This might belong in the GNS forum but this isn't a discussion about the model directly but rather the set of tools that are generally associated with each point of the model so I thought I'd put it here.

Specifically I have a question as to what happens when you have a Narrativist GM with a whole lot of Simulationist players. Forget gamists for right now.

Let's assume that the GM prepares in a Narrativistic fashion. He plans a fixed backstory, perhaps uses a relationship map, and sets up a lot of POTENTIAL scenes to come but fully expects to play reactively to player decisions. He even has a Premise in mind and has designed all the activity around that Premise.

But we have a group of Simulationist players. The players stare at the GM blankly when he rambles on about Premise. They take exception to having access to OOC information. Despite being offered it they don't want author or director power. They firmly believe that the GM is in control of everything that their character's are not.

What is the result of this? If the idea is to allow the players to be true protagonists and that means that character decisions are driving the plot and the GM is constantly updating the events based on the character's decisions then how is this different from what happens when the player's DO use their authorial and directorial power?

This is something that's been stumping me for a while. If the GM is running the game in a Narrativistic fashion and the Players simply refuse to use the tools that are given to them, then don't we just have a Narrativistic game where the GM is simply doing all the work?

Jesse

On 2001-08-15 13:26, jburneko wrote:
If the GM is running the game in a Narrativistic fashion and the Players simply refuse to use the tools that are given to them, then don't we just have a Narrativistic game where the GM is simply doing all the work?

I may be going out on a limb here, but if the GM is running a Narrativist game and the players aren't cooperating because they don't want to play in a Narrativist game, then my guess is what you have is not a game at all but a dysfunction. I don't see how you could feasibly talk about the Narrativist (or Gamist, or Simulationist) qualities of a game in which the two major parties (GM and players) are working at cross-purposes.

On 2001-08-15 15:19, gentrification wrote:
I may be going out on a limb here, but if the GM is running a Narrativist game and the players aren't cooperating because they don't want to play in a Narrativist game, then my guess is what you have is not a game at all but a dysfunction.

On 2001-08-15 16:16, jburneko wrote:
If the GM is using backstory, Premise and reactivity to player actions to guide his directorial power does any of that conflict with the immersive simulationist desires of the players.

What is the result of this pairing? Is it workable?

There's a very real sense in which simulationist players will expect a GM to be primarily "reactive." The question is, with what do they expect him to be reacting? Gordon put his finger on it substantially, I think, with his point about whether the GM is using metagame concerns to drive "the premise." ("The premise" seems sometimes like jargon for "what the GM wants the game to be about.") A solution is to embed the premise thoroughly in the setting, or, to put it another way, to see to it that the premise chosen can be seen as rising organically from the world itself. Frex, in a Glorantha-based game, a premise of "actions on behalf of one's community have a different efficacy than actions alienated from one's community" can be accepted as arising from the nature of the world itself. While there probably are simulationists out there primarily concerned with "the physics of the game world," many more surely understand that the GM's purview is the metaphysics of the game world.

Classically, a simulation consists of an initial condition and a set of iterative procedures for altering it. It is possible to imagine many sets of initial conditions (game worlds) where certain premises are part of what constitutes those initial conditions, even substantially constitute the initial conditions. It's also possible to imagine sets of iterative procedures that imply, contain and support certain premises. This is especially true in fantasy games, because in fantasy, social and artistic facts can have physical valence. We call that "magic."

If your premise is an emergent property of the Setting (broadly considered), then to be in the Setting is to elaborate on the premise. The "What's it like" question for that campaign world cannot be answered apart from the premise. The trick to avoiding the "illusionism" that Gordon rightly flags is a certain amount of conceptual work beforehand, and an understanding of how the meaning of "hooking the players" changes for these players - it means convincing them that this world with these embedded premises "makes sense," for lack of a better term, and that the "what's it like?" question is worth pursuing.

This way one avoids "dramatism" too, which is important, because if simulationist players liked "dramatism," google.com's archives would be measurably smaller.

Best,


Jim

Geez, you guys have this totally covered. Many thanks to all for the excellent, clear inquiry and the thoughtful replies. I really have nothing to add, beyond the observation that many groups I have observed playing in this mode tend to show "exhaustion" over time, with less and less satisfaction.

Best,
Ron

I wanted to say that all of this has been insightful and helps with what I'm pondering right now very much. I thought I'd go ahead and refine this even further. The reason I'm asking this is because I'm trying to gain insight into my own group of players who seem to be this really strange brand of gamer who sits on the edge between simulationism and narrativism.

When I ask them WHY they role-play they tell me it's because they like interactive-stories and that the story is what matters most to them. HOWEVER, when I try to introduce things like Author and Directorial power for the players they reject it explaining that they want to be immersive and to LIVE a story, not co-author one. And yet at the same time they don't like it when I railroad. They still want their freedom to react as they please and for me to make 'drama' influenced decisions about how the world reacts to their actions.

So, I'm curious as to what techniques I should employ to get the most out of what I have to work with. To summarize:

1) My players claim that the purpose of roleplaying is to 'live out' a story. To BE the character in a novel or movie.

2) However, they don't want to be co-authors. They reject authorial and directorial power, as well as having access to OOC information.

3) They don't want the whole thing to be pre-plotted in advance, either. They want their decisions to matter and to impact the plot.

