Name That Style

[jburneko]

Hello All,

There's a style of role-playing that I've found to be far more common among gamers than I originally thought.  Personally, I'm having trouble understanding it mainly because I don't understand what the "point" of it is.  So, from a GNS stand point what exactly is this:

1) The style I'm thinking about is highly improvisational.  The GM basically comes to the table with little more than a situation. "You've been sent out to find the Widget of Something or other."  The players are expected to show up and just play their characters in whatever manner they see fit.

2) The rules are usually ignored or improperly employed.  Usually, character creation is either intact or left looser than the rules suggest.  Only the core resolution mechanic is used and most other elements of the system that would other wise faciliate some kind of GNS style are simply left out or are often not even known by the participants.  In other words the rule system is litteral used as just a randomizer to say Yes or No to disputes with little care for the actual outcome.  Character improvement systems are left intact but the GM generally hands out disproportionate amounts of "XP" or what have you.  Either too little or too much.

3) These games generally devolve into silliness with most of the roleplaying consisting of the players laughing at their characters slapsticky antics.  As such these games usually take place with games that already have some element of this such as Tales of the Vegabond, Paranoia or Toon which wouldn't baffle me so much if it weren't for #2 and the fact that I have seen this style done with slightly more serious games such as In Nomine or Changling.

Notes: I hesitate to call this style dysfunctional because those who engage in it seem to be having a good time.  I also hesitate to call this style "munchcanism" mainly because I don't necessarily see power tripping or ego boosting going on.

What is this style of gaming and why is it so prevalent among gamers?  Or is it not as prevalent as I think it is and I'm just hallucinating?

Jesse

[Mike Holmes]

I think that this gets outside of GNS and what you are seeing is people slipping towards Collaborative Storytelling or Interactive Fiction. In it's regular form, there are few if any rules to this, as people just take turns making stuff up. BTW, it's remarkably common.

In your case you probably have people who feel that they have "evolved" past the need for a lot of rules and that their penchant for telling a good story will keep them in line in a better fashion than the rules could. I see Narrativism as an attempt to reach those same ideals while still employing mechanics. And I think that it works in that you can have mechanics in a narrativist game that can prevent it from spinning off into that silliness that you've noted. The mechanics can help keep the players hooked into the Premise.

OTOH, if you had the right group I could see doing Collaborative Storytelling and keeping a tight focus. Just not my bag.

Remember that GNS pretty much only applies as designed to Table-top Role-Playing Games. Which are diferent from CS, IS, LARP, CRPG, Wargames, and any number of other forms which are generally not the subject of discussion on The Forge, but have distinct similarities.

Mike

[Le Joueur]

jburneko wrote:

There's a style of role-playing that I've found to be far more common among gamers than I originally thought.  Personally, I'm having trouble understanding it mainly because I don't understand what the "point" of it is.  So, from a GNS stand point what exactly is this...?

After reading your description the first thing that jumps to mind is a series of games I have run that everyone around here now refers to as 'Anime Smash.'  Only the first few had any basis on animated cartoons from Japan or widespread violence, but the name kinda stuck.

I have to agree with Mike on the GNS orientation here, the games like you are implying do not fit in the GNS hierarchy (Although I expect Ron to chime in with "we don't have enough to go on" any second now).  What I would say is that they pretty much matches what I suggested was finding gratification (or enjoyment) in the extrinsic value of the personal frame of reference as explained in my Get Emotional! article, some time ago (when I finally parted company with GNS theory).

Notice the connotations (in that article) between how I comprehend your example as compared to Gamism, except Gamism (as generally described) does not appear to allow play that uses no mechanical basis for consistency (but defining Gamism right now is probably a lost cause).  Still, this would be the closest the GNS seems to offer, Gamism where a 'social' aspect takes the place of the mechanical.

And I would not liken it to storytelling however, because, if I am not mistaken, the 'plot' is not cared for in the least (and that would rip out one of the main purposes for the narrative in a story being told.)

Likewise, Collaborative Storytelling and Interactive Fiction are noteworthy because, in general, they are usually created from a detached, third person type of perspective, not at all like what you sound like you are describing.  As I said in the article before, I see gaming, at its most fundamental level, as "thinking in the context of the sequence of in-game events."  While this is occasionally practiced in the creation of fiction and storytelling, gaming does not exist without it.  That's why I do not think what you described has anything to do with either fictionalization or storytelling or even dramatization.

Just my 2¢.

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-12-05 18:37 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Fang's right about my call - I'd prefer to watch or participate, and get an idea of the GOALS involved, and then find out the answer. In other words, I suspect that this "method" may be employed for a variety of goals or goals-combinations.

