Topic: Differing goals
Started by: contracycle
Started on: 1/18/2002
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 1/18/2002 at 3:55pm, contracycle wrote:
Differing goals
Ron Edwards wrote:
As another example (that is often missed), I am perfectly happy with the notion that primarily Simulationist play can include the concept of "story" as a context or reinforcer of the Simulationist priorities at hand. Or any other combination.
Hi Ron,
What would you think about a situation in which the GM and the Players have different goals, consciously or unconsciously?
I expect you probably don't like this idea; I guess what I mean is that part of what I see in Illusionism is that the GM works overtly toward a goal of simulaiton, and covertly toward a goal of story. I agree this poses questions for the social contract amongst the participants, but was wondering what you thought about this. This is not intended as a covert narrativism; the GM is NOT seeking player control of the astory, although is processing player input. Inasmuch a s asytem might support Stroy as a secondary goal, do you think a GM could elect to prioritise the seocndary goal over the primary goal as far as their actual conduct of the game goes?
On 1/18/2002 at 4:45pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Differing goals
Gareth,
It's all about compatibility. Anyone at the table may have different goals, and I'm even comfortable with the idea that those differences may range all the way up to fundamental GNs diversity. What matters is whether the people are getting along about having all those goals there, in terms of enjoying actual play.
So, say we have a GM who really cares about the story turning out good, and players who do or don't to varying degrees. The group never really talks much about it, or when they do, "story" gets bandied about in so many ways that it never means anything. But they do chat and enthuse about the game/storyline itself; the GM passes out player surveys and tries hard to get a mix of "immediate player satisfaction" and "hella good story eventually" into action.
You know what? You can give that guy a name. It was Ron Edwards, and he GM'ed like this for eight years solid. Champions, Fantasy Hero, some homebrew, Cyberpunk, GURPS, and playing in a lot more. I defy anyone to match the degree of intensity, creativity, and commitment I gave this effort, exactly as you describe.
So sure. I'd say that's a fine way to play. If someone has even half the fun I did, they'll be ten times happier than most role-players I know outside of my circles.
No one seems to be interested in the pitfalls of such an approach - and note, I said "pitfall," not "inevitable train wreck." I've discussed them before:
(1) the GM sadly having to compromise a priority here and there (not an outcome or preplanned event, I said "priority"),
(2) a player wanting to help with story creation and having neither social nor mechanics based power to do so, and
(3) a player being irritated with preplanned elements, as the basis/rights for bringing them into play are not well established.
I'll say this: the players with the most similar Narrativist-type leanings as the GM unfortunately may become the most alienated and dissatisfied of the bunch.
My final point, though, is that I never have prescribed, and never will prescribe, a robotic "Thou Shalt Play in GNS-defined Conclaves" standard for participating in role-playing.
Best,
Ron
On 1/18/2002 at 8:51pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Differing goals
Ron Edwards wrote:
I'll say this: the players with the most similar Narrativist-type leanings as the GM unfortunately may become the most alienated and dissatisfied of the bunch.
Cool.
This remark bugged me for a bit but I think I've put my finger on it. The GM doesn't want to be a Narrativist. This is a performance, not an act of creation. I like imaginary worlds an stuff; they interest me. I see my role as GM in much more of a portrayal behaviour rather than a creative behaviour.
My act of creation is a much more workaday affair; its purpose is to keep an audience. I've only just thought about it this way by contrast to what appears to be an assumption on your part that the goal of the GM in this scenario is narrativism, active creation.
I was thinking about the band metaphor the other day. My recent housemate david had a Band - you can by their album over the internet if you like :)
David was the driving force of his band, he would spend endless hours fiddling away on keyboards, and is a very creative and intelligent man, and very committed. Speaking to the others, they would quite happily tell you that the drummer just like to play and the singer wanted to be famous. David was indeed the bass player. However, while we were living together David and the band had a falling out - David frankly told them he wanted total artiststic authority. He simply was not happy bumbling along as they were, he wanted to DO stuff. There was resistance, they fell out, they got back together on a new and conscious distribution of authority.
I mention this because the metaphor about the band is all well and good, but tends to assume the band is happy together in a happy jazzy kinda of way. It is in fact the romanticised band, the ideal band - most bands are not balanced. Look at Ringo.
So I think there are a large number of games who's social contract is explicitly and comfortably unbalanced in this way.
Certainly habitual GM's in my experience usually have shelves of books, and habitual players have stacks of character sheets. I think the desire to deliver a good story is distinct from the desire to co-create a good story, and I guess I think its possible to cater to those potential pitfalls. For one thing, the investigation of distributed authority in a systematic manner which could give you a basis for anticipating the range of your authorially-prone players and still being able to do real planning so as not to sacrifice the priorities.
My final point, though, is that I never have prescribed, and never will prescribe, a robotic "Thou Shalt Play in GNS-defined Conclaves" standard for participating in role-playing.
No indeed; its quite impossible for any abstract model to be dialectiacally realised in the material world.
On 1/18/2002 at 8:56pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Differing goals
Hi Gareth,
I see your point, or points. You're making a lot of sense to me.
In my case, certainly, it was a matter of being a Narrativist GM, or trying to be, resulting in a certain amount of push-me pull-you on the players: "Help me make a story!" "No! Do it this way!"
Mind you, in my defense, in the Champs games (the majority) I GM'ed this clutch-hitch was an occasional murmur, whereas in some other groups I was in, it was the essential feature of play.
Best,
Ron