4) The role of the GM (in their eyes) is to ensure that the consequences of their actions are as dramatic and interesting as possible to best facilitate a story.

So, what on earth am I dealing with here? The only solution I can think of is to prepare and GM using the Narrativist GM's toolkit of techniques and let them play in their immersive simulationist manner.

Jesse

So, I'm curious as to what techniques I should employ to get the most out of what I have to work with.

hmm. . . . I'm not sure what happened to Jim/Supplanter there. I guess *I'll* find out if this thing's on . . .

While Jim was right to express caution about my drawing too close a parallel between "Dramatism" and Simulation, as there are many Simulationists that reject that connection, your points 1-4 are (IMO) a great description of why the Sim discussion a while back put "Dramatism" (I keep puttin' quotes on the thing 'cause I'm not sure I mean the same thing as GDS dramtism here) in with Sim rather than Narrative.

As such, the consensus seems to be that it's a pretty common style. Hunting up that thread(s?) might prove useful.

As far as advice goes . . . talk to the players about the game and their characters a lot between/outside of game sessions. The burden is going to fall on you to make the dramatic choices, and the players are not going to be willing to help while they're playing (they wanna be IC). So you need as much info as possible ahead of time. Try and get a sense of what kind of things they want their character doing, what story elements they enjoy. If you detect a shift, wait for the end of the session (or a dinner break or something if you run long sessions), and ask the player "seems like Gruntor is starting to outgrow his barbarian roots - are you trying to civilize him a bit?" Make note of what they respond to and what they don't, then "punch up" the things that get 'em excited. All the traditional "plot wiggle" advice applies here - keep multiple channels to any particular goal open as long as possible, and try your best to allow for players to head off in a new direction (otherwise they WILL feel railroaded).

This style really puts quite a burden on the GM (IMO), but it can be quite a rewarding one. Good luck . . .

Gordon C. Landis

Jesse,

Unfortunately, I remain skeptical. I tried doing EXACTLY what you describe for YEARS, mainly with Champions. In many ways, it was successful. It was also laborious, painful, often frustrating for me or an individual player, and punctuated with many disagreements.

From my current perspective, your players' outlook strikes me as an outrageous cop-out. They want a good story, but they don't want to make it. They want to "be" their characters, but they want no part in considering their characters' role and relationship to anyone else. They want you to indulge their every action AND fit each action into some "story" that THEY can decide is good or not.

I don't know, man. It's a lot like one of those dysfunctional relationships, in which one partner demands that the other make him/her happy, but also claims that the partner should "just know" how to do it. Sorry to be so grim, but that's how it looks from here.

Best,
Ron

On 2001-08-17 02:07, Ron Edwards wrote:

I don't know, man. It's a lot like one of those dysfunctional relationships, in which one partner demands that the other make him/her happy, but also claims that the partner should "just know" how to do it. Sorry to be so grim, but that's how it looks from here.

On 2001-08-17 02:07, Ron Edwards wrote:

I don't know, man. It's a lot like one of those dysfunctional relationships, in which one partner demands that the other make him/her happy, but also claims that the partner should "just know" how to do it. Sorry to be so grim, but that's how it looks from here.

Just as a suggestion:

Would your players perhaps be open to taking on additional characters? This might be too much for their "immersion" play. (I identify as a deep immersion players and see no conflict with switching stances and runinng multiple characters etc.) Or could they be tempted to participate in some other "small" way that would help them branch out from their mono-identification?

They may not have tasted the fruits of broader powers in the world, and once they have a little bit they might not be able to help themselves from wanting more...

I'm not sure if this would help your overall problem initially, but it may also be that the direct apporach is too overwhelming to them. They may need to be coaxed out of their game-head into something new in order to be able to fathom the directions you would like to go in.

Hope it's helpful.

Emily Care

And Ron's diagnosis of this situation as analagous to a codependent and abusive partner situation "IF you really loved me..." is apt. You may just have to dump them if they won't go into counseling and address their issues. :smile:

Jesse,

Or your players are playing in audience stance. That is, they're playing in a mode where the GM's soul purpose is to entertain them. Naturally, this sort of stance has a bit more audience participation than any other. This is part of the medium, but it's the GM who presents the plots and suspends the disbelief and all the other work.

I would agree with the disfunctional assessment except that many, many GM prefer to run their games like this. They enjoy it, as do their players. This leads me to believe that calling such people disfunctional is like saying there's something wrong with people who enjoy dressing up in black leather playing bondage and discipline games with whips and chains. (Why are you looking at me like that?)

Disfunctional means the behaviors are destructive. In this case, it just isn't. In the case of Jesse's group, it is since he's trying to make them assume different stances and they just don't want to.

I'm not entirely sure why such a stance would be used. It may be laziness. It may be the only one with even a shred of creative ability is the GM, in which case it's probably for the best he's the one doing all of the work. Force an uninspired person to create and you'll probably get something silly.

Maybe I'm off-base with this, but maybe it does hold water.

Gordon wrote:

hmm. . . . I'm not sure what happened to Jim/Supplanter there. I guess *I'll* find out if this thing's on . . .

your points 1-4 are (IMO) a great description of why the Sim discussion a while back put "Dramatism" (I keep puttin' quotes on the thing 'cause I'm not sure I mean the same thing as GDS dramtism here) in with Sim rather than Narrative.