Boy, that's about as aggravating a response as I can imagine. Friggin' academics, never give a straight answer, mumble grumble.

Anyway, more specifically, it looks to me like we are really talking about the group turning to DRAMA methodology and not GNS necessarily. Games to check out for this sort of thing include SLUG (which comes free with Fudge, also available on the internet, I think) and The Window.

Best,
Ron

[jburneko]

On 2001-12-05 18:28, Ron Edwards wrote:

Fang's right about my call - I'd prefer to watch or participate, and get an idea of the GOALS involved, and then find out the answer.

I think that's what I was sort of asking too.  If I knew what the goal was I wouldn't be asking this.  This style of game, which I've encountered more than once and with alarming frequency, seems to suffer from GNS apathy.  Everyone is there 'just to play' but nobody has any idea what that means.  It feels like a structureless mishmash of random events with not a lot of rhyme or reason.  Yet everyone at the table (but me, usually) seems to be laughing and having a good time.

Of course, I quickly disasociate myself with these groups when I encounter them but that doesn't mean i don't want to UNDERSTAND them.

Jesse

[Gordon C. Landis]

Most likely the goal here is the  "other S" - socializing.  People get togther and bullshit, over the trappings of an RPG rather than the trappings of a poker game (or whatever).  A perfectly valid recreational activity, but not one that really needs much analysis to make "work well".

At least, that's my guess.  I've certainly seen it - for both RPGs and card/boardgames.  It annoys the heck outta me in the latter case (if I'm playing a flat-out competitive game, I expect a certain focus, darn it!).  For RPGs - not my thing, but at least I can see where some people would enjoy it.

Gordon

[Bret]

In my opinion, if it has no rules or the rules are ignored, then it's not a game. It's an activity, therefore GNS does not apply.

Peace,
Bret

[lumpley]

Seems to me that if the games you're talking about are mostly Toon and Paranoia and so on, what you're seeing is the players ditching the prohibitory mechanics and playing the game how it's funnest.  I mean, the last thing I want to do during a Paranoia game is worry about my kombat modifiers.  Not playing by the rules is almost a side effect of wanting to be silly.

Especially with games like Changeling and In Nomine, where the premise of the game is frankly pretty silly, and the mechanics are just one big wad of trying to get you to take it seriously.

Anyway, I think that a game's mechanics are as likely to disrupt focus as they are to support it.  When that happens, throwing them out is often your best option.  And not just for silly games either, of course.  Any game where the mechanics don't support the group's goal.

System Matters, right?

-lumpley Vincent

[ This Message was edited by: lumpley on 2001-12-05 21:01 ]

[Le Joueur]

I don't think there's much point likening Jesse's example to theatre (I believe that's where Ron's going with "DRAMA methodology" stuff).  Acting (not to be confused with Actor Stance from Ron's Essay) is all about presentation; there is hardly anything resembling 'exploration' per Ron.  Even in the most closed improv exercises (like the ones where the actors explain they are 'exploring' their characters) are about having the right presentation, giving the viewers the expected 'show.'  No matter what the actors say to the contrary, they are not practicing 'exploration' per Ron's writing, but more 'exploring' how they present their characters.

Heck Storytelling is also all about presentation too.  Sure an author might call it 'exploration' for the first few drafts, but past that fiction writing (and maybe others) is about presenting the findings; Storytelling must be closely related in my thinking.  The same would be true about Interactive Fiction (at least the kinds that are mostly branching Storytelling).

I don't think that people who "show up and just play their characters" are there trying to impress anyone with their performance; remember GNS is all about goals not methods.  (Isn't it?)  I've seen things like Jesse's experiences in action, and the participants were there purely 'to have fun,' "just [playing] their characters."  If anything, it would be pure 'exploration' for the sake of instant gratification.  (While "other S" 'social' interaction could be occuring, I don't think it necessarily needs to be the goal.)

But then I'm just griping about what I think is lacking in the GNS model again, sorry.

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-12-05 21:41 ]

[hardcoremoose]

I'm confused.  I presumed that Ron was talking about DRAMA, as in the resolution mechanic found in games like Theatrix.

- Scott

[Bret]

Lumpley,

Just for the record, I've always regarded In Nomine as a serious game and I played in a serious In Nomine campaign which was extremely enjoyable. :wink:

Peace,
Bret

[Ron Edwards]

Fang,

Scott is right; I'm talking about Drama in the strict DFK terms of the essay, not in the sense of theatrical or literary drama.

I do agree with you that the Exploration factor seems to be very low in the situation that Jesse is describing, based as well on my own observations of similar groups.

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

Ron Edwards wrote:

Scott is right; I'm talking about Drama in the strict DFK terms of the essay, not in the sense of theatrical or literary drama.

