The Omni-Player

[xiombarg]

I don't have much to add here, other than that as someone who enjoys all three modes that I certainly think this style of play would be possible and worth trying, especially if a group is having problems.

[Mark D. Eddy]

Heh. I got mentioned, I think.

The key here is that as GM my creative agenda was to make sure as many players as possible had fun. Note that my fun came from other people enjoying themselves.

Also, it's easy to be an omni-GM with the right attitude and tools. I have no clue how I would have facilitated things if I weren't the GM. Although with my encouragement some of the players did support other creative agendas than their usual emphasis.

This is another thing that may need its very own topic: GNS as a model comes from a study of disfunctional play. Does the model still hold when we move to a study of functional play?

[charles ferguson]

Hi all! (first post here at the Forge :)

To me it seems as if this thread is addressing several slightly different premises, depending on who's posting:

1) do we run games that combine elements of G + N + S ?
2) given 1), should we?
3) given 2), should we do so consciously & explicitly?

and I can't always tell if they're being treated as the same thing, or not.

(Forgive me if I'm wrong, Mike, but I read your orig post as firmly in the 2) & 3) camp.)

I guess my thoughts are that I can't see how to design an RPG without SOME elements of Theme, plus SOME elements of Challenge, plus SOME elements of Fidelity (to borrow terms from the Beeg Horseshoe Theory Revisited). I'm not saying it couldn't be done, mind, just that right now I can't see how :)

So for me GNS is a set of sliders, without any real 0 value (ie, some degree of each is always present, no matter how insignificant this is relative to the others).

So I guess I see the Creative Agenda as the decision/position (whether conscious or unconscious, shared or in isoloation, negotiated or assumed) on how to set the G-N-S sliders--& how tightly or loosely--for a given game/group. The Social Contract then becomes the medium for ensuring that the CA is conscious, is shared, is negotiated.

In this context, consciously tweaking your own personal 'sliders' during play (within the parameters of the SC) to bring them closer to what you percieve as the consensual optimum--or maybe in a specific instance, closer to a fellow players', as a way of supporting/enhancing/buying into their RP goals--would IMO not only strengthen the Social Contract, but also push ourselves in directions that may never be explored when we play in isolation.

It would exploit the interative element of RPGs that does make it different from books, or movies, or other artforms.

Uhhh--is this on-topic, or have I missed the point of the whole thread :) ?

Edit: fixed linking :(

[Caldis]

If the omni-player is possible and games that appeal to the omni-player exist (Riddle of Steel for example) what does that say about "System does Matter" and incoherence?  Generally it's been a given that designing for multiple modes is not a good idea but this would seem to counter that thought.

[charles ferguson]

If the omni-player is possible and games that appeal to the omni-player exist (Riddle of Steel for example) what does that say about "System does Matter" and incoherence? Generally it's been a given that designing for multiple modes is not a good idea but this would seem to counter that thought

I don't see any conflict. In GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory, Chapter 2 Ron wrote:

Labels

Much torment has arisen from people perceiving GNS as a labelling device. Used properly, the terms apply only to decisions, not to whole persons nor to whole games. To be absolutely clear, to say that a person is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This person tends to make role-playing decisions in line with Gamist goals." Similarly, to say that an RPG is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This RPG's content facilitates Gamist concerns and decision-making." For better or for worse, both of these forms of shorthand are common.

For a given instance of play, the three modes are exclusive in application. When someone tells me that their role-playing is "all three," what I see from them is this: features of (say) two of the goals appear in concert with, or in service to, the main one, but two or more fully-prioritized goals are not present at the same time. So in the course of Narrativist or Simulationist play, moments or aspects of competition that contribute to the main goal are not Gamism. In the course of Gamist or Simulationist play, moments of thematic commentary that contribute to the main goal are not Narrativism. In the course of Narrativist or Gamist play, moments of attention to plausibility that contribute to the main goal are not Simulationism. The primary and not to be compromised goal is what it is for a given instance of play. The actual time or activity of an "instance" is necessarily left ambiguous.
Over a greater period of time, across many instances of play, some people tend to cluster their decisions and interests around one of the three goals. Other people vary across the goals, but even they admit that they stay focused, or prioritize, for a given instance.

So my take would be that:

[list=1]
[*]According to GNS, design becomes problematic when a game fails to distinguish which of the 3 categories it aims to primarily facilitate (the key in the context of this discussion is IMO "primarily").

[*]Incoherence occurs when the designer textually emphasises or discourages one of these categories, but embeds game mechanics that promote the reverse.

[/list:o]

An example of (2) would a game design that opens with the words, "This is a game with no losers or winners. It's about you, the player, creating your own story for your own character!"--but then provides a system that strongly rewards & facilitates Gamist play, has no techniques for player-authoring or shared-story creation, and advises the GM to take a strong Directorial stance whenever the players look like they want to step outside GM-driven plot.

An example of how a game could explicilty acknowledge more than 1 category as valid, & remain coherent, might be a game of Sorcerer run as a 'Highlander' style campaign with an over-arching Nar focus, as well as a strong Gamist element: much of the in-game action consists of the players specifically competing against one another in single combat. Both of these are textually supported by the game (this example is taken from one of the suggested possible settings in the Sorc gamebook), and because the Nar element is so clearly & strongly brought to the fore in both text & system, there is minimal danger of confusion as to which element is the main priority.

[Disclaimer: this is my reading of the above example only. I havn't checked it with the game's author, so ask for pardon in advance if I've misconstrued.]

So coherence to me involves a designer being very clear about what his or her respective G-N-S prioritories are in a particular case, and then creating a game that very clearly communicates & facilitates those priorities to the readers.

[Caldis]

 [
So coherence to me involves a designer being very clear about what his or her respective G-N-S prioritories are in a particular case, and then creating a game that very clearly communicates & facilitates those priorities to the readers.

You made some very good points here that I agree with, this discussion  has been split so if you want to address this further check out.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=102235#102235

[Marhault]

Mark:  I couldn't agree more.  I think Omni-GMs are pretty common, especially where groups are mixed regarding GNS preferences.

In this context, consciously tweaking your own personal 'sliders' during play (within the parameters of the SC) to bring them closer to what you percieve as the consensual optimum--or maybe in a specific instance, closer to a fellow players', as a way of supporting/enhancing/buying into their RP goals

*snip*

Emphasis mine.

Yeah, man!  You're on topic, and in my opinion, you're on target, too.  This is pretty much what i was trying to get across.  Adjust your sliders!  As long as you're doing it consciously, and keep your own goals in mind, you can avoid becoming one of the "tired, bitter, and frustrated" that got this whole thing started. (quote from GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory by Ron Edwards)  And, isn't being aware of this sort of thing really what GNS is all about?

Oh, and one more thing, Welcome to the Forge, Charles.

[charles ferguson]

cool! thx Marhault :)