Ron wrote:

From my current perspective, your players' outlook strikes me as an outrageous cop-out. They want a good story, but they don't want to make it.

Jesse wrote:

"If you were really a good GM you'd know how to make us happy."

I shall have to think about this.

pblock wrote:

I'm not entirely sure why such a stance would be used. It may be laziness. It may be the only one with even a shred of creative ability is the GM, in which case it's probably for the best he's the one doing all of the work. Force an uninspired person to create and you'll probably get something silly.

Maybe I'm off-base with this, but maybe it does hold water.

On 2001-08-18 12:35, Supplanter wrote:
My point was that I felt I had already suggested promising paths that Jesse could pursue.

"The discussion" did no such thing. Indeed, even Logan came to agree that the two were different animals.

Nah, nobody on the Forge ever uses its theories to denigrate different styles. That's just Brian being paranoid.

On 2001-08-21 04:42, Gordon C. Landis wrote:
... Sometimes a GM IS being "abused" by lazy, do-it-for-me players.

We gotta be able to discuss that without being accused of denigrating a playing style.

What's the point of even running a game no one's going to want to play? Why would a GM even bother? The idea that a GM would be fully cognizant of the preferences of his players and yet not give them any way to display their skills within their favored type seems like an extremely poor idea. I see it as the GM's job to give the players what they want, and if he can't do that then he should figure out how. If you've got a bunch of simulationists, then give them something to do simulation-wise. In fact, if everyone in your group likes the same kind of stuff, you're lucky. Your job as a GM just got a lot easier.

I guess I still don't understand why trying to give players things to do in response to the way they like to play is such a bad thing. It's not fun to watch players being forced to do something they're no good at... it's like watching a figure skater wipe out. Just kinda sad.

What I like is watching players do stuff they're good at, like watching as the 'Narrativist' (or whatever) get all into their character, finding really cool roleplaying bits and helping to set the stage for those of us less fluent in characterization... or the Simulationist going over the treausre list, figuring out which magic item would work best with whom and making sure our encumbrances checked out... or the Gamist who uses the rules for dramatic new ends, finding cool things to do with them.

I dunno. I like all different types of roleplaying, but not all the time. I like to see and do different things when I game, and I feel a good GM can deliver that.

I think the GNS model is overly divisive. I think that as long as everybody agrees on the rules, a good GM can deliver a fun game to everybody regardless of their 'stance'. What's important is fun, and the way games are fun is if the players are having fun. GMs need to figure out how the players go about obtaining fun so he can make his game fun. That's my opinion anyway.

The philosophy of GM as entertainer is, I think, a bit poisonous, and goes directly to the core of what Ron has been saying in his "System Does Matter" essays. I've been through a number of games where I as GM thought it was my obligation to entertain the players, and I kept running these games even where I wasn't having a good time. If the players didn't all have fun, I held myself responsible. All in all, it was a fucked up, codependent relationship with gaming.

I still struggle with this attitude sometimes, but the turning point came in an Amber game where I had what I'll call a "system breaker" style of player who basically raped (yes, strong term, but I'll stick with it anyway) the many loopholes in Zelazny's cosmology in a way that put me in the position of either shutting down what this guy called his "creativity," or having to deal with a vastly Monte-ized Amber replete with laser rifles and nanotechnology.

I checked with the player and discussed my concerns, but hit a wall. No flexibility there. I realized this game was going to suck, not because the story was in or out of my control, but because I'd be locked in a struggle over the rules, which absolutely wasn't something I wanted to deal with. So I shut the game down. On the spot. It wasn't done from anger or even from frustration. The decision came from the recognition that the players also bear responsibility for making a good game, whether said game drives toward competition, story, or sim. Since then, I've been a lot better about making sure I as GM am having fun. I've found the best way to do that is to communicate with my players about my narrativist preferences, and game with the players who share them.

Without going into great detail, I'll say that I'm a pretty decent narrativist GM, but I suck hard as a Gamist GM. Not for me the tables, AC calculations, level breaks, and attacks of opportunity of DnD, and I'm increasingly less inspired by the Storyteller system and huge amount of background/metaplot detail a White Wolf GM/player has to absorb. I'm starting a game using The Pool, and I'm more excited about it than anything I've played in the last five years. (Interestingly, so are my players, who are finding freeform character creation incredibly liberating.) It's much easier for me to focus on story when I'm not worried about having to entertain the players. Hopefully, we'll all have fun entertaining each other.

System (or lack of it) does matter.

Best,

Blake

TW,

Your point here is what GNS is all about. Trying to determine what the players want and give it to them. The primary statement of GNS is that first and foremost players all want to have fun. The next question is why don't they sometimes? One of the answers is GNS incompatibility. If Blake can't run Gamist for a player, and that is what the player wants, then the game is doomed. Very simple, really.

GNS doesn't divide people, their preferences do. If you can get everyone to like every preference, then that problem will be solved. FWIW, I've postulated lately that many people's problems with particular modes stem from experiencing dysfunctional versions of those modes, really bad GMS. But there are going to be some for whom a particular mode is a problem for whatever legitimate reason. What can you do?

Mike

The idea that a GM would be fully cognizant of the preferences of his players and yet not give them any way to display their skills within their favored type seems like an extremely poor idea. I see it as the GM's job to give the players what they want, and if he can't do that then he should figure out how.

