Using GNS in our game

[Harsh Tranquility]

I have recently read through the GNS essays in the article section of this site, and evaluated myself and the way my game is being developed, and came to think about how to use GNS to better craft my rpg. I thought about putting an explanation of GNS theory in the text of the "What is Role-playing?" section. Just an overview, so players and GMs can evaluate how the game is being played in their group.  Then I plan on writing a short section about tailoring our game to their group's play style.  While we would suggest that the game is intended and written by Narrativeists  for Narrativeists, the section would describe how to change the system around a little bit, to better fit their group. The reason I'm posting this is to ask if anyone:
A: maybe done this before and how it has worked out
B: thinks that this would be a positive element to add to a game
C: believes that it right to even go over GNS in a book, and give play style options.

Just Thinking Aloud and seeing what people think.

[Marco]

I think it's a great idea to talk about how you see the game being played.

My concern is two-fold:

1. If you go into theory, I think a lot of people's will glaze over. Same with jargon. Some of the terms (Simulationist) have some counter-intuitive meanings.

This text will possibly have a cost in losing people completely. If your game is commerical, consider that it has to be very accessible, very clear, and quite friendly.

2. If you expect new people to play you may need to write differently than if you expect people who've gamed before to play. Spelling out differences between fairly traditional sim-modes and narrativist play will appear differently on a page than a discription of either one.

The description of play could work for both readers--but you'll have to try to read it with both "sets of eyes" to see if you're coming across right.

-Marco

[W. Don]

A wee little caveat from recent personal experience: communicating GNS to players (and GMs) might be a very tricky thing to do. I've tried in a very soft and subtle way to get the relevant ideas across to my own players before we all embarked on our new and hopefully GNS-informed game. They blanked out, and just kept on repeating that they "wanted to play!" (Which I doesn't say much about my communication skills, I know).

Maybe in the end it's better to simply forgoe explanations, just build in the GNS ideas strongly into the system, and let the system speak for itself, that way players can experience GNS in action and not get too overwhelmed by theory.

My two cents. Hope it helps.

- W.

Edit: Cross-posted with Marco. Same concerns.

[Mike Holmes]

Maybe in the end it's better to simply forgoe explanations, just build in the GNS ideas strongly into the system, and let the system speak for itself, that way players can experience GNS in action and not get too overwhelmed by theory.

That's what I'd advocate. In fact, you can discuss the issues in terms of how different styles can be facilitated in the design by looking at the particular elements of the design that work well in certain situations, etc. This is called facilitating Transition, but even that's not neccessary to mention. Just use common terms as they pertain to the game in question to describe this.

Theory is for developers; players optimally should be able to play your game without having to learn it.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Take a look at my post in the GNS - what is it? thread. Without even using the term "GNS," a passage like this can be very effective in a role-playing text.

See the opening "ways to play" section in the new Marvel Universe game; that's an excellent explanation of Gamist vs. Narrativist priorities, in extremely clear terms.

Best,
Ron

[Harsh Tranquility]

Since our game (Union | Tides of Steel) is trying to attract new players, I think it best to take the "let the system speak for it self" approach. I guess the only question I have left is... We (my brother Quentin and I) have been writing a second book along with the core rulebook for our game called "BBO: The Big Book of Options" it is our first planned supplement, to go on sale two or three months after our core book.  The reason it can be developed as we go is because it basically a collection of all the rule that where to complex or specialized make the cut into the core system, and also include alternant rule set ups, and setting options, It unlike the primary product is designed for seasoned RPGers.  This GNS talk will probably make it into that. I know this changing the thread a tad, but Is a BBO something that you think would be something that is worth while, and what would you like to see in something like that. I know most all of you know little of our game (we'll fix that soon enough) so I'm just asking for conceptual ideas, I.E. I would like to see a set of rules for a light-play, or miniature rules. Just general things you wish RPGs would give you options for that would not be justified in a core rulebook.