This is a split off of Top Concerns for GNS based on Clinton's response that GNS was influential on Donjon and Donjon's success as a topic of conversation is making him a much happier game designer.

I want to agree with that. I'd made a comment earlier on another thread that I considered my experiences with GNS and the Forge to have led me to a new level of advancement as a game designer, GM, and player-- and all three make me incredibly happy.

For that matter, unraveling the jargon and feeling myself fit into a niche somewhere is incredibly pleasurable. In some ways, RPG theory fufills much the same basic desires as "gaming" (fun, socialization, personal development) and somehow brings with it this endowment of depth and perspicacity that I really don't get from table-topping, no matter what the intentions are of the group. Its a different kind of fun, but something the 30 year old me cherishes in the way the 10 year old me cherished spending HOURS mapping dungeons and killing imaginary monsters.

But that's me. What about you?

I posted elsewhere on this ("RPG Theory: Threat or Menace?"), before you set up this thread, so I'll add on quickly...

Though I haven't had a chance yet to put my GNS education into gaming practice, GNS has opened the possibility of gaming again. Never thought I would.

The fact that it breaks out the parts of gaming that I really wanted in my gaming but couldn't quite find; contrasts these elements against the parts of gaming I thought were necesary to gaming but in fact weren't needed for the gaming I wanted to do; and gave me a handle on why some people liked aspects of gaming I couldn't find enjoyable at all and allowed me to see these choices as specific preference for specific players and not inherent in the act of gaming itself -- has proven ridiculously valuable.

So, while the theorizing may not be my thing, the work everyone has done has been informative, eye-opening, and inspiring. Allowing me back into a hobby I really thought I'd never touch again.

Christopher

I'd like to chime in on this (finally, GNS discussion that is not either very boring {to me!}, nor too abstruse for me to feel comfortable commenting on).

GNS changed my life. I had planned on having my first post here be an extended gush about what it did for me. Now I think I'll be more sober about it.

I had, like others I have heard on here, mostly quit gaming. I was running a game with non-gamers (a good first step) and once again feeling really frustrated even though my cleverness didn't seem to have diminished since my long-lamented Good Ol' Games of the 80s. I didn't understand why facing the game filled me with such dread, I didn't understand why a group of very smart players didn't "get it", I didn't understand why I could barely tolerate even hanging out with most other gamers.

I read The Essays. A few times. They helped me analyze my whole gaming history, the conflicts I'd had with players and the impotent solutions I had tried to apply to them, the rules and worlds I had tweaked and tweaked, each change failing or greatly increasing my workload, leading to GM Burnout.

Everything became much, much clearer. I knew why I was unhappy. I knew why even the great games I had run still left me feeling so worn out. I knew why my then-current game had sand in its gears.

I unloaded about it all on my players, ditched the existing game completely, detailed world and all, and we started playing Sorcerer. It hasn't been perfect, but it's just getting better, and most important I'm having fun. More fun than I had when I was putting on performances that my old players still talk about, because I'm playing games the way I want to and I know how to advocate for what I want clearly (and I no longer use the GNS terminology to do this--it isn't necessary--but I never could have arrived at my own vocabulary without it).

I think this experience isn't too uncommon, and somewhat accounts for Ron's "cult" status.

--TQuid (J B Bell, having Clinton change the moniker)

Can I add a second question to this thread ?

If GNS has made you happier is it because you've now made a move to more Narrativist gaming ?

I get the impression that GNS is useful to those who don't know they are Narrativist or haven't been able to explain to others they way they want to play. Instinct tells me that Gamists and Simulationists are able to find groups and games to suit them easily, but I've no evidence for this.

So, if GNS has changed the way you game, how has it done so ?

(This isn't intended as a dig, or a flame or anything, I'm just curious)

Andy,

That's a damn good question. I will speculate that a fairly large proportion of people who have been helped by GNS fit the profile you're describing. A lot of them (us) would already have been "Hack Narrativists," to use the term introduced a couple of days ago, in that they (we) used a lot of patch rules or rules-ignoring in order to mutate the means of play (of Champions, in my case) toward these goals, often sliding into Illusionism sensu lato on the way.

I'm not too surprised about this disproportionate focus on "happy Narrativists." My own enthusiasm for getting an already-existing mode of play into recognition and utility is well-known, and I can certainly offer better advice or support for that mode of play.

However, is this a problem? (I know you did not imply as much; I am bringing it up.) I don't think so. Simple reality-constraints keep me from expecting a 33-33-33 split of participation and utility among people who encounter GNS. It would be a problem if the ideas and discourse here at the Forge discourage the same phenomenon of increased enjoyment among role-players with different goals.

