Topic: On Ron's GNS Article Part One
Started by: mythusmage
Started on: 7/11/2003
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 7/11/2003 at 6:50am, mythusmage wrote:
On Ron's GNS Article Part One
My straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much.
Ron Edwards, 2001 (Introduction)
I'm in the process of formatting the article so I can print it out in a pleasing form. I like reading that looks good. I have noticed a few places where things are capitalized when they shouldn't, misplaced sections, and certain formatting errors. There's at least one section that should be a sidebar. That aside, it is an interesting piece of writing. If you haven't read it, do so.
That said, I start this series of threads with a comment on a statement made in the introduction. That comment taking the form of a question, namely...
Did it occur to anyone that Ron's basic premise is based on a misinterpretation of player dissatisfaction?
What about presentation? How the GM presents his world and those that dwell in it. All too often play for me has been rendered deadly dull by GMs who show off their setting with all the enthusiasm of a high school sophomore reciting Shakespeare. A tedious stating of facts guaranteed to drive even the most advid gamer into a suicidal depression. Good God people, it's supposed to be an entertainment.
What say we start putting some life into it? Show some enthusiasm, dammit. Learn the setting, know the setting, be proud of the setting, dammit. Even if you do get the adventure at the last minute, sit your ass down, turn off your cell phone, tell those who interrupt you to bugger off, and study the damned thing until you know it. If the event organizers don't have the adventure for you until the very moment the contest is supposed to start, tell the damn fools you don't work under these circumstances, and that they are in violation contract. Then spread the word your event has been cancelled thanks to organizer incompetence.
In short, make sure you have time to prepare, and that you do prepare.
So it makes life harder for the GM. Good, 'bout time some GMs started having it hard. You want to make it good for your players, you have to work at it. Know the setting, know the adventure, know the people involved. Know all this well enough you can adjust to whatever the players pull.
Somebody wrote to me that what I call adventure you all call situation. Here I present an alternative:
Situation: What the GM plans for the latest session.
Adventure: What the players do to the GM's carefully wrought plans.
On that note I end this exercise in exposition. In the next thread I'll be going over chapter one of Ron's GNS article.
On 7/11/2003 at 12:03pm, Marco wrote:
Re: On Ron's GNS Article Part One
mythusmage wrote:My straightforward observation of the activity of role-playing is that many participants do not enjoy it very much.
Ron Edwards, 2001 (Introduction)
I'm in the process of formatting the article so I can print it out in a pleasing form. I like reading that looks good. I have noticed a few places where things are capitalized when they shouldn't, misplaced sections, and certain formatting errors. There's at least one section that should be a sidebar. That aside, it is an interesting piece of writing. If you haven't read it, do so.
That said, I start this series of threads with a comment on a statement made in the introduction. That comment taking the form of a question, namely...
Did it occur to anyone that Ron's basic premise is based on a misinterpretation of player dissatisfaction?
What about presentation? How the GM presents his world and those that dwell in it. All too often play for me has been rendered deadly dull by GMs who show off their setting with all the enthusiasm of a high school sophomore reciting Shakespeare. A tedious stating of facts guaranteed to drive even the most advid gamer into a suicidal depression. Good God people, it's supposed to be an entertainment.
What say we start putting some life into it? Show some enthusiasm, dammit. Learn the setting, know the setting, be proud of the setting, dammit. Even if you do get the adventure at the last minute, sit your ass down, turn off your cell phone, tell those who interrupt you to bugger off, and study the damned thing until you know it. If the event organizers don't have the adventure for you until the very moment the contest is supposed to start, tell the damn fools you don't work under these circumstances, and that they are in violation contract. Then spread the word your event has been cancelled thanks to organizer incompetence.
In short, make sure you have time to prepare, and that you do prepare.
So it makes life harder for the GM. Good, 'bout time some GMs started having it hard. You want to make it good for your players, you have to work at it. Know the setting, know the adventure, know the people involved. Know all this well enough you can adjust to whatever the players pull.
Somebody wrote to me that what I call adventure you all call situation. Here I present an alternative:
Situation: What the GM plans for the latest session.
Adventure: What the players do to the GM's carefully wrought plans.
On that note I end this exercise in exposition. In the next thread I'll be going over chapter one of Ron's GNS article.
Alan,
Hey man. I hear ya--I've been saying for a while here that when traditional RPG books say "story" they mean "situation" (and I'd call the interaction of GM and players the creation of or instantiation of that story).
