GNS and Social Contract (split)

[Marco]

Matt Wrote:

Furthermore, if you are indeed effectively running a freeform storytelling game, using the Shadowrun setting, by what means do players become empowered to tell the story? How do they resist you as GM? Can they? If there is no system, even a simple system to say, "No, GM, I don't want that to happen that way," how the non-GM players really get to contribute to the story at crucial junctures?

I had a conversation this weekend with someone whose take on Narrativism (and, yes, he's read the essays and several threads here) is that it's all about being in power-struggle with the GM in a normal game.

I had told him it was more about the desire to co-author scenarios and the primacy of premise during play.

He said that if "address of premise" could be subconscious (I told him it could) then it (in his opinon) amounted to a way of resolving power-struggle in the rules and wouldn't be necessary for people who weren't so inclined (this is my terminology, mostly and I'm paraphrasing).

He even said: "If you're not inclined to always argue with the GM and the GM is isn't going to railroad your characters, why do it? It can't be for a better story since collaberation at a high level leads (in his opinion) to worse stories--especially (his opinion) with more than 2 people."

I had a lengthy discussion with him--but this comment is, for his view, right on the mark.

-Marco

[Marco]

Marco, though it would seem that you'd like for GNS to be about more than it is, in order to discredit it, how can you ignore the fact that Ron has said a jillion times that it's only about problematic play related to the modes, and how to solve those problems? If you're going to say that GNS theory says that all problems are solved by it, then please cite where it says so. Yes, people get that idea all the time, and some even say that incorrectly, but it's not for a lack of people who understand it trying to convince them otherwise.

To make another bad analogy, it's like people who self-medicate. We try to be the label that tells people when to use the drug. But some people just don't read the fine print, and take the drug for the wrong ailment. But does that mean that we have to take the drug off the shelves? Is the theory to blame for these problems with it's use, or the people who missapply it? Could we write a better label? Well, what am I trying to do in this thread other than correct misperceptions?

There is a question as to how prevalent these problems are, and some would say that GNS problems are pandemic. Which is not the same as saying that they are all problems. And in any case we've acceeded isn't something that can't be acurately determined without unavailable data.


As to your second point, yes, GNS preferences have to "line up" after a fashion. That doesn't mean that they have to be the same, that's just one possible solution (and the simplest solution for a design trying to get it's players on the same page). That does mean that if you have a group like Matt and Lisa's, where the players don't seem to mind dirfferent modes, that they've "lined up" in terms of all agreeing to play in this multi-modal way. Creative Agenda doesn't have to mean "we're only playing Narrativist", or even "we're only playing Hybrid GS", it can mean "We're all playing the way we want, whenever we want"*. It can mean anything, as long as all the players agree to what it means. I would posit that agreement to have players playing different from you is uncommon, but that's a tendency I can't prove.

GNS is about players who don't agree about what the Creative Agenda is (specifically in GNS terms). If the players agree, then there's a coherent Creative Agenda. If the players don't agree, then there's incoherence. It's a simple as that.

Mike

Mike,

Gordon Landis had a whole thread about that. Ron posted on it. IIRC the strong conclusion was: It's for anyone who wants something more from their gaming.  I cannot imagine how this is seen as discrediting it.

Here is the thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7396

Here's the quote

Hi,

Gordon's right. I think the ideas are useful even, or perhaps especially, for people who do have fun with role-playing but perhaps would like more.

Best,
Ron

I'd like to take the suggestion that what I'm out to do to discreit GNS by doing this to PM's. I think the standard disclaimers do it more damage.

GNS has a great deal to say about taxonomies of gaming, game design, and techniques for examining play even where it may not be dysfunctional. It's quite acceptable to bring GNS to the table even when everything *is* functional. I'm kinda surprised at you.

That said, I do *not* agree with much of the way GNS is presently couched and often communicated.

As for folks lining up: I didn't say they had to all be the same mode. Other people were real freaking loud about that (I'll search when I have the time). If I was misunderstanding them when they were really saying "Marco, in order for people to 'get along' they must first 'get along' " then maybe it was all the swearing or something.

But I'd suggest you argue with *them*--I agree completely with your second point. But, you know, I can see how a person coming here could get the other idea.