My hope for the future is that Simulationist and Gamist play can be similarly "helped" if necessary through activity at the Forge. I don't know whether, pound for pound, it's as necessary for players with these inclinations as it demonstrably is for those with Narrativist priorities. Probably not for many Simulationist-oriented role-playerss; the range of coherent Simulationist designs in RPGs is pretty wide and most people I know with these tastes seem comfortably ensconced in one design or another. I suspect some Gamist-oriented players might appreciate it.

That's why I've tried hard to promote respect for Gamist play. I think the real groundwork for that was laid by Cheapass Games, so fortunately I'm not dealing with the gaming culture of the early 90s, in which Gamist play was anathemized. I think ... although it's slow ... that Gamist design and goals are already here at the Forge and will soon occupy a very well-defined, recognizable part of the activity. (I date this process all the way back to Lugzan's legendary thread on GO; can someone hunt the link for me?)

Best,
Ron

Very simply Narrativism is new, and therefore the novelty is part of what causes the urge to explore that aspect of GNS. So, while not finding Narrativism to be my personal favorite form of play, I've focused on it some in design of late.

But it has definitely helped me in all my designs, I think, as well as improving my play in some ways. I learned that most of my players are completely disinterested in Narrativism, for example. Knowing that I can focus on improving the aspects of play that they are interested in. Which makes it more fun for all.

So, I'd say that I, for one, am an example of somebody who has benefited from GNS outside of the area of "finding narrativism". And I suspect that there are others as well like myself. More important, however, is the related discusssion that GNS has generated. This material has been really useful to me. So I see GNS as a sort of foundation, not so much of an overall theory of RPGs, but of the beginning of real, cogent theory regarding RPGs in general.

I see the continuing debate about GNS here as having two purposes. First it serves as a model of how to develop future theory in a coherent way. And secondly, it may, of course, lead to other important theories by extension or revision, or even by accident (as so many other theories are generated).

Mike

I can only largely say "me to" to Mikes post. I would also say that while I have quibbles, it has been very well worked and thus provides a good springboard for all sorts of things. It is a more complete theory than merely a breakdown of elements, as the GDS was.

Hi everybody,

Quick clarification (damn, I've been sucked into the word-game after all!)

I don't think Narrativism is new. At least, I don't veiw it that way. In my book it was always there, but was off the map.

The value of GNS for me is that it extended the known map of RPGs. A lot of us were trying to get there. Couldn't find it. The new map blotted out the "Here there be dragons" part of the map and laid out the geography of Narrativism.

(This is a parallel analogy to my Narrativism as non-euclidian geometry on another thread.)

Salute,
Christopher

Hello,

Christopher is totally correct. I have stated in the past that all three goals of play have existed within role-playing since the moment it began (which was obviously not a single event, as documented). The interesting issue about Narrativism is that it was never acknowledged except in editorial form, some very early in fact, and then it was, to my way of thinking, later eclipsed by "storytelling" rhetoric. I do not consider my work to have invented it, but rather to have exhumed it in terms of recognition and (with any luck, for those who are interested) function.

Best,
Ron

And to directly answer the question, I don't think GNS has made my gaming ~more~ narrativist... but it sure did make my gaming more thoughtful- particularly towards the goals/objectives of other players (those are both more narrativist-oriented than myself and those who center their play on gamist- or simulationist-goals).

The Forge serendipitously opened me up to Independant games the Window, Over The Edge, Persona, etc., which fit my personal gaming style better than the game I've played and GMed for 10 years: the WoD/Storyteller system. I wouldn't say that GNS in itself made those games more desirable to me and I probably would have enjoyed any one of the above tremendously if it had shown up in my life without the GNS in the package. I never did like the rules systems for RIFTS, Gurps, "by the book and only the book" WoD, Fudge, In Nominae, Kult or most of the games I'd played. I might enjoy game sessions *despite* the rules system, but I didn't like the rules systems. Now, I'm discovering rules systems I like, and they all seem to have the narrative label attached. Hmm. Could I still play non-Narrative games and have fun though? Sure, absolutely.

I'd like to chime in and agree as well. I don't concern myself much with GNS, I've read the articles, and get the gist of most of them... But the Forge (and go, in the beginning) showed or taught me a lot about gaming, and from there I picked my way through the rubble and figured out WHY I didn't like playing D&D and some other old games I used to enjoy.

And instead of just giving up on it, which I was about 30 seconds away from doing, I found some games that I LOVE to play. (and not just Nar-RPG games, some card games as well, like Grave Robbers From Outer Space) I even wrote a couple that I, and my friends, love to play!

In retrospect, I wish I would have bought Prince Valiant and GhostBusters when they first came out!

So I don't know if GNS makes me happy, but The Forge sure does!