On 2001-10-17 14:18, TrizzlWizzl wrote:
I see it as the GM's job to give the players what they want, and if he can't do that then he should figure out how.

No relationship (marriage/gaming) is going to work well unless:

A) everyone is clear about what they want.
B) everyone takes responsibility for what they do.

If the players are clear about what they want and the GM can't provide it they need another GM. That's clear to me. No one's being victimized.

What I don't get is the 'lazy-players' refrences. Is a player who wants a good story but doesn't want authroial or directoral power lazy? What's up with that?

When I play I don't want/need a whole lot of directoral power, and I want an engaging story-line (i.e. I want "what's going on" in the game to be interesting).

From the sound of some of the posts I'm being lazy and/or a bad player. I don't see it.

I see my job as a player to try to live-up to the GM's story--to do things within the framework that advance the plot, are interesting, and make sense. It's my job to work as a team (meta-game wise: pitch in for pizza). It's my job to resolve conflicts with the GM in a sensible, mature fashion.

I don't see that as lazy or co-dependent.

-Marco

So, I'm curious as to what techniques I should employ to get the most out of what I have to work with. To summarize:

That's different from Ron's suggestion that you 'indulge their every whim.'

Someone needs to do a "Best of Quotes from Ron Edwards" webpage.

Paul

Nah, Marco, that's not lazy. That's just fine. If it's agreed before hand that the power split will be that way, then the player does have every right to expect the GM to live up to his expectations and has no responsibility to Author or Direct. As Laurel said, It all comes doen to the Social Contract at the beginning of the game. If you don't discuss it, or it isn't obvious, this is where problems can occur.

For example, if you were playing with a Narrativist GM the way you describe above, and you hadn't discussed the power split, you might find that you are both blaming each other for being lazy and not providing plot. Or if a Narrativist player were to play with you as a GM as you describe, you both might think that the other was horning in on each other's territory.

For most this is never a problem, because most groups already know how they usually split the power, and in most games it's pretty much the same: players control their character's actions, GM controls the rest of everything. This is easy and intuitive. Some people just prefer a different split. As long as you talk it out, it should become apparent.

Mike

Marco,

I think you're getting quite a strange idea about what I do as a GM and also anything regarding Narrativism. For example, no one has ever suggested a style in which every last nuance of events during play is due to the player-characters' actions. Nor is it "make it up as you go along." I have extensively outlined Narrativist methods of play that offer extreme back-story constraints to the players and many events over which they have no control.

If you are suggesting a mode of play with extensive prep, including many "bangs" thrown at the characters, yet allowing the characters to be protagonists and make crucial (not superficial) decisions about the point of play, then that is a form of Narrativisim.

TrizzIWizzI (not sure if I have that right),

I invite you to examine my essay in the Articles section. It is clear that you are working with perceptions of the three modes of play, as well as with a perception of my agenda, that are completely inaccurate. You will find a full disclosure of all of these in the essay.

Best,
Ron

Since I raised the co-dependent term, I'll just add that in the Amber example I cited, there may well be many, many other GMs who would have been fine with that player's desires. More power to them. My point was, it didn't work for me. Ultimately, roleplaying should be fun for everybody. If you're not having fun, do something else. It's amazing how long it took me to apply that simple maxim to my gaming activities.

I assume we've all had experiences with "bad GMs" and "bad players." I don't care whether a player wants to exercise directorial power, but I do care about whether a player is trying to work with the group, including the GM, in pursuing whatever objective the game aims at. In my case, I'm after a good story with shared distribution of storytelling ability, viz. Directorial power. I prefer players who are willing to buy into that approach, of course, but so long as we're all playing constructively in the band (to borrow another of Ron's analogies), I'm happy to allow each player to determine his or her volume and independence within the overall melody.

TrizzlWizzl, I will say I've had games collapse because of inter-player romances gone sour, deliberate player disruption and sabotage, player compartmentalism (everybody wanting so much individual time within a session that the "group" essentially disintegrates), players taking character setbacks personally, players being dishonest with what they wanted out of a game, etc. To be sure, I've been in poorly-GM'd games as well, and in some, I've been that sucky GM. However, I have to disagree with an absolute statement that the quality of a game always rests with the GM.

By the way, TW, welcome to the Forge. :wink:

Best,

Blake

[ This Message was edited by: Blake Hutchins on 2001-10-17 20:38 ]

On 2001-08-17 02:07, Ron Edwards wrote:

Unfortunately, I remain skeptical.
...
They want you to indulge their every action AND fit each action into some "story" that THEY can decide is good or not.
...
Best,
Ron

On 2001-10-17 18:18, Ron Edwards wrote:

I invite you to examine my essay in the Articles section. It is clear that you are working with perceptions of the three modes of play, as well as with a perception of my agenda, that are completely inaccurate. You will find a full disclosure of all of these in the essay.

Best,
Ron

If I might, I think that the reason that Ron referred you to his essay is that you seemed to not be understanding our use of the terminology. You see, this is our fault. We have devised this terminology for our own edification and use it in overabundance. The problem is that when other people come in they tend to assume that we mean certain things that we do not simply becuse we don't stop to define things. All the terminology that we use has other potential meanings, and we find that refering people to the essay or somewhere else with the vocabulary listed out tends to help them be able to translate what we are discussing.

