Topic: The Impossible
Started by: xiombarg
Started on: 2/4/2003
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 2/4/2003 at 9:38pm, xiombarg wrote:
The Impossible
Okay, as y'all know, I've been talking a lot about GNS and myown game, Unsung, as of late.
The reason for it is this: In the final version of Unsung, I want to have a section for starting roleplayers.
But rather than being generic like most such discussions are, I want it to be focused on how a game of Unsung is played. But to do that, I want to focus on goals, and since GNS is all about goals, the idea is to embed the appropriate GNS goals in my description of the game for first-time roleplayers, without going into GNS theory.
However, this requires me to understand the GNS goals of the game. Basically, I want to claim the goal is the creation of a group story about the difficulties of morality and ethics under extreme pressure, while exploring a gritty reality created by the GM and the other players, and what it is like to live in that reality.
In GNS terms, this is exploration of a Narrativist Premise, with Exploration of Color, Character, and Setting as a big part of it. Both Narrativist and Simulationist goals. I'm worried, tho, that I'm just re-phrasing the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, that it's not possible to have the simultanous Sim/Nar priorities I want...
On 2/4/2003 at 9:49pm, lumpley wrote:
RE: The Impossible
I wouldn't sweat it. You can't address the Premise without exploring something, and Color, Character and Setting are right there for you.
Think about, oh I dunno Pulp Fiction. You've got your Premise, and you've got your simultaneous exploration of Color, Character and Setting. And Situation. In whatever priority.
The exploration provides the stage on which the players address the Premise.
Am I just totally missing your dilemma?
-Vincent
On 2/4/2003 at 9:52pm, xiombarg wrote:
RE: The Impossible
lumpley wrote: Am I just totally missing your dilemma?Nah. I've very possibly getting worked up over nothing.
I'm just worried I lack the objectivity to know when I'm screwing up, from a GNS perspective. I thought I was on solid ground, but the recent Simulationist essay shook me up, and made me re-check my assumptions.
I think I'm slowly easing back towards solid ground. I'm just sort of sanity checking, in the sense I want to make sure I'm not missing something big and obvious that's tripping me up.
On 2/4/2003 at 10:00pm, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
Re: The Impossible
xiombarg wrote: In GNS terms, this is exploration of a Narrativist Premise, with Exploration of Color, Character, and Setting as a big part of it. Both Narrativist and Simulationist goals. I'm worried, tho, that I'm just re-phrasing the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, that it's not possible to have the simultanous Sim/Nar priorities I want...
OK, first of all, the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast is that the GM is creating a story while the players control the protagonists within this story, which is not what you're describing here at all, necessarily.
Second, it is quite possible to have simultaneous priorities of Sim/Nar or any other combination. What you need is for one of the modes to be the dominant mode with the other playing a supporting role, or to have a driftable design where the players can chuck, say, a decent chunk of the Sim-supporting features of your game if they wish to have coherent Nar play (or vice-versa).
The Sim essay suggests that Sim is better in a supporting role, and this makes sense since Sim is about Exploration the elements of roleplaying and Exploration and the five elements of roleplaying are a part of almost every game, right? Ron described it like the modes "float on a sea of Exploration." I've got a better one. Consider the earth, ground rock, dirt. This is Exploration. Sim is like a hill or a mountain, building up from the Exploration. Nar and Gam are like buildings. You first have to dig down into the earth, take away pieces of Exploration that are not necessary, and lay a foundation. Then you can build a nice Nar or Gam skyscraper. Does that make sense?
On 2/4/2003 at 11:18pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: The Impossible
Hi Kirt,
Boy, you just had one kinda afternoon, didn't you?
Matt Snyder and I just had a phenomenal conversation about this very issue last night. We agreed that GNS-ing one's game in development, and especially the "how to play it" text itself, is best left until well after baking the game in playtest a number of times. During that baking, the point is not to enforce a given GNS goal, but rather to see what people do with the rules as they stand, and deciding where the strengths and weaknesses of the game design lie.
Once that happens, then classifications and so forth can get going, and then inspiring how-to text can be written.
Best,
Ron
P.S. Matt, if I've mis-represented the conversation, let me know. I think I've paraphrased it OK.
On 2/5/2003 at 2:35am, Marco wrote:
RE: The Impossible
On the other hand, baldly stating the Impossible Thing has worked well for millions of satisfied customers. Give 'em a good example of play that details the GM/player power-split you're looking for.
-Marco
On 2/5/2003 at 1:27pm, xiombarg wrote:
RE: The Impossible
Marco wrote: On the other hand, baldly stating the Impossible Thing has worked well for millions of satisfied customers. Give 'em a good example of play that details the GM/player power-split you're looking for.That's certainly the plan. I need to do more playtesting -- the sample of play is likely to be an idealized version of actual play, kinda like the running example in Universalis.