However, (like I'm any expert) when talking about Narrativist play, that's not the case. And it's not too hard to make that mistake from the terminology involved. 'Story' as a term for what happens in play is weak for what goes on in an even moderately traditional RPG, with Narrativist play or without.*
In another post you mentioned a character buying it in the first encounter as a possibly realistic outcome. Consider this:
a) In some systems it's not a mathematically possible outcome (even assuming a string of critical successes). If a system is designed to prevent anti-climax, it bloody well can. In this case no definition of "realistic" that's likely to be meaningful is a priority.
To be real clear (and redundant) let me put that another way: the "realistic" outcome need not be possible in an RPG. Some people (many? who knows) will prefer it that way.
b) Focus on the story can mean a buncha things. It could mean:
1. Building a situation so that all likely events will lead to climax (the Dark Lord isn't in the area early on, only his minions, thus preventing the possiblity of him dying early).
2. A system that enforces the outcomes the designer (and hopefully the players) feel will lead to "the best story." In this case, the Dark Lord can appear, but the GM and players all desiring NOT to have an anti-climax are protected by a systemic mechanics. In a common case an extreme result would mean "victory" for the PC's (they drive him off unexpectedly) but that doesn't have to be interperted as "total victory" or "death."
3. Cooperation on the part of the participants to make decisions that will in their opinion create the best story (the PC's simply do not attack the Dark Lord, even though it might potentially be advantageous to do so) prefering to parlay and advance the shared idea of the plot (I'm not suggesting they play out of character, simply that they recognize their player's interests will be better served by talking now and fighting later and choose to do so).
4. A whole buncha stuff someone else could fill in.
But the point is that 'story' == 'situation' is only one way to read it.
I think it's the "traditional" way to read it. But still, saying that a strong focus on story will lead to railroading isn't allowing for other interpertations. And that's not right either.
Secondly: It's been my observation that whether someone enjoys *anything* has more to do with the person than the activity (one reason I don't buy the textual analysis model). However for those who feel they've been burnt the observation you quoted Ron on at the top is at least as valid as mine.
You told people in another thread that your ideas would bring about a paradigm shift.
Consider this: If they're having fun now ... it very likely will not and should not happen. That gets into the "there's one best way to play" mode ... which becomes an extension of the role-vs-roll debate. Bleah.
-Marco
* if you think 'story' is a good, strong description of what goes on in a Narrativist session but not in a Simulationist session then we can take it to another thread or PM's.
On 7/11/2003 at 1:44pm, Hunter Logan wrote:
RE: On Ron's GNS Article Part One
Alan,
Please, read the whole GNS article before writing again. Please.
On 7/11/2003 at 1:59pm, Cadriel wrote:
RE: Re: On Ron's GNS Article Part One
mythusmage wrote: Did it occur to anyone that Ron's basic premise is based on a misinterpretation of player dissatisfaction?
I've asked myself questions along the same lines, somewhere a little over a year ago. But ultimately, I came to an answer: no.
I'm not saying this because I think Ron's theory is good as theory. I have watched what conflicting GNS priorities can do to a game. I ran a Changeling game a few years ago that had - I'm not making this up or exaggerating - a very good Gamist player, a very good Narrativist player, and a very good Simulationist player, with the game itself drifting back and forth between Narrativist and Simulationist as I went along. When I look back on it in light of GNS, it all makes sense: they expected different things out of the game. The Gamist player's solutions were very crafty, clever, and involved - and totally inappropriate. The Narrativist player wrapped half the storyline around his character, which was the big source of the drift. And the Simulationist player actually did great in the sections not dominated by the Narrativist. There were a couple of other players, who were less central to the game, but they were also kinda victims of the very powerful clash (between very good friends).
I eventually stopped running the game, much to the anger and discontent of my players. The Narrativist player left toward the end, and the subsequent sessions lost a lot of their interest for me. You see, my own ability to run was wrapped up in the fact that I'd made a temporary fudge in the midst of all this dysfunction; it inevitably couldn't work out, and because of that I just couldn't keep running the game.
What about presentation? How the GM presents his world and those that dwell in it. All too often play for me has been rendered deadly dull by GMs who show off their setting with all the enthusiasm of a high school sophomore reciting Shakespeare. A tedious stating of facts guaranteed to drive even the most advid gamer into a suicidal depression. Good God people, it's supposed to be an entertainment.
Your evidence is every bit as anecdotal as mine, but whereas mine is a positive example of GNS being able to diagnose dysfunction, you're trying to create a counterexample that just doesn't hold. For example, in the Changeling game, I presented the world rather well; I integrated the setting and it was quite thrilling for the players. I've seen GMs do good jobs with the settings - my high school Marvel Super Heroes GM comes to mind, as does the DM of the Dark Sun game I played in freshman year of college (who is actually the Narrativist player described above, but GMed AD&D in a thrilling Gamist fashion).