Since you have rejected the use of such terminology in such a fashion, then you and we are bound to have trouble communicating, unless we here try to explain in a more elaborate fashion what we mean. If you wish to continue participating, I will do what I can when writing to you. But, in general, I doubt if we can all just stop using our phraseology for the sake of just one person when writing to each other. Sorry. I hope misunderstandings do not continue to happen because of this.

Anyhow, on the other note, I'm interested in why you particularly think that such discussions of GNS topics are so useless. You wouldn't be the first, BTW (S. John Ross, if your familiar, is a famous example of someone who has problems with GNS). But what do you see as the problem with GNS speciffically? You mentioned divisiveness, but we try to go a long way here to be against that. What about GNS would divide people in your opinion? Our opinion is that we're just describing an existing phenomenon. We don't say that people should choose only one mode and ignore the others. Just that some people do. Is it that observation that you find inaccurate? Or is there something in addition to the whole divisiveness thing?

FWIW (probably not much), I started out arguing with Ron about exactly the same thing. I thought that GNS was about splitting people into camps. But I've found that this is quite not the case, personally.

Hope that helps.

Mike

TW, I'm going to take a stab at this because I think perhaps in the preponderance of information being presented you are missing the most important concept of the whole thing.

The sum of your posts to date assert the following:

1) RPGs are about having fun
2) If players aren't having fun its the GM's fault for not fullfilling their needs properly.
3) Any GM can keep his group having fun if only he's creative and flexible enough.
4) Given the above all of this talk about models and structure is a waste of time and counter productive.


Now let me try to explain what it is you're missing.

Re 1): No arguement. Thats been the goal from the beginning

Re 2): One of the core beliefs of this site is that this idea is totally wrong. It is not the GM's fault. In fact, it is often no ones "fault" if a group does not function well. Some groups simply will not function well because the expectations of what individuals want out their gameing may not be compatable. To say essentially "can't we all get along" is fruitless and the answer is "no, sometimes we can't"

One use for GNS is to identify where some of the sources of dysfunction are coming from. Few groups will be a perfect mesh of styles and objectives and expectations. But just like any therapy acknowledging there is a problem and identifying what it is is a key step. Often times all it takes is for players to become aware of these differing priorities and to be willing to accomodate them. What GNS provides are tools (and a lexicon) enabling players to discuss issues in detail that we only had a vague sense of before.

Re 3): Sometimes that is not the case. Sometimes the different needs between players are so divergent that the only solution is to find a new group. This doesn't mean the player was disruptive or a bad roleplayer, nor does it mean the GM was not accomodating or a bad GM. It is simply a matter of recognizing that some styles and expectations are not compatable. Instead of a group wallowing around with increasing levels of disatisfaction the GNS tool kit enables the participants to recognize the source of the disatisfaction and, if the situation cannot be salvaged, at least diagnose the issues in such a way that all parties can part amicably and in appreciation of the others preferences.

I can say from personal experience that a D&D group I was in split in half. It was a sizeable group of 6-12 people (usually about 8 ), and of the two halves only 1 person is still even on speaking terms with other half. If we had known about GNS at the time we might have saved friendships (though not likely the group) rather than the GM and his "faction" hating us for ruining *his* game and us hateing him for being a crappy GM [refer to Jared's comment on another thread about his "chamber pot" episode. That is exactly the kind of GM I had].

To think that all groups can play happily together if only the GM is good enough is IMO quite naive. One use for GNS is for players to articulate their play preference in advance so they know before they even start if they are going to have trouble playing with each other. Many a group mismatch and hours of discontent could be avoided if every gamer understood the concepts being compiled here [and note I used compiled here with a reason. Ron's article comes complete with a bibliography of "outside" sources that have influenced GNS]

Re 4): So no, it is not a waste of time. All forms of artistic expression have their lexicon and their tools for disecting and analysing anothers work. Role playing games are not children's toys. They are a vibrant, real form of personal expression. They can be as expressive as any painting, as inspiring as any piece of music, as thought provoking as any piece of literature and are more interactive than any form of theatre. Why then should they not be as rigorously analysed. Is there disagreement and debate among would be analysts? Absolutely. There is in every field, be it literature, theatre, fine art, or even investments.

The depth and breadth of such debate and disagreement is proof positive that there is true meat to these topics and that roleplaying is NOT just a game.


[ This Message was edited by: Valamir on 2001-10-18 16:51 ]

Well said, Valamir, well said.

Jesse

TW, I'm really new to the Forge too. As I told Clinton in private mail, I spent over a week just reading the forums and old topics and conversations. I've been reading about GNS and related models on other sites and in other forums. I feel like a real novice, but an educated novice and I'm here to learn more because the topics really interest me. No one has been anything but kind, polite and helpful.

One of the things I've most liked about the Forge is the courtesy that all the regulars try to extend to each other. I've never seen so much intelligent, open-minded dialogue in an RPG forum. So little trolling, flaming, baiting, patronizing. Even more then the topics, it was the supportive atmosphere that made me decide to start posting and I haven't regretted it one bit.

