Topic: Capt. Kirk and Col O'Neil vs the GNS from PX716435
Started by: ADGBoss
Started on: 1/30/2004
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 1/30/2004 at 5:48pm, ADGBoss wrote:
Capt. Kirk and Col O'Neil vs the GNS from PX716435
In light of Ron's Narrativism essay and Christopher Kubasik's thread here I began to think about the people who don't think so hard about gaming. At least not as hard as the rest of us.
In a sense I think that Captain Kirk from Star Trek and Colonel O'Neil from Stargate SG-1 (as opposed to the Col. O'Neil from the movie) are the same kinds of people.
When Kirk wants to go fast, he does not talk with Scotty over much about exactly how he is going to fix the engine. He understands how to USE the engine, he understands basically what makes it work, but he does not think about Warp Drive Theory or Intermix Ratios.
An even better example is that of O'Neil vs. Maj. Carter. Samantha Carter is the brain and a scientist. O'Neil is.... er not. The classic example is when Carter will begin to explain some concept and O'Neil will have his hands and say "So it will work if we do X?" To which Carter replies with a YEs sir or maybe.
I think we have all been the Kirk/O'Neil gamer at one point another in our lives.
"Yeah thats great but can we play now?"
What is the point of G,N,S? To help designers create games that will attract players who have certain Desires or Agendas. The problem of course is that probably half of all gamers are too lazy or uninterested in being Consciously Aware of their own Modal Desires. That is they do not care if they prefer Competition, Dream, or Story Now but they do want to play and they know what they like.
The questions are:
1) Do we consider these people the kind of role players we want playing the Indie games designed here or do we start to purposely exclude people because they do no "get it"?
2) Can someone make a Conscious decision regarding play, Unconsciously? That is will their own internal processes help direct them towards the games and social situations which will provide rewarding play?
3) Is it possible to construct a game that will not only attract those conscious of their preferences but also those who are unconscious.
4) Is it simply two groups (Conscious vs Unconscious) or can Conscious but Non-Verbal be added as well?
Sean
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 9523
On 1/30/2004 at 7:02pm, xiombarg wrote:
Re: Capt. Kirk and Col O'Neil vs the GNS from PX716435
ADGBoss wrote: That is they do not care if they prefer Competition, Dream, or Story Now but they do want to play and they know what they like.
This part is key. You see, I think the average gamer who says "Can we play now?" often DOESN'T know what they like -- or, more accurately, can't articulate it, or, when they do articulate it, do so in a way where the other people in the group think they're talking about the same thing ("story") but they're not.
See, I'm not sure that the Warp Theory has been fully worked out yet. We're still building individual Steam Cars, and trying to talk about them as if they were the same, even though Joe's Steam Car runs on coal while I've got a diesel engine or whatever.
Note how in order for Kirk to focus on the action, he has to have someone who knows about Warp Cores available...
On 1/30/2004 at 7:32pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: Re: Capt. Kirk and Col O'Neil vs the GNS from PX716435
ADGBoss wrote: What is the point of G,N,S? To help designers create games that will attract players who have certain Desires or Agendas. The problem of course is that probably half of all gamers are too lazy or uninterested in being Consciously Aware of their own Modal Desires. That is they do not care if they prefer Competition, Dream, or Story Now but they do want to play and they know what they like.
The problem is, this isn't really the point of GNS. Ron's always said that GNS *may* be useful for design, but what it's really for is to aide the diagnosis and correction of dysfunction. In other words, actual play, real people, real groups, real games.
Why people tend to not like GNS is a fairly hard question. The most common objection you'll find on the internet is that GNS is too intellectual... an ostentatious high-brow approach to something that is essentially low brow. A lot of times if you bring up GNS in a non-Foge discussion, the reaction is along the lines of "those guys are a bunch of elitist snobs. I've been gaming for 20 years, I don't need a bunch of upstart brains to tell me what it is, and how it works." And then they immediately return to the exact disfunctional play that Ron describes in the new essay... the same play the've been doing for 20 years....
On 1/30/2004 at 7:37pm, ADGBoss wrote:
RE: Re: Capt. Kirk and Col O'Neil vs the GNS from PX716435
xiombarg wrote:ADGBoss wrote: That is they do not care if they prefer Competition, Dream, or Story Now but they do want to play and they know what they like.
This part is key. You see, I think the average gamer who says "Can we play now?" often DOESN'T know what they like -- or, more accurately, can't articulate it, or, when they do articulate it, do so in a way where the other people in the group think they're talking about the same thing ("story") but they're not.
I do not disagree with you. I think its a very safe assumption that MOST gamers do not really consider "Why" they play or why what they play gives them some satisfaction. Equally they know what they do not like but now how to fully articulate what was wrong.
This is where the designers role becomes a real difficult issue. We cannot sit in on every game session and in every game to make sure everyone is "getting it". Even if we educate more of the Gamer public as to the fact that they can indeed find games that fit what they desire, even if they canot articulate what they desire, we are still going to have a very large group of people doing it "Old School." That is blundering around and trying to find an RPG to play with no real sense of what they are looking for.
