From Ron's "GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory":

The person who is entirely satisfied with his or her role-playing experiences is not my target audience

I think this sentence has been often interpreted to mean that GNS can only be applied (or is best applied, and etc.) to dysfunctional gaming groups. The purpose of this thread is to dispel that notion once and for all.

Admittedly, the earlier parts of that opening paragraph somewhat encourage a dysfunction-focused interpretation ("Most role-players I encounter are tired, bitter, and frustrated"). And I'm pretty sure there are posts here that encourage/support that notion. I may even have been among them. But being too attached to dysfunction is wrong.

In order for GNS to be useful, you've got to want something more from your roleplaying than what you are getting right now. More good moments, fewer bad moments, a better understanding of how to influence things - any or all of those work. A desire to end true dysfunction works too, but it is HARDLY the be-all end-all. GNS is very valuable (I assert, from personal experience) to a fundamentally functional group that just wants to get even more of what they like out of their gaming.

A basic point, perhaps, but one I thought worth establishing - unless someone disagrees?

Gordon

Gordon C. Landis wrote: From Ron's "GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory":

The person who is entirely satisfied with his or her role-playing experiences is not my target audience

In order for GNS to be useful, you've got to want something more from your roleplaying than what you are getting right now.

The person who is entirely satisfied with his or her role-playing experiences is not my target audience

I think you've just restated Ron.

Andrew Martin wrote: I think you've just restated Ron.

Yup, I think so too. But I think there was a variant restatement pretty common around here - "GNS is for dysfunctional groups" - that needed killin'.

I mean, you could say that a group that isn't entirely satisfied is in some way dysfunctional, but . . . that's a stretch. If we stop associating GNS with dysfunction and instead hook it up to an effort at improvement, I think we're more accurate.

NOTE: By no means is it (GNS) the ONLY way work on improving play.

Gordon