I stand corrected, sorry for the misunderstanding.  (Perhaps it might be less confusing if you mention which drama you're referring to each time you use that word?  Or maybe come up with a new word entirely, considering the GDS DFK GNS mess?)

I do agree with you that the Exploration factor seems to be very low in the situation that Jesse is describing, based as well on my own observations of similar groups.

Then you don't agree with me at all.  What I attempted to suggest was that actors, whether on stage or in workshops, are not 'exploring.'  I sought a point that these were not actors because they were 'exploring.'  I would emphatically suggest that the situations that Jesse describes contains people who are definitely 'exploring,' exploring the realm of instant gratification via role-playing gaming. [Snip.]

[Snip.] Instead of trying to analyze Jesse's situation without being there, I tried steering him to a different essay in which he might find some answers (with a little editorial guidance on my part). [Snip.]

[Snip.] The reason everyone is having such a hard time figuring out where in the GNS things like Jesse's example (as written) are is because the GNS model does not include play with the only goal of having fun.

This usually leads to either one of two reactions (so I have seen); either model proponents turn their noses up at this kind of play as being 'beneath' the model (the argument is usually 'all modes of GNS are playing for fun'), or they try endlessly to analyze the examples for hints or tiny glimmers suggesting some vague kind of modal play ('Aha!  If anyone, at least once, uses directorial stance it must clearly be a degenerate form of Narrativism.').

As I have said on numerous occasions in the past, this is not always the case.  Analyze as much as you want, but in some games none of the GNS goals are in play (even sporadically).  [Snip.] as likely designers, all reading this probably take their gaming a lot more seriously than the bulk of gamers out there.  On many occasions in my personal experience, I have played with people who have none of the goals of the GNS either explicitly or unknowingly in their interests.

As Jesse describes, they "show up and just play their characters."  They do not care about immersion or setting, issues of balance and consistency mean nothing, neither do plot, story, nor even do consequences of actions make a difference, nothing in their play even remotely resembles what the various modes of GNS are after.  They simply play for the fun of it.  And before the "other S" argument is resurrected, I should say that some of these groups have had people who do not even get along privately.

[Snip.]

[Snip.] since I cannot prove the GNS is missing something using Ron's Essay's terminology¹, [Snip.]

Fang Langford

¹ The very idea of using terminology from an essay you are trying to invalidate is pointless.  Said terminology should only support the essay, how could anything be proven against it with its own [Snip.]?

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-12-07 15:04 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Fang,

It is perfectly all right for you to say, "These folks may be role-playing and they may not be according with GNS theory." That's an interesting point. However, I don't think you have made the case to support it, yet. Please elaborate if you want.

The most difficult aspect of dealing with your post is that you have determined to ignore any established definition of the terms until forced to do so. When you do that in reference to others using the terms, it derails argument. For instance, I used Exploring with a capital E, meaning the term defined in my essay, and you have turned it into a synonym for simply "employing" or doing," and then disagreed with that. I simply do not have the time to rein you in, soothe you, turn your head, and then point out this definition, hoping that you will then back up and see that my point was valid in reference to (and agreeing with) your previous post. This is the sort of behavior I have to take with balky sophomores, but not, I hope, with folks on the Forge.

When this happens, the whole argument stalls out. I'd like to see what you're saying, and as I said, I think I am agreeing with most of your points. It's fine if you don't want to use the terminology of the essay, but it's aggravating for others to use it, with the definitions laid out for all to see, and be ignored and read as saying utterly different things, in the manner described above.

More importantly, the rest of your post is a broadside about the utility of my posts and about the GNS essay in general. Both are off-topic. The first one might be taken to private email if you feel strongly enough about it, but it doesn't belong on a forum. You're welcome to start up the latter as a new thread.

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

Ron Edwards wrote:

It is perfectly all right for you to say, "These folks may be role-playing and they may not be according with GNS theory." That's an interesting point. However, I don't think you have made the case to support it, yet.

[Snip.] I thought that was both Jesse's job and his original point.  He described a real-world example of exactly that in a request for help defining it.  So far no one has been able to find which GNS mode it belongs to.  That, to me, makes exactly this statement, [Snip.]

I see the burden of supporting this case is not on me to show that it is not one of three modes, but instead on you to show that it is.  (In philosophy, it is generally accepted that you cannot prove something does not exist unless you show all parts of reality and find it lacking.  The same applies here; by you, I would have to show that Jesse's example exists as something never before discussed in your essay.  And I'd have to do it using only the terms set forth in that essay.  Personally, I'd have to say that as purveyor of the known set, it would be incumbent upon you to show what it was within such, [Snip.])

