer - in the sense that I think it has me thinking about things too much? Does that make sense?

Instead of just gaming and having fun and I'm trying to push and take everything to the next level and I'm doing that before play even begins (the ideas/games don't even get that far).

Anyway, hard to discuss, as I'm finding it hard to define, but I am conscious of this contributing factor.

Or I'm just mad :)

[Logan]

..