Topic: Non-GNS conflict
Started by: Scourge108
Started on: 3/27/2004
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 3/27/2004 at 5:01pm, Scourge108 wrote:
Non-GNS conflict
Rob Carriere wrote: I would agree that it would be very nice to have a reviewer state their GNS preferences up front and also that, in the absence of such a statement, you can try to infer these preferences.
But there is a lot more to a person's tastes than just GNS. For example, in the attached forum of the review there's a huge thread where the issue is whether you prefer the a priori or the a posteriori perspective when creating characters. That's a preference that, at least in my experience, is pretty much independent of GNS preference.
A very good point. Creative agenda disfunction is definitely a reality in my experience, as different players and GMs like different aspects of the games. But the disfunction doesn't always seem to fit the GNS model as I see it, which may be why I'm still not sure how to apply GNS. For example, I hate long lists of equipment with lots of bookkeeping to keep track of for a character. It makes me feel like I'm roleplaying an accountant. I have a friend who loves these charts, though. He prefers science fiction settings because of the long lists of new equipment you have to read through to choose from. I just want a ray gun, I don't want to have to read about the differences between charged particle beams, lasers, phasers, masers, needlers, flechettes, with scopes, HUD, gyroscopes, etc. But if a supplement comes out with nothing but lists of equipment, you can bet my friend will buy it. I prefer to focus on what abilities my character has, not what items he's carrying.
So my question is what other conflicts in interest have people come across in RPG playing that really doesn't seem to be related to GNS? Is it possible that they are GNS related and I just don't see it (OK, that's 2 questions)?
On 3/27/2004 at 6:03pm, pete_darby wrote:
RE: Non-GNS conflict
Well, In my experience... Of course. There can be disagreements at any stage of the model. Right from Social Contract ("Hey, no politics in the game session") right down to ephemera ("But we don't use peripheral vision modifiers!").
Funny thing is, most of the other levels are relatively easy to diagnose, if not to cure. Maybe some of the players have a problem with director stance, or the players are expecting illusionism when the GM's trying to play an improvised scenario, maybe the GM is looking at the nubile new player's decolletage a leeeetle too much... But pretty much most of the time, you can see what the problem is.
Solving that stuff... whole 'nother ball park.
The funny thing about the CA layer is that it's where folks think they;ve sorted out the "big issues" (When are we playing, what's socially acceptable in the group, what game are we playing), and they may even be deploying the same techniques and ephemera, or be wiling to compromise on them, but still folks are honked off at each other.
Solving that stuff... at least relies on it being recognised.
On 3/28/2004 at 12:06am, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Non-GNS conflict
Hello,
Scourge and Rob, are both of you aware that GNS per se is only one piece of my theoretical model of role-playing? To point out that conflicts and issues may arise over other pieces of that model isn't controversial in the slightest.
The best place to read about the whole model is in the early section of my Narrativism essay.
Best,
Ron
On 3/28/2004 at 12:33am, cruciel wrote:
RE: Non-GNS conflict
It's also worth noting that conflicts can arise within CA's, and be just as bad (if not worse) than cross-CA conflicts.
For example, you might have two Nar players addressing the following themes:
1. The ordinary man can do the extraordinary.
2. Good and evil is a matter of perspective.
I picked these two themes because the conflict is not obvious. Consider that if you make the ordinary man good, then the statement is made that human nature is fundamentally good, hence good and evil cannot be a matter of perspective. Likewise, the ordinary man cannot do the extraordinary if the fruit of his actions is ultimately to gain at the cost of another - that is not extraordinary (in a heroic sense).
By altering the implementation somehow, you can probably make these two themes co-exist, but I wanted to give a conflicting example (the example is taken from personal experience). Point being, theme can conflict with theme, just as it can conflict with challenge.