The Accidental Narrativist

[Knight]

Well, I hate to say it, but I'm kinda on their side.


I agree, and I'm disgusted by some of the attitudes that I've seen expressed on this thread.  When it comes to the crunch, the GM is there to entertain the players, not vice versa. If you behave in some kind of passive-aggressive manner towards them then expect to rapidly lose them as friends.    

[joshua neff]

When it comes to the crunch, the GM is there to entertain the players, not vice versa.

Um, sez who? As far as I'm concerned, everybody is there to entertain everybody else. The responsibility doesn't fall squarely to the GM, & the other players aren't exempt. If everybody isn't on the same page, then you've got problems, no doubt about it.
I don't think the GM should run something that everybody doesn't want to play, but at the same time, nobody's forcing anyone to play anything. If I want to run, say, Story Engine, & not everyone in my group wants to play that, I'll say "Fine, everyone who does want to play can play. Everyone who doesn't is free to play something else." But as GM, I'm not there to be their monkey boy.

[Ron Edwards]

Folks,

This thread is spinning slightly out of its goals.

First of all, the very question, "Whose job is it to entertain whom?" is already dysfunctional. It's a lot like asking who has the "right" to commit an atrocity during a feud - the very asking of the question reveals the problem.

I agree with Josh regarding the functional situation - role-playing is an entertainment activity for everyone. This may be misread to mean "no one loses," "no one fails," or "everyone hugs," but all I mean by it is that everyone is satisfied with spending their time in the activity.

As I've said before, I cannot see why or how a GM is to be distinguished from players when it comes to "people issues" during play. Roles and spheres of activity of role-playing, yes; people-interactions and goals of role-playing, no.

Second, much of this discussion is specific to Jesse's group, and he seems to be in an odd position - he insists that some or all of his players do want to play in a Narrativist fashion; he "knows" this and wants to develop such play with them. I cannot argue with this, because I'm not there and don't know the people.

However, my previous posts to him have always stated that - in my experience - one should not be dragging other people to play in a particular way. If y'all play something like Soap or Extreme Vengeance or Story Engine, and if other people in the group go "boink" and want to do more of That Stuff, then fine. If not, then find other people to play with.

However, that may be a biased viewpoint and if Jesse is SURE that he's getting somewhere with his "this is how to do it" approach, then OK. It worries me, but OK.

Thirdly, I think that Mike's statement about player-satisfaction was exaggerated by Knight. I tend to agree with Mike - no one's satisfaction should be SACRIFICED by another person in the group - but not with Knight - that the GM is subordinate to the players in terms of actual, human, personal enjoyment of play. "The GM's job is to entertain the players" baffles me - it is not the bassist's job to entertain the other members of a band; his job is to play good bass and facilitate their awesome play.

It may be - and Knight, correct me or clarify for me - that you've experienced a lot of GMing that railroads or otherwise interferes with your enjoyment of play. Thus ANY talk of this business of GM-enjoyment seems potentially abusive. Is that a fair view? Especially given Jesse's presentation?

My view, for Narrativist play, is that the GM facilitates the players' authorship. That can include maiming, hosing, and killing the characters; it can also include all manner of nicer things.

But for ALL functional role-playing, Narrativist and otherwise, the PEOPLE'S goals are to play GOOD STUFF together, and that's not a GM vs. player issue at all.

Best,
Ron

[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-09-26 10:52 ]

[Mike Holmes]

Sure Josh, the GM should have fun too. All I was saying is that everyone should agree before hand on what the game will be like and that anyone uninterested in that style should not play. If I as a GM have four players who want to play Simulationist, then it's a realy bad idea to try and force Narrativist on 'em. No matter how much I like it. I have three choices then; not play, play Sim, or find new players.

Discern tastes. Select a group including GM with non-clashing tastes to play a certain game that caters to said style. Play game.

Anything else runs the risk of being dysfunctional.

Mike

[Knight]

First of all, the very question, "Whose job is it to entertain whom?" is already dysfunctional.

There's no such thing as a dysfunctional question.



As I've said before, I cannot see why or how a GM is to be distinguished from players when it comes to "people issues" during play.

A GM is not necessary to roleplaying, but if there is a GM, then in many ways they fill the role of the host (irrespective of if they're the actual physical host). Of course the host enjoys the party too, but they also have the responsibility of ensuring that their guests have fun.  



