The Forge Archives

So, even with people who've picked up post counts over 100 and have been around for a few months, I sometimes notice these things. Incredibly basic fundamental parts of the theory just.. mangled.

And that's to say nothing of RPG.net fora.

I'm not trying to get into the nuances here; this is meant to be a thread to clear up the misconceptions I'm seeing. If I'm completely off-base here, feel free to publically shame me!

1) A game is not GNS; GNS describes the motivation for any game decision you make.

2) For any decision, one particular mode takes priority for that single decision; this does not mean you cannot prioritise other modes with other decisions.

3) Wanting to "tell a story" does not necessarily have anything to do with Narrativist decisions.

4) Dice, hit points, combat, trigonometry, tax forms, and high-level calculus to determine whether or not you hit the orc does not necessarily have anything to do with Gamist playing.

5) Simulatonist decisions do not necessarily have anything to do with real-world physics.


So, while the masses are checking to see if my foot is now in my mouth, anyone have anything else to add? I'm sure there's got to be some more detailed sticking points, but those seemed to be the biggest to me. I'm just tired of seeing things like, "I'm a Narrativist player because I like freeform games."

Hi Michael

Without going into specifc issues, I'm going to point to the two recurring causes of confusion:

1)  Reading extra into/not reading the whole

Folks tend to read "extra" claims into things, usually based off their personal preferences(such as one mode being "superior" or "inferior" to another), or else read only part and take it as the whole of what's going on(such as missing out that GNS is measured on a larger scale of time).

2)  Failing to compare to actual experiences

Some folks are unable to correlate the theory concepts to actual play experiences they themselves have experienced.  Often these are also the folks who say that GNS has no grounding in reality.  For these people, there is no actual room for discussion until they can recognize real life personal experiences to compare to the theory.  

For these people, selective memory becomes their best friend.  It is highly wrapped up in the need to justify their activity and the cohesion of the group.  Like a dysfunctional codependant relationship, it becomes necessary to focus on the "wonderful" bits, and forget the rest, otherwise the reality sets in.

Personally, the best advice I can give people is:
-Take your time, digest it bit by bit
-Always look for actual play experiences to put it in context
-You don't HAVE to learn all of GNS, or even any of it at all, if you don't want
-It is not a religion, no need to convert people.  Use it if you like, don't if you don't.

Chris

Quote from: anonymouse2) For any decision, one particular mode takes priority for that single decision; this does not mean you cannot prioritise other modes with other decisions.

The theory doesn't say this, it says that one particular Creative Agenda (the term now preferred over "mode") is prioritized for any given instance of play. But an instance of play is not just one decision, it's a larger span of play usually about a session long.

Whether a Creative Agenda can be identified for individual decisions separately from the overall Creative Agenda of an instance, and whether a small number of individual decisions selected out of an instance of play as being particularly "telling" can be used to determine the Creative Agenda of the instance, remain controversial questions. The theory doesn't currently make either claim, but it doesn't appear to rule them out as possibilities either.

- Walt

This thread contains a good summary of problems:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=1578

Mike