Oh, and by the by, when I was in high school I frightened my Shakespeare class with my reading of one of Othello's scenes. And they did awesome productions of Midsummer... and Romeo & Juliet. So your metaphor doesn't hold.
In short, make sure you have time to prepare, and that you do prepare.
So it makes life harder for the GM. Good, 'bout time some GMs started having it hard. You want to make it good for your players, you have to work at it. Know the setting, know the adventure, know the people involved. Know all this well enough you can adjust to whatever the players pull.
I get it now. You're still laboring under the assumption of the Impossible Thing (the GM is the author of the story, and the players portray the protagonists). "Can adjust to whatever the players pull" is just another way to dress up "the players are out to wreck your story." You're just promoting the same old way people have been roleplaying for the better part of thirty years, saying it's good and that it works, as the hobby just marches happily into marginalization and mediocrity.
Writing an adventure in advance and then running it is, to me, a form of stylized masturbation. It confirms the stereotype of GMs as basically being frustrated would-be writers. (I've gotten over that, and I'm now a not-frustrated writer.) The best games I've run, it seems, are when I go in with what would be called in Sorcerer terms a few Bangs for a session, and the resulting game is a result of playing off the other players. This is Narrativism - even though I've never had a group to sustain it too long - and it's far more satisfying to me than running a hundred thousand well planned sessions. When a game comes to the point where I'd have to plan out games in advance, I tend to get bored and it disappears.
Somebody wrote to me that what I call adventure you all call situation. Here I present an alternative:
Situation: What the GM plans for the latest session.
Adventure: What the players do to the GM's carefully wrought plans.
This is just a reinforcement of the abovementioned attitude. I think that your definition of "Adventure" is one that completely disinterests me. I don't want to write a story and then feed it to players, and I don't even want to write a story and then try to keep up with players who are taking it into a completely different dimension. I'm not interested in running an extended Choose-Your-Own-Adventure, because the players always want to turn to a different page.
To me, a good roleplaying game should be a back-and-forth of story elements, with the GM and players working together to create something new. I've done what you call "Adventure," and frankly I'm not interested in doing it again.
-Wayne
On 7/11/2003 at 2:00pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: On Ron's GNS Article Part One
Alan, one of the things that will help make the Forge a more productive place for you is if you start by acknowledging and then being willing to look beyond your quite narrow preconceptions of what roleplaying is "supposed" to look like.
In every one of your posts so far I've read things that make my teeth grate. These are things you say with all of the conviction and enthusiasm of someone whose convinced that you're stateing some eternal truth combined with a sense of astonishment that we haven't gotten it yet because its all so obvious.
In fact, the statements aren't truth, they represent but one very narrow possibility of how role playing can look. It may well be your preferred mode of play...or perhaps there are other modes you'd be surprised to learn you'd enjoy more but haven't experienced yet...but in either case it is not "the one true way".
For example, in this post above you say several things that illustrate this.
If the event organizers don't have the adventure for you until the very moment the contest is supposed to start, tell the damn fools you don't work under these circumstances, and that they are in violation contract.
Event Organizers? You are aware that only the tiniest fraction of roleplaying occurs at "events" I presume. I hope you are aware that the vast majority of event based play involves scenarios created BY the GM whose running them. This statement of yours applies to only the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction of game play...most predominantly in the format oft used by the RPGA (whose membership also represents only the tiniest fraction of gamers). Yet you make this statement as if its some sort of standard mode. Its been damn near a decade since I've played in any "Event" where the scenario is some premade thing given to a volunteer GM to run. Nor will I ever play such a format again.
Situation: What the GM plans for the latest session.
Adventure: What the players do to the GM's carefully wrought plans.
This is biased on so many levels that I don't know where to even begin.
Are you aware that large amounts of SUCCESSFULL (i.e. fun, enjoyed by all present) game play doesn't involve anything remotely like a "carefully wrought plan" from the GM?
Are you aware that many games, gamers, and game play styles would balk and actively avoid anything that even hinted at a "carefully wrought plan" from the GM?
Are you aware that many GMs here on the Forge have discovered that their very best sessions have come from "planning" less...redefining the very nature of what prep should concentrate on and ignoring much of what prep traditionally concentrated on?
Now this isn't an inditement against the style of play that you seem to be most familiar with, just a statement of fact that the horizons of gaming go WAY beyond that and much of the Forge isn't going to make much sense without realizing that.
On 7/11/2003 at 2:18pm, Marco wrote:
RE: Re: On Ron's GNS Article Part One
Cadriel wrote:
Writing an adventure in advance and then running it is, to me, a form of stylized masturbation. It confirms the stereotype of GMs as basically being frustrated would-be writers.