So what I'd suggest you do is if you are interested in the topics is to just keep an open mind and friendly attitude. I don't think anyone is saying "you must agree with Ron 100% of the time". From what I've seen, the purpose of the Forge forums isn't (like many forums) to act superior and flaunt 3+ syllable words or attitude but to *gasp* help each other make good Indie RPGs and cause GNS and other RP theories to evolve through discussion and application. What's more, it seems to work! :smile:

Hey TW,

Reading or no reading, your posts, to date, illustrate either misunderstanding or a priori hostility.

For one thing, you've paraphrased the essay as stating (a) what you, a reader, SHOULD do; and (b) how games SHOULD be designed. None of that is present in the essay. The most important phrase is in the intro, which is to say, if role-playing is fun for you, then I'm not writing to you.

I smell Something Not Right. You claim not to be pre-influenced by any, say, Narrativist who has got in your face, or anything else. I disagree. Your entire profile of posting indicates a prior beef of some kind. Can you honestly say I'm being paranoid? I do not think so.

Moans that "you can't get along at the Forge unless you agree with Ron" are inaccurate. You are welcome to disagree - hell, Gareth (contracycle) just front-loaded a serious disagreement all the hell over the place. We're into it. But it has to be disagreement that is intellectually honest.

The more you object to what I "must be telling you to do," then the less you are presenting worthwhile discourse, and the more you are merely yelping, "You're not the boss of me." I don't expect people to agree with me, but to demonstrate comprehension, in which case all objections are fair.

Best,
Ron

Beginning with Valamir’s post and working my way back, I feel I first must first address whether or not I feel the GM has total control over a particular game’s "fun". The fact is I don’t. As someone (probably Mike Holmes) pointed out, all kinds of crazy things can happen over the course of a game that might result in things going awry that the GM has no control over. Granted. What is within the GMs control, however, is the ability to ascertain a player’s preferences and take affirmative action to ensure that he (or she... when I say "he" can we just make it gender-neutral? I don’t know how y’all handle this situation on this board) sees those preferences in his gameplay. Does the whole game have to be played within the scope of a single given preference (or GNS model, what have you)? No. Assuming (this is the important given of my particular theory) that everybody actually wants to play, that everybody has already agreed on the rules and there’s a basic understanding that different players are going to want different aspects in their gameplay (by both players and GM), you can have any number of players of whatever ‘mode’ sit down and game happily together regardless of system.

It’s been my experience as a GM that players don’t really care how you handle other people as much as how you handle them. A looooooong time ago (more than a week), when I was first introduced to GNS, I brought it up with my group, explaining that different players were going to have different preferences and that I was going to be handling them all in a slightly different way. After countering initial objections from my players with the good ol’ "well, let’s just give it a try and see how it goes", I have to say it’s been going great. I have all kinds of different players in my group: one narrativist, one simulationist, and three gamists. I know what they want. I try to give it to them and at the end of the session everyone seems genuinely happy.

For example: I know my narrativist likes to take the director stance once in a while to add stuff to her character I probably would never even think of (GNS helped me a lot in figuring out what it was about this player I wasn’t delivering as her GM). So sometimes I prompt her with "well, what does [NPC] do about that?" or let it slide when she threateningly pokes someone in the chest with her rapier. From what I can gather from GNS, this would lead to the simulationist having some kind of massive quadrilateral coronary implosion (that’s supposed to be funny, not accurate with regards to GNS... okay?). In fact when the narrativist was describing the scene, poking the evil cabalist in the chest to keep him from running off, the simulationist piped up "Melee touch attack!?". "Nah." I said. Getting back to what I said earlier about players caring more about their own gameplay than the gameplay of others, the simulationist later tried a similar tactic and I had him roll for it. Did he mind the duplicity? Nope, not one bit. Now the gamists started giving me weird looks until I pointed out that my total God-like control as far as the rules adjudication went was, in fact, a rule (we’re playing, surprise, D&D). They quit it with the weird looks and moved ahead with the game. Which turned out to be fun. For everybody.

Sometimes that is not the case. Sometimes the different needs between players are so divergent that the only solution is to find a new group. This doesn't mean the player was disruptive or a bad roleplayer, nor does it mean the GM was not accommodating or a bad GM. It is simply a matter of recognizing that some styles and expectations are not compatible. Instead of a group wallowing around with increasing levels of dissatisfaction the GNS tool kit enables the participants to recognize the source of the dissatisfaction and, if the situation cannot be salvaged, at least diagnose the issues in such a way that all parties can part amicably and in appreciation of the others preferences.

To think that all groups can play happily together if only the GM is good enough is IMO quite naive.

But what do you see as the problem with GNS speciffically? You mentioned divisiveness, but we try to go a long way here to be against that. What about GNS would divide people in your opinion? Our opinion is that we're just describing an existing phenomenon. We don't say that people should choose only one mode and ignore the others. Just that some people do. Is it that observation that you find inaccurate? Or is there something in addition to the whole divisiveness thing?

Moans that "you can't get along at the Forge unless you agree with Ron" are inaccurate. You are welcome to disagree - hell, Gareth (contracycle) just front-loaded a serious disagreement all the hell over the place. We're into it. But it has to be disagreement that is intellectually honest.

TW--

Here's where I have a problem with your argument: the GM.