-Marco

[The GM]

Thanks all for the great commentary. I'll be exiting this thread and not tracking it anymore.
Take care!
Warm Regards,
Lisa

[M. J. Young]

Lisa, in regard to your described recent Shadowrun game, I have two observations:[list=1][*]You clearly were not trailblazing at that game, but were much more in the mode of bass playing.[*]It does not sound like your usual mode of play, particularly in regard to the previous descriptions of the techniques you use with Wendy.[/list:o]I'm not sure that it was narrativist, but that may be because your group is constantly looking for the action adventure game, not the moral issues game, and so left to their own devices that's what they created.

I suppose that this is too late, since you're apparently leaving us; but I do hope you and Matt manage to work out the problems.

Has anyone considered letting Matt run a game?

--M. J. Young

[Matt Snyder]

M.J. and others --

To clarify once more. I DO run a game. Our group has primarily three potential GMs. Over the last year, here's how our play has progressed:

Last year, starting in September or so, we played Riddle of Steel for several months (of nearly weekly play). The GM was Tony (aka Asaraludu).

Tony then took a break from Riddle of Steel in the winter. We played my own game, Avatar-13, a cyberpunk homebrew I created. I ran the game for several sessions.

Following that, we then played Mutants & Masterminds. Lisa and I "took turns" running the game with varying levels of success. Ultimately, the sessions fizzled. (Tony also ran a "sub-campaign" of M&M, but I participated in only 1 of those sessions, as a player.)

During this time, Tony began running Riddle of Steel again, which we played for a few weeks.

Then, about a month or six weeks ago, we playtested Nine Worlds, which I ran. We continued to play RoS. We then decided to set up a formal rotation of three games, three GMs, each taking a turn every third week. Tony would run RoS, I would run Nine Worlds, and Lisa would run a modern horror, vampire hunters game (using the Avatar-13 rules set).

Throughout this process, we deliberated on which games to play. This is especially true following our Mutants & Masterminds play.

We play on weeknights, though we have played a rare session on during the weekend.

Finally, and importantly, all throughout this time the "rest" of the group participated in MANY sessions (as often as weekly), typically of Shadowrun run by Lisa. They play on the weekends, when I'm often not available.

So, in short, yes, I "get" to run games. Tony runs most often, because of our successul RoS campaign. More power to him!

[Mike Holmes]

Gordon Landis had a whole thread about that. Ron posted on it. IIRC the strong conclusion was: It's for anyone who wants something more from their gaming.  I cannot imagine how this is seen as discrediting it.

I stand corrected. Sorta.

I'd like to ammend my statement, actually. It's very complex. "Problem" is a very nebulous term for instance. I think that every game has room for improvement. No game is perfect. And GNS can't get you all the way to perfect, but it can help improve any game in theory. The question of how much it can help is dependent on how much of a "problem", how much of a disconnect that players have in terms of these issues. With very little disconnect, the returns from GNS are small in comparison with the potential problems of applying the analysis.

So, I don't think that Gordon means that GNS is the only solution to all problems. That's what I object to. It's a specific tool to tune up a specific part of your game. If that part isn't problematic, sure, you can still play with that tool, but it might not address other problems that you might have. As an obvious example, it can't fix Social problems (other than to help identify when something is a Social Problem, or at least not a GNS problem).

My presumption was that you were trying to set up the old false situation where it seems that GNS is the only solution to all GNS problems.

it's for anyone who wants *any* kind of improvement in their gaming--of any sort (microscopic or otherwise).

This seems to me to say that it's a solution to any problem. "Any Improvement" seems to imply to me that it can be used for any problem. Which is patently false, and makes GNS easy to attack ("If GNS can solve everything, then howcome it won't make my players like me?"). If you didn't intend to set up that false impression, then I apologize.

In that case we agree. I think that "problem" is subjective. I'd revise my statement to say something more like the above, that it's for people who are looking to improve their game.

The point here is that Lisa doesn't seem to see a need to improve her game. So, that being the case, she certainly doesn't need to consider GNS. Basically, you can ignore GNS if it's already not problematic in any way.

If I was misunderstanding them when they were really saying "Marco, in order for people to 'get along' they must first 'get along' " then maybe it was all the swearing or something.