Please elaborate if you want.

[Snip.]

The most difficult aspect of dealing with your post is that you have determined to ignore any established definition of the terms until forced to do so. When you do that in reference to others using the terms, it derails argument. For instance, I used Exploring with a capital E, meaning the term defined in my essay,

Which would be defined where? [Snip.]

Is the definition, "The imagination in action, or perhaps for the attention given the imagined elements, is Exploration," maybe it's "the imagined (Explored) content of the role-playing experience," or even "Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play."   No?  How about "Exploration might be, 'What does it feel like to be a...'" because all but one of the other incidences of the word in your essay do not define, but instead rely upon, it.

(About the other one:) I especially like "all three modes are social applications of the foundational act of role-playing, which is Exploration," [Snip.]

and you have turned it into a synonym for simply "employing" or doing,"

But you define role-playing gaming thus, "When a person engages in role-playing, or prepares to do so, he or she relies on imagining and utilizing the following:..." and then you write, "The imagination in action, or perhaps for the attention given the imagined elements, is Exploration." [Snip.]

and then disagreed with that.

[Snip.]

My point has always been that role-playing gaming is 'thinking within the context of the sequence of in-game events.'  I choose not to use the term imagining, because in a few forms of resource-management play, you are not 'imagining' the resources as actually being anything other than numbers.  (Exactly what do you 'imagine' character points are when you are making up a character in Champions?  I count character generation as part of role-playing gaming and making a character for a game is 'thinking within the context' of that game.)

Regardless, let's say my "thinking" is analogous to your "imagining" just to simplify the discussion.  But by your essay, Ron, this imagining is "Exploring."  (Correct the essay if I mischaracterize.)  You'll note that "attention given the imagined elements" pretty much parallels "within the context of the sequence of in-game events."  Thus your "Exploration" is a [Snip.] buzzword for something very like what I have in my 11-word description.

What I want to know is how "imagining and utilizing" which equals "Exploration" is not "'employing' or doing" things in a game? [Snip.]

I simply do not have the time to rein you in, soothe you, turn your head, and then point out this definition,

[Snip.]

hoping that you will then back up and see that my point was valid in reference to (and agreeing with) your previous post.

[Snip.] Backing up: I said, "I don't think that people who 'show up and just play their characters' are there trying to impress anyone with their performance" clearly meaning they're not actors (little 'a,' not the stance).  Then I state my point about them, "If anything, it would be pure 'exploration' for the sake of instant gratification."  Meaning I see that the people of Jesse's example are 'Exploring' (meaning "imagining and utilizing" the elements you list, "Character, System, Setting, Situation, and Color").

Then you say, "I do agree with you that the Exploration factor seems to be very low in the situation that Jesse is describing."  How did I say that they were not "imagining and utilizing the following: Character, System, Setting, Situation, and Color?"  [Snip.]

This is the sort of behavior I have to take with balky sophomores, but not, I hope, with folks on the Forge.

[Snip.]

When this happens, the whole argument stalls out. I'd like to see what you're saying, and as I said, I think I am agreeing with most of your points.

Just to be clear, [Snip.]:

• Actors don't explore.
  
• Jesse's exemplars are not acting.
  
• They are 'Exploring.'
  
• Thus they are definitely role-playing gaming.
  
• They are not applying GNS goals consciously or unconsciously.
  
• They are having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion.
  
• They are not unique or rare in this practice.
  
• Therefore something is missing from the GNS model.
  
• Most arguments about this missing element(s) fail because they have to use proprietary terminology (that by natural design supports GNS).[/list:u][Snip.] I am not trying to change your mind, just making myself clear.
  
  

  It's fine if you don't want to use the terminology of the essay, but it's aggravating for others to use it, with the definitions laid out for all to see, and be ignored and read as saying utterly different things, in the manner described above.

  The only term I misread (as far as I know) was your use of Drama.  Don't you think capitalizing every letter "DRAMA methodology" makes it sound like you are 'shouting' about regular theatrical arts and not the usual capitalized 'Drama Resolution Systems' that carries the connotation of DFK, [Snip.]?
  
  [Snip.]
  
  

  More importantly, the rest of your post is a broadside about the utility of my posts and about the GNS essay in general.  Both are off-topic.

  How is suggesting that the GNS cannot cover something in a thread calling for a GNS diagnosis off-topic? [Snip.]
  
  [Snip.]
  
  

  The first one might be taken to private email if you feel strongly enough about it, but it doesn't belong on a forum.

  [Snip.]
  
  

  You're welcome to start up the latter as a new thread.

  [Snip.]
  
  Fang Langford
  
  [ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-12-07 15:08 ]