Sean

Dedicated Gamism

Has GNS helped me? I think so. Maybe not as much as it's helped some of the people here, who would, without it, remain Narrativists manqué, but it's helped.

My experience is somewhat like that of Mike Holmes, in that most of my (current) players don't seem to be interested in Narrativism. They're Simulationists, some interested in Exploration of Character, some in Exploration of Situation. One of them is intrigued by WFD, but we haven't made time to play it yet, and probably won't for a while.

The oddity in my experience is that, while I seem to be a Narrativist player (I think this because I have identified the cause of my dissatisfaction with a couple of campaigns I've recently played in as the failure of my attempts to introduce Narrativist drift), I have never GMed in a Narrativist style, and am not really that interested in starting. I am an extremely skilled Simulationist (more specifically, Illusionist) GM, and I enjoy running games in that style as much as my players enjoy playing them.

I guess I'm just a control freak--whether I'm the GM or a player, I want to maximize my authorial power.

Anyway, consider me the leader of the "Yeah, I'm an Illusionist, you got a problem with that?" brigade.

I'm not sure whether The Forge has helped. I think it further ensconced me into the role of armchair gamer - in the sense that I think it has me thinking about things too much? Does that make sense?

Instead of just gaming and having fun and I'm trying to push and take everything to the next level and I'm doing that before play even begins (the ideas/games don't even get that far).

Anyway, hard to discuss, as I'm finding it hard to define, but I am conscious of this contributing factor.

Or I'm just mad :)

..

Count this as another testimonial for use in GNS ads on back covers of comic-books. "I was a 98 hit point weakling, getting sand kicked in my face by the big simulationist in my group, until I read GNS!"

I found Ron's main GNS essay a month or two ago, but the terminology was a little tough to chew through, so I didn't read the whole thing. I came back about a week ago and finished it. Finally I understand why the others in my gaming group frustrate me so much, spending all their time tweaking their characters, improving their fighting abilities, getting every new supplement so they can add new feats and skills and on and on, while I just want to get to the meat of the plot.

The GNS articles and the discussions I've read here really give a whole new vocabulary for understanding what we've been groping for and missing in my gaming group.

Thanks!

a happy camper

Hold on - is this really what GNS is supposed to do? "I knew the other people I gamed with bug me, but I never knew how to put it in words until now." That seems - well, seperatist and an easy way to place blame. I thought it was a way to quantify what you want out of RPGs, not a way to figure out why others are wrong.

I totally get what you're saying, deidzoeb - different people want different things from RPGs. Just remember that what you want isn't any better than what your friends want - just different. I see a lot of people read GNS for the first time and really grab on to something, blurring their sight from the big picture - I hope that doesn't happen here.

I was an unhappy gamer - but I found the solution, Narratavist games (Hero Wars and Sorcerer) before I found GNS (in fact they led me to it). I think that GNS is intriguing, though I'm still wading through a backlog of material before I could say that I am up to speed on it, but I am more interested in the tools it gives me than the rightness or wrongness of its propositions.

It did give me the ability to comprehend why some people liked Hero Wars and others felt it was a failure. It also gave me the beginnings of a vocabulary to explain to others what Hero Wars goals were (and in some cases recognition of those goals made some people who did not get it happier).

But, that identification over, I find more value in tools like Relationship Maps, Bangs, and Kickers than the theory which suggests that they are what I need to use. To me GNS is a guide to which clubs I should be pulling out of the golf bag of RPG tools, in order to play the game I want.

I can see Ian's point about suffering analysis paralysis, I think this could be a danger. However, recognize that you have been using many of these tools all along. Just let GNS help you decide which tools to use, which to put to one side. for the game you want to run. Run a game. Fail. Learn. Run another. Fail better. Keep failing until one day, maybe, you get it right.

I think a lot of people assume that if someone takes the time to write an essay, it's some form of religious dogma. GNS is just something that says, "There are different goals for different games, here's one way to measure them, and if you get that, then you will be able to better understand what kind of game you want to play." Taa-daa! Not hard right?

Everyone pulls the "golden rule" out of their ass when they've just spent $40 on a game with broken rules("Just change it, right?"), but gets all up in arms when someone gives you a concept, game tool, for free on the net :P

I do agree that many folks tend to overanalyze, or overthink rpging in general, but that would've happened with or without GNS. There's probably a lot of folks doing it right now with Robin's Laws, who've never heard of GNS. I'm sure you can look on other forums and find root issues that people are asking over and over, but have no critical method of analyzing it.

Many people both for or against GNS, forget, it's true test is in the gameplay. I think a lot of folks get lost in the GNS theory(whether for it or against it) and forget that the original idea is to go out and play. GNS is like a wrench or a socket to tighten something on your bike, you can use it, but you don't need it. And the tool by itself isn't going to do you as much good as the bike.