So, the choice becomes do we say "fuck 'em" and make games for what will rapidly become seen as an elite or do we make GNS accessible via "rules" (text as Ron uses it in the essay) so that it connects to the subconscious of those Gamers who are not consciously persuing Mode.
People often say they do not know what they want but in reality they DO know what they want and are often too intimidated or perhaps do not feel empowered to say so. I think it should be possible to communicate GNS in a subtle manner so that it intrigues these minds. The trick of course is how do we do that?
Sean
On 1/30/2004 at 7:39pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Re: Capt. Kirk and Col O'Neil vs the GNS from PX716435
ADGBoss wrote:
What is the point of G,N,S? To help designers create games that will attract players who have certain Desires or Agendas. The problem of course is that probably half of all gamers are too lazy or uninterested in being Consciously Aware of their own Modal Desires. That is they do not care if they prefer Competition, Dream, or Story Now but they do want to play and they know what they like.
The questions are:
1) Do we consider these people the kind of role players we want playing the Indie games designed here or do we start to purposely exclude people because they do no "get it"?
Oh, my. I can see why so many people get all uptight and defensive about GNS in light of a statement like this. The theory-without-a-name is not to help designers create games that will attract certain people.
Invoking the Ron:
In The Forge as a community, Ron Edwards said:
The logic goes ...
1) When a person creates something (film, novel, RPG) that shares interest with another, it's because the content "speaks" to the second person. What jazzes you, jazzes me. Or, in some cases, what jazzed you in way X, jazzes me too in way Y.
2) The personal commitment and personal spin brought to the creative work - the extent to which it jazzes and satisfies its own creator - is precisely what the audience member (or user, in the case of a musical instrument or an RPG) is responding to.
Which is to say, the more a work expresses a personal vision, the more likely it is to appeal to its audience.
Do you see where I'm going here? GNS isn't to help anyone sell anything to anyone else. It's not to target an audience. It's to understand what you dig, what you don't dig, why you might feel that way, and what to do to get the maximum dig-ness out of your game.
Oh, and people will also dig it, if you do.
I don't think the games designed here, or by independent authors in general, are meant to exclude those who don't "get it." I think they're meant to include everyone who digs the same type of play. They're not meant to be sold to everyone, unlike some mass market games; they're expressions of the author's creativity, which exist to please him, and others that have similar digging issues.
Personally, and this is just my personal view, not a moderator view, I think we do a great disservice by analyzing GNS in terms of what games fit into what category so much around here. I'm all for discussing theory, but when it comes close to labeling, whoa, Nelly.
It's been few times on the Internet where I've seen anyone discuss (argue) a theory, philosophy, or belief system with another person, and that second person stand up and go, "I get it!" Usually, it's just bickering. I've seen plenty of people watch these discussions, take their thoughts with them, and come to a conclusion over some time. I did this with GNS - when Ron first started talking about it, we were at the Gaming Outpost, and I was in no way a frequent poster. It was through quite contemplation - not proselytion - that I came to agree.
----
I'm starting to meander here, so I want to get back to my original point. If you are creating a game, and thinking "what GNS mode do I want this game to be," you will fail. This is not how games should be made. If you are thinking, "what do I dig about this game and why," things may go well for you.
This isn't to say you can't bring this up in the game, but using jargon and pushing it too far is a big turn-off, at least for me. Let people discover what they dig about the game themselves.
As an ending, I'll submit a section from the game text I'm working on now, The Shadow of Yesterday. (http://www.anvilwerks.com/index.php/TheShadowOfYesterday/DesignNotes) If GNS-type stuff is to be brought into a game text, I not-too-humbly suggest something like this.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 4444
On 1/30/2004 at 7:41pm, ADGBoss wrote:
RE: Re: Capt. Kirk and Col O'Neil vs the GNS from PX716435
Paganini wrote:ADGBoss wrote: What is the point of G,N,S? To help designers create games that will attract players who have certain Desires or Agendas. The problem of course is that probably half of all gamers are too lazy or uninterested in being Consciously Aware of their own Modal Desires. That is they do not care if they prefer Competition, Dream, or Story Now but they do want to play and they know what they like.
The problem is, this isn't really the point of GNS. Ron's always said that GNS *may* be useful for design, but what it's really for is to aide the diagnosis and correction of dysfunction. In other words, actual play, real people, real groups, real games. ....
Yes your right about that and I need to be clear about what I am saying I think. How do WE as designers turn what we find out in G,N,S OR any Model that we happen to use, into something meaningful? That is meaningful to those who are mindful and to those who are not necassarily mindful of their desires with regard to play?
Afterall I am not a gamer psychiatrist, I do not intend to council anyone on their broken play but instead as a designer I want snatch up those who like X to play my game or games.