I disagree that it's up to the GM to ensure that all the players are covered in their gaming preferences. I disagree that it's up to the GM to ensure the players have fun. I think it's up to the group as a whole that all players, GM included have fun. Yes, GNS can be divisive in the sense that a GM could say "this is a gamist game--if you're not into that, play elsewhere". I do that all the time, because if I'm not running a strongly narrativist game, I'm not enjoying myself, & if I'm not enjoying myself, why the hell am I playing? I don't GM out of any sort of duty to make sure other people have fun, I do it to run the games I want to run & have fun with my group. That's it. There's nothing magical about being the GM. Similarly, as a player, if it's obvious the group isn't going to be playing in a narrativist style I enjoy, I won't play (such as when I dropped out of my group's D&D game). Why would I stick around if I'm not having fun?

Let's go back to the band metaphor. If I want to play 80's New Wave & everyone else in the band wants to play death metal, I'm not gonna stick it out, even if it's the only band in town. I'll go write or play computer games instead. And if I'm the bassist (the GM), setting the groove for everyone else, it's not my job to make sure we're playing a fusion of jazz, metal, & adult lite contemporary, just so that everyone will stay in the band.

Now, if you have a group with mixed goals & play styles (as I do) & everybody's happy with the way the game is being played (as mine is), then you don't have a problem. Groovy. But people will be divisive regardless of GNS or any other model (humans don't need an excuse to exclude). GNS may help identify why people aren't happy with the games they're playing (it helped me).

But as far as I'm concerned, the GM is just another player, & doesn't shoulder any responsibilities to make sure everyone is having a good time. That falls to the group as a whole.

Well, then. Examples of moaning and yelping? Sure. Invective like "total garbage" is a good tip-off. (On the other hand, I thought that "amorphous academic verisimilitudes" was pretty funny, almost good enough for a band name, or at least a Yes album.) But really, that's not the point. I'm referring to a more important issue.

You have stated this almost correctly:
"Within a given system, certain players will not have fun; therefore, RPG design must be approached with a specific player-type in mind (so that those certain players can have fun)."

But not at the most important level. It all comes back to the "should." Who said "should?" Not me, not in my essay. Again, if it doesn't apply to your play and enjoyment, then be happy. Pay me no mind.

That is where you have incorrectly read the essay, in perceiving it as a moral directive. "I see no reason!" you say. Good. Be happy. Pay me no mind. (So I call something "moronic?" What's it to you? If you are a happy role-player using such systems, then what's the harm of the Bad Old Man nattering in the corner?)

"Because I disagree, does that mean I'm "wrong" or "ignorant of the content of the GNS essay"?"

No, of course not. This forum is rife with disagreement. However, paraphrasing incorrectly at the most basic level is not a disagreement - it IS a misunderstanding. Protesting against the (absent) moral directive is yelping, whatever vocabulary or diction you use. Discourse requires shared understanding, and effort in that direction.

So, here's my clincher. You write,

"My personal experience, however, has been that it has been used as justification for the GM to be nonresponsive to player preference while assuming a game should be run a certain way given it's design ("this is a gamist game, so I'm going to run it totally gamist and I don't care what you want"). This is the real-life consequence of GNS that I'm dealing with, and I feel it should be part of the discussion. My GM has obviously been influenced by the "System Does Matter" idea and I've found it leads to worse gaming, not better, to more exclusionist practices, not inclusive, and an overall sense of frustration for everybody."

Now there's the topic. So it's not my essay. It's not anything I'm saying. You're pissed about a PERSON and some interaction you've had. You have arrived with a chip on your shoulder, and until this last post, you've been swinging hard in the attempt to connect with someone to fight with about it. It also explains where you got the idea that the essay is a directive - that's how it was presented to you, perhaps, or it's being inappropriately used as some kind of club to change YOUR behavior.

I sensed such a thing and called you on it. And lo and behold, this last post has changed your tone completely - you've stated your points clearly, explained your argument, and most importantly TOLD US WHY you are raising them. That is honesty. Its lack in your previous posts is exactly what I was talking about. I'm glad to see it in this one and hope that you stick with it.

Since that personal situation is the real issue, then I think it needs to be addressed. It may be utterly between you, or it might be an appropriate (general) issue for the forums. It's up to you.

Best,
Ron

TW-
You have brought up some points I agree with. The idea that GMs who deliberately try to force-feed a game or style of game to a group of players who are clearly and consistently seeking something else isn't being very fair to the group and making it almost impossible for everyone to have fun. I think the fun factor goes higher when GMs-Players-Game System itself are in the same general groove, and I think GNS is a great tool for discovering what you like and why you like it.

I admire your ability to mix-and-match and give every player what he wants. Clearly, you are doing something right. I'm still recovering from the nightmarish experience of 16 months of trying to co-maintain a online game for 1000+ ever-changing players and their 6000+ ever-changing characters. (I will *NEVER* do that to myself again. LOL) It did not matter how hard I worked, how congenial and organized and motivated I was, how knowledgeable I was about the rules, how talented I was at putting together a story: the game (New Bremen) was, in my opinion, a dismal failure because people hardly ever had fun and the rules became more and more restrictive and meta-game issues tore all hope of in-game coherency apart.

((Maybe, in the name of good dialogue, some of the rancor that's hitting this thread could be set aside and people start over with each other, back on more neutral and congenial ground?))