GNS is just a tool. It itself isn't going to make you happy. Your games are. And give up on the idea of the "perfect game" or session, it's like the perfect job, house, relationship, or sex. Everything got its moments.

Chris

Clinton R Nixon wrote: Hold on - is this really what GNS is supposed to do? "I knew the other people I gamed with bug me, but I never knew how to put it in words until now." That seems - well, seperatist and an easy way to place blame. I thought it was a way to quantify what you want out of RPGs, not a way to figure out why others are wrong.

Clinton R Nixon wrote: That seems - well, seperatist and an easy way to place blame. I thought it [GNS] was a way to quantify what you want out of RPGs, not a way to figure out why others are wrong.

Hi there,

Clinton's right, of course, but my impression of deidzoeb's point is that he (she, etc?) is not violating those principles - we're talking about preferences and how to deal with them, not "better/worse/you suck."

So far, it sounds like another Aye for the general topic of this thread, as expressed in its title.

Best,
Ron

My recommendation Dieb (and I think it would be echoed by many others) is *don't* use the vocabulary at all, and don't try to set aside a time for a deep discussion. You're right that will likely turn into a boring lecture...no matter who's doing it.

I'd suggest poking around the Forge resources looking for a game that could be introduced as a quick 1 session game, maybe during a regularly scheduled session where some players are not able to make it and it would be better to not continue the existing game without them, or just a quick gathering on a different night.

Inspectres is a great game to introduce in this regard because it has just enough recognizable trappings to not be intimidating (unlike say the Pool, or the Word the Flesh and the Devil), but it very subtly (or not so subtly depending on how the GM handles it) asks players to begin to do things they would never have thought to do in a traditional game.

Donjon is also good in this regard, has the added advantage of having a more traditional fantasy RPG setting. The game puts itself out there as a basic dungeon hack, but the power players are given to control the game through the Fact mechanic is fairly radical.

I'd also take a look at Dust Devils, although that game can be pretty intense and requires a good bit of player committment.


In other words, instead of hitting them over the head with a treatise on game play, Stealth 'em. Give them the opportunity to spread their wings on just a small piece at a time (like player authoring power in the games mentioned above) where they have no prior vested interest in the game (and thus no fear of screwing the whole campaign up). When they become accustomed to that, start trying to integrate the concepts into your other games.

For players that seem particularly interested "holy cow, I never imagined you could play like this, this is great", invite em on over.

Hey,

Ralph makes a good point that a lot of people have validated in the past, including me. Theory-discussion is a turn-off; examples and fun play are a turn-on.

I also suggest that one doesn't have to turn to Narrativist games for these fun "try it" exercises. If that's what you want, then InSpectres, Dust Devils, etc, are great. But someone who's more into the deliberate and solid Simulationist/System approach might be interested in JAGS, for instance.

Best,
Ron

I dunno. A basic, under two minutes overview of GNS can be pretty helpful in at least introducing the idea of the different modes of play. I had a short talk with my group prior to running The Pool last fall, and I think it helped orient the members before we embarked on what turned out to be a really different style of play. I'd agree that a long, detail-riddled discussion of GNS and RP theory would be off-putting. Save that talk for the post-mortem.

Best,

Blake

Maybe a compromise. I'll try to get them interested in other gaming styles by trying one they haven't played before. Already told them about Dust Devils, which looks awesome, although I'd like to see more in the way of examples or scenario suggestions for it.

On the other hand, I give them enough credit to learn some of the GNS ideas if I describe it briefly (not really a lecture), but I don't give them enough credit to intuitively arrive at these ideas through incorporating them into play. I'll take it under advisement that they may be turned off if I present it like a lecture, or present it like a doctrine we must all adhere to, but I see no reason to keep it a secret.

On a side note, I didn't mention it earlier because I was gushing about GNS, but I have to add that I've run across dozens of mind-blowing and hilarious amateur games & websites from links on The Forge. (Should I start a new thread "Has The Forge made you happier?")

[edit to add] And by the way, I've had two people thank me on the wizards.com Call of Cthulhu d20 message boards for pointing them to the GNS articles here. (Why do I suspect this will not be regarded as a good thing by all Forge regulars?) Those boards are full of arguments over whether "classic" Cthulhu is better than d20 version, or whether CoC is "more mature" than D&D, etc. If only they had a common vocabulary to compare, half their conversations would be moot.

Hey,

Oh, it's a good thing, I think. I'm pretty sure (he said, nervously) that folks who are thanking you for the reference are 1:1 exactly the folks who will be fun to have around.

Overall, many thanks for your comments. I appreciate the compliments and it sounds as though your group will have some good times ahead. Please let us all know about it in Actual Play, too.

Best,
Ron