I don't remember the swearing, but if you mean "see the game in the same GNS light", as "get along" then I think this is exactly what Creative Agenda is all about.

But I'd suggest you argue with *them*--I agree completely with your second point. But, you know, I can see how a person coming here could get the other idea.

I think that the following is where we may have potentially stumbled before. I've indicated above the idea of having multiple players with different outlooks being OK assuming that they understand and accept the other players sorts of play. That might be a first for me, actually. But it's a simple extension of things I've said a lot. My definitions of coherence and incoherence are about players getting annoyed by the play of others. Which happens because they're not all on the same sheet of music. The solution for which is to get on the same sheet, whatever that means. This is exactly the definition that Ron gives for Creative Agenda, never saying that all players have to be playing in the same modes.

Design is a different topic, however.

Mike

[Marco]

Mike,

Roger. If I ever say that "GNS is the solution to every problem" you may give me a virtual smack. I'm way on the other side of the fence. And I don't think anyone is saying that GNS is the solution to every problem.

I don't even think "knowing the theory" is necessiarily the "solution" to *any* GNS problem. That is, I don't think "the theory" addresses the resolution of GNS-based conflicts (and I don't know that anyone else does either. The closest I've seen--and it was in PM's--and contained profanity--was that "knowing the theory" is 'necessary' to allow more concrete solutions to arise.)

Dunno. Maybe it's a YMMV thing.

But consider this:

Saying to Matt that you don't care about theory, but about how he feels is simiular to saying, "I know that you're hungry, but I only care about how you feel." GNS exists, whether you like it or not; players do have preferences. Like starvation, which can only be addressed by food, a GNS problem can only be addressed by applying an appropriate solution. The one difference in the analogy is that you can ask Matt to change his preference (something you can't do with hunger). Again, this is all about having an agreed to vision for play. But, then that's what GNS is all about -getting on the same sheet of music as to what play is about.

Is a pretty strong suggestion that GNS is, in fact, required for her and Matt to iron out their game.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

Is a pretty strong suggestion that GNS is, in fact, required for her and Matt to iron out their game.

Well, I'm playing both sides here. That is, taking Lisa at face value that there's nothing wrong with her game, then I say that GNS doesn't disagree with her. It might not be important. Which she was saying went against the theory.

But all that said, if Matt is claiming that there's a GNS problem (and I'm not saying that he is saying there is), then I'd be inclined to think that there's a GNS problem. That is, assuming that he's saying there is a problem, it means that he's not content to play in a game where this mix is going on. And all Lisa is doing is pleading for him to change his mind.

See, this is where it gets sticky. Does Matt have a right to play in a game that's more like what he wants to see? Or should he just "be social" and accept what's going on. This is classic interpersonal politics, and goes back to the social level again. That is, we're all trying to get what we want every day, and the question is whether we can get it from others or not.

Now, it seems on the face of it to be greedy to want others to play in your mode. But that assumes that those others are adverse. If they're just playing the way they do out of habit, maybe they'd enjoy a change of scenery, and playing in a single mode. Who can say? I'm not on the scene, and don't know all the players (played with Matt and Flash, however!:-) ). So I can't really say if it would work. Maybe Lisa knows that it's doomed to failure, and she's playing the only game that will work for the group.

But sans an attempt to try it, that means that Matt has to just swallow whatever preference he may be feeling. The suitability of which, only Matt can comment on.

Mike

[Gordon C. Landis]

Hi everyone,

Lisa seems to be done with this thread, so I'd guess it's time to let it close - but as far as the side issue of when to apply GNS goes: it looks to me like Mike and Marco eventually got to the right place.  No, no one (I hope!) would ever say GNS is the only solution to all problems.  My other thread was just to be clear that it's not ONLY in a massively dysfunctional game that GNS can be helpfully applied.

Gordon

[Mike Holmes]

Obviously I'm of the belief of a wider abilty to use GNS, I'm the guy who advocates it's use in design. So, I'm going to agree with Marco to be more careful in my phraseology in the future. I could have been more clear.

In any case, sorry for dragging the thread out longer than it needed to go.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

All closed!

Best,
Ron