-Wayne
This is, of course, entirely different from a working mode of play where you create and explore situations (which is also correctly called 'writing an adventure'). I think your take on it (second quoted sentence) was probably the source of your disatisfaction.
-Marco
On 7/11/2003 at 2:32pm, Cadriel wrote:
RE: Re: On Ron's GNS Article Part One
Marco wrote:Cadriel wrote:
Writing an adventure in advance and then running it is, to me, a form of stylized masturbation. It confirms the stereotype of GMs as basically being frustrated would-be writers.
-Wayne
This is, of course, entirely different from a working mode of play where you create and explore situations (which is also correctly called 'writing an adventure'). I think your take on it (second quoted sentence) was probably the source of your disatisfaction.
-Marco
Yeh, sorry, was a little worked up in that post - in part because I realized that Alan was describing exactly what made me so dissatisfied with very nearly everything I've done (except for really good, unabashed Gamist play and the never-frequent-enough Narrativist instances).
I guess I'm going more on a rant against Illusionism than anything else, and that's the form I'm thinking of. Actually exploring situation could work for other people, but I do think it teeters on the knife-edge of Illusionism...and I'm not sure that this is a valid form of play.
-Wayne
On 7/11/2003 at 2:40pm, Marco wrote:
RE: On Ron's GNS Article Part One
::High-fives Wayne::
Rockin. Yeah--I've gotten carried away myself on occassion too.
-Marco
On 7/11/2003 at 5:05pm, ethan_greer wrote:
RE: Re: On Ron's GNS Article Part One
mythusmage wrote: Did it occur to anyone that Ron's basic premise is based on a misinterpretation of player dissatisfaction?
Yes. And I'll assume that you didn't mean to insult people who have read the article. Because that's what reading is about - you interpret, evaluate, and draw conclusions.
That said, I fail to see how anything in your post addresses any particular issue with the theory. We are talking theory, here, right? Not your own personal experience with a lazy GM?
On 7/11/2003 at 5:16pm, Hunter Logan wrote:
RE: On Ron's GNS Article Part One
My response was very brief and restrained because I am already bored of seeing Alan get the snot popped out of him in every thread. Obviously, he stepped off on the wrong foot. That happens. Obviously, he will need time to read the article, so let's give him time.
On 7/11/2003 at 5:45pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: On Ron's GNS Article Part One
Did it occur to anyone that Ron's basic premise is based on a misinterpretation of player dissatisfaction?
No, because the essay that came out previous to the one that you're reading, the one entitled System Does Matter, does not say that setting and preparations by the GM are unimportant, but only that system is also important. Essentially, Ron has considered well the possibility that dissatisfaction comes only from bad play on the part of the participants and has made his case against that. No misidentification here.
Given that a designer can't make a GM less lazy, he does what he can, and addresses whatever problems that the system can address. One of these potential areas of problems are discussed in the essay that you are about to read. Nowhere in the theory does it say or imply that it will solve all problems in RPGs. Just that it will help in a very specific case.
Exhortations to GMs to do a better job are, of course, welcome, but pointing out that some GMs don't do a good job in no way conflicts with any of the theory.
Mike
On 7/11/2003 at 11:16pm, Thomas Tamblyn wrote:
RE: On Ron's GNS Article Part One
MythusMage wrote: Did it occur to anyone that Ron's basic premise is based on a misinterpretation of player dissatisfaction?
Alan, just because some games are unpleasant because they are run incompetently does not mean that that is the only reason that games can fail to be fun.
Or, if you're not trying to suggest something so strong, Ron never claims that conflict of GNS styles is the only cause of un-fun play, but one that can be an issue even with the most competent players and Gm in the world.
You might want to look in the actual play forums - that is where most of the discussion dealing with what you are talking about goes on - including how to deal with the bad Gm/bad player in a social situation.
On 7/12/2003 at 1:10am, Gordon C. Landis wrote:
RE: On Ron's GNS Article Part One
Hunter Logan wrote: My response was very brief and restrained because I am already bored of seeing Alan get the snot popped out of him in every thread. Obviously, he stepped off on the wrong foot. That happens. Obviously, he will need time to read the article, so let's give him time.
Yeah, for what it's worth - my thinking is unless/until Alan starts asking questions (in the "help me understand" sense) and/or responding to those questions directly asked of him, he's still in some kind of "gather information" mode. I agree with a lot of the crticisims of his initial GNS thoughts I'm seeing, but "pile on the newbie" is NOT a game I think we want to play here . . .
Gordon