Ron, thank you for being specific. I appreciate that. I can understand you taking my ‘total garbage’ comment personally, but it wasn’t directed at you... personally. It was directed at an impersonal document posted on the World Wide Web for all to see, read, and (I assume) critique. I won’t take back what I said because that’s how I feel, but I will apologize if you took it personally. Totally understandable; keep in mind if I have a problem with GNS it doesn’t necessarily mean I have a problem with you. Also, I’d like to point out that labeling the main thrust of GNS theory "total garbage" doesn’t make it an inaccurate paraphrase. It’s just an opinion. So far, the only paraphrase it seems that you’re considering "inaccurate" is: "Within a given system, certain players will not have fun; therefore, RPG design must be approached with a specific player-type in mind (so that those certain players can have fun)." To which you replied: "But not at the most important level. It all comes back to the "should." Who said "should?" Not me, not in my essay."

Pardon me if that seems like a bit of a cop-out. Labeling a mixed-bag approach to game design "incoherent", and stating "we would all to better to look in the mirror and tell ourselves there is no universal game" seems to support my original statement. Notice nowhere do I indicate that you say anyone "should" do anything. I’m not saying there’s some kind of moral imperative prevalent in your essay. What I am saying is that in your essay you most certainly outline what will be most effective at providing fun for players and what will be least effective, and as the stated goal is to ‘have more fun’, I think it’s duplicitous to come back around and try to claim that the document lacks at least the semblance of an inherent directive.

So: I’m not saying you’re on a soapbox proclaiming what people should and shouldn’t do. What I’m saying is that you’re on a soapbox proclaiming what will bring the most fun to roleplaying groups who are suffering from the ‘dissonance of GNS incongruity’ (my term... I think), and the substance of that proclamation is what I disagree with. I feel other approaches than the ones outlined in the GNS Essay would be more effective.

I would also like to say at this point that while my arguments with my GNS buddy might have helped me to figure out how I feel, how I feel at this point has nothing to do with him personally. He’s a bit too involved in attempting to realize "pure GNS implementation" in my opinion, but that’s between he and I. I still have strong opinions on the topics of discussion this board is attempting to address, so henceforth I shall be yoinking emotive prose from my posts (unless appropriate).

I hope I’m being a bit more intellectually honest here. :smile:

On to joshua:

But as far as I'm concerned, the GM is just another player, & doesn't shoulder any responsibilities to make sure everyone is having a good time. That falls to the group as a whole.

TW--

See, I just can't get past that. I don't think the GM is inherently "everything the players aren't". I think s/he could be, depending on the group dynamic, the system being used, & other factors. But the GM could just as easily be "just another player". And I don't agree with your statment that "if you're not up to it, maybe you shouldn't be a GM", not because it makes me feel like I shouldn't GM (cos it didn't make me feel that way) but simply because I disagree. Yes, not everyone is up for being the bass player, for keeping the rhythm going while the others solo. But it's not the bass players job to make sure the other members of the band all get along & have a good time. That's the shared responsibility of everyone involved. And I think it's the same with gaming groups.

As for the whole GNS thing...I'm not going to argue that you must recognize the "inherent worth" of GNS or anything. You don't buy it? Fine by me. I will however make the point that GNS has never made me "pessimistic" & think that "oh, only a suitable group of gamers can get along". Of course I think it's possible for any group of gamers to get together, come to a consensus about what they want to play & how they want to play it, & arrange the game so that everybody is happy. It's also possible for any two people on this planet to get married & live together for the rest of their lives in marital bliss. It's possible, but not all that probable. You're right, this isn't a UN peace conference. But it is people interacting, which always makes things complicated. Add to this that many people take their gaming styles & preferences very seriously & personally. Going back to the band metaphor: of course it's possible for any group of musicians to get together & play music that will fit all of their own individual styles & preferences. And if they can do it, great. An essay claiming "there are three different kinds of musical preferences, & here they are" would likely be of no use to them. Then there are those of us who simply don't have fun playing certain styles of games. I've been playing RPGs for...jeez, 20 years now. And most of it wasn't all that much fun. It wasn't horrible (usually), but it was like mediocre sex--good enough to keep me coming back for more, but not good enough to make me write about it in my diary. I had a great time gaming with a group in college, long before anyone had thought of GNS. And now, thinking about & using GNS, I have a great time gaming. Even better than in college (er, no offense Lon). I'm a much, much better GM than I used to be. But no, I wouldn't play with just anyone, just like I wouldn't collaborate on a poem with just anyone, nor would I have sex with just anyone. I know what I like to do for fun, & I know what bores or frustrates me. I know what RPG systems work for me & which ones don't, & this makes it easier for me to jack with the ones that don't to see if I can make them more enjoyable for me.

And nowhere has Ron said you can't play any style with any game. What he has said (& I agree with) is that some mechanics facilitate a certain style of playing better than other styles of playing. In my experience, I've found that to be very true. Using the ever-popular White Wolf as an example, I've found that contrary to their claims, the "Storyteller" system AS WRITTEN doesn't facilitate "story-creation" any better than any other system, & worse than quite a few. Now, any gaming group could, of course, take the "Storyteller" system & use it to create a dynamic collaborative story. But the mechanics aren't facilitating this, & that's Ron's point (& my personal problem with the games).

Good lord, look at me, I'm writing epic posts. Hey, just call me Fang!

Hello Gang,

I've started a new thread in The GNS Forum that both distills this argument down to it's essencial components and provides a bit of perspective on where it is all coming from. I suggest that we take this discussion there.

Jesse