However, that may be a biased viewpoint and if Jesse is SURE that he's getting somewhere with his "this is how to do it" approach, then OK. It worries me, but OK.

I think that's basically a more polite way of stating my first point.


It may be - and Knight, correct me or clarify for me - that you've experienced a lot of GMing that railroads or otherwise interferes with your enjoyment of play

With respect, that's a classical Bulverism, Ron. I might as well ask if your focus on the troupe play style is due to a mistrust of GMing in general due to your prior bad experiences.

What I have experienced a lot of is the attitude that players are "playing it wrong" by adopting a certain style. I realise that it must be tremendously exciting to come across a critical theory of roleplaying, I know I was when I first encountered the Threefold, but that's not an excuse.

[jburneko]

Whoa!  Whoa!  Chill out guys!  Let's not let this get nasty.  I know sometimes I have a harsh way of stating things because I'm like that. (My girlfriend repeatedly suggests that I have a condesending tone whenever I'm just expressing surprise at something).  So let me try to clearify what I was saying more calmly.

All I was getting at was that I have certain priorities and interests when it comes to gaming.  I'm trying to either find new people with similar interests and priorities and figure out who among my current group has similar interests and priorities.  Those are the people I'm interested in GMing for.  The others are welcome to join if they're willing to try something new but if they're not, that's cool, we're still friends but it's not going to be much fun for us to game together.  That's it.  

Ron said it best in the "When the players think the GM is trying to kill them" thread.  I'm sitting on one side of the table waiting for a story to happen and *SOME* of them are sitting on the other side of the table waiting for me to hit them with my best shot.  This isn't going to work.

Jesse

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Knight,

I apologize for taking it line-by-line, to any extent, but time constraints are hitting. I know it doesn't mean anything at the outset of the post, but I believe you and I are agreeing more than we're disagreeing.

"Me: First of all, the very question, "Whose job is it to entertain whom?" is already dysfunctional."
"You: There's no such thing as a dysfunctional question."

I agree with you. My sentence is the result of bad editing; its proper phrasing might be something like, "Asking [the question] may indicate an already-dysfunctional situation."

"A GM is not necessary to roleplaying, but if there is a GM, then in many ways they fill the role of the host (irrespective of if they're the actual physical host). Of course the host enjoys the party too, but they also have the responsibility of ensuring that their guests have fun."

Here's where things get sticky ... I agree with this statement insofar as it is a POSSIBLE element of a social/role-playing situation. I disagree with the claim that the statement is a solid, foundational, definitional element of the situation. Perhaps this is one of those times that we can merely be happy with our contrasting views and be done.

"Me: It may be - and Knight, correct me or clarify for me - that you've experienced a lot of GMing that railroads or otherwise interferes with your enjoyment of play"
"You: With respect, that's a classical Bulverism, Ron. I might as well ask if your focus on the troupe play style is due to a mistrust of GMing in general due to your prior bad experiences."

I see what the problem is; I needed to explain myself better. I did not ask that question of you to invalidate your point, but rather simply to get a better grasp of its personal context - the kind of thing one can't pick up from written text. However, since people DO often use ad-hominem questions to invalidate others' points, I apologize for giving that impression.

For the record, my answer to your turnabout question is "yes," to some extent, although my Narrativist inclinations precede my role-playing.

"What I have experienced a lot of is the attitude that players are "playing it wrong" by adopting a certain style. I realise that it must be tremendously exciting to come across a critical theory of roleplaying, I know I was when I first encountered the Threefold, but that's not an excuse."

I agree. Our experiences dovetail perfectly here. My hopes for GNS thinking is that it is supposed to HELP with the existing problem of person/person mismatch of role-playing goals. My conversation with Tim (Galfraxas) in Actual Play expresses a lot of my views, and serves as a good partner to my comments in this thread.

In conclusion, I maintain that we are much more in accord about the general issue than we disagree.

Best,
Ron

[Knight]

Yes, I think that's pretty much it, Ron.  Basically, it comes down to a semantic argument about the meaning of the word GM.  

I did not ask that question of you to invalidate your point, but rather simply to get a better grasp of its personal context - the kind of thing one can't pick up from written text.

Sorry if I was being overly defensive, but the personal context didn't really strike me as important.  

My conversation with Tim (Galfraxas) in Actual Play expresses a lot of my views, and serves as a good partner to my comments in this thread.

Yes, that was very interesting.  You always seem to be able to deal with misuse of your model in a level-headed manner.