Sean
On 1/30/2004 at 7:48pm, ADGBoss wrote:
RE: Re: Capt. Kirk and Col O'Neil vs the GNS from PX716435
Do you see where I'm going here? GNS isn't to help anyone sell anything to anyone else. It's not to target an audience. It's to understand what you dig, what you don't dig, why you might feel that way, and what to do to get the maximum dig-ness out of your game..
Ok let me grant you that. So now I know how I dig my game. Now how do I express to others who may want to dig my game why I dig and why they MAY dig if they give it a try.
I guess I am asking if we now need a tool (and I think we do need one) that takes what we learn in GNS and helps us apply it to make games that express or goals as designers. Applying what we learn is very important.
And it is moi bad that I did express GNS as toom uch of a design tool and not what it truly is.
Sean
On 1/30/2004 at 8:07pm, Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
RE: Capt. Kirk and Col O'Neil vs the GNS from PX716435
And it is moi bad that I did express GNS as toom uch of a design tool and not what it truly is.
No foul, man. No need to blame: I'd purport that most people here and elsewhere get the cart before the horse on this one. Your thread just sparked my interest enough to get me to actually post about it, so thanks.
Anyway, to move to your question:
Ok let me grant you that. So now I know how I dig my game. Now how do I express to others who may want to dig my game why I dig and why they MAY dig if they give it a try.
I don't see a need to overly point out what there is about your game that they will dig. This seems like it'll be obvious: if you dig it, and design it to maximize the digging, then - well, they'll be exposed to the same principles just by reading the game. Standing there with a neon sign and yelling, "Hey! Look at my hot salty nuts!" isn't going to get more people to stop and actually buy your roasted peanuts.
A thought experiment: think about one of your favorite mechanics in any RPG. Why do you like it so much? What does it encourage? Is there text about that in the game? The one I'm going to use is over-used by me, but it's good. It's from GDW's Twilight: 2000. (Not the first edition crap one - the one that used their house system, in the big yellow book.) In that game, you took a series of careers in character creation, and each career gave you a contact, either academic or military or civilian. These contacts weren't defined: in game, you could decide to use them to convert NPCs into people you know. ("As the Russian warlord brings the hot metal tongs to my sliced belly, I look up. 'Nikolai...' I groan. 'I haven't seen you since that special ops school in the Urals.'")
There wasn't a drop of text about how this allowed players to influence the story greatly in a game that was otherwise the height of Simulationist madness. I'd bet my last dollar some designer who worked on the game came up with the idea and thought, "This is the coolest thing I've ever written." Most likely, everyone else tried to shoot him down. "That's not realistic," they might have said. This guy really dug it, though, and got it in there. (It's pretty obscured in the text.) Later, a young kid in Alabama (me) read it and thought, "I dig the hell out of this." I started running games that flowed in the direction I dig, which happened to fit with this crazy thing Ron calls Narrativism.
All this happened not because someone yelled at me to try their hot salty nuts, but because I found a hot salty nut one day and happened to really like it. What I'm saying is:
If you dig your hot salty nuts, and really stick them out there, others will come along and enjoy them too.
On 1/30/2004 at 9:02pm, Silmenume wrote:
Hot Salty Nuts for Sale!
LOL
I know these boards are supposed to be tightly focused and point driven, but it is nice to chuckle once in a while reading. It does help lighten the air a bit and helps us (or maybe just me at least) from being too self-infatuated.
Aure Entaluve,
Silmenume
On 1/31/2004 at 1:52am, John Kim wrote:
RE: Capt. Kirk and Col O'Neil vs the GNS from PX716435
Clinton R. Nixon wrote: I don't see a need to overly point out what there is about your game that they will dig. This seems like it'll be obvious: if you dig it, and design it to maximize the digging, then - well, they'll be exposed to the same principles just by reading the game. Standing there with a neon sign and yelling, "Hey! Look at my hot salty nuts!" isn't going to get more people to stop and actually buy your roasted peanuts.
...
All this happened not because someone yelled at me to try their hot salty nuts, but because I found a hot salty nut one day and happened to really like it.
Heh! Your nuts sound pretty tasty. :-)
I'm in total agreement. Sean and Kirt's posts have the (perhaps unintentional) implication that there was something wrong with Kirk-like players who just know what they like without analyzing why. People can legitimately know what they like without having a complicated theory for why. It's up to the theory to explain why they like stuff -- not up to them to understand the theory.
And this is an incredibly tough job. I don't think that any artistic theory has clear answers that can determine, say, what movies someone will like or what paintings someone will like. Tastes differ, and I consider it hubris to imagine that a totally new creative form like RPGs will be better explained than these are.
On 1/31/2004 at 6:28am, james_west wrote:
RE: Capt. Kirk and Col O'Neil vs the GNS from PX716435
I cannot put too much emphasis on the following:
I have run many of the more experimental games published here at game conventions, for groups of complete strangers of the sort that show up to game conventions.
I have never failed to have an outrageously positive reception to them, in fact usually far more positive than when I run something 'traditional'.
The fact that Captain Kirk doesn't care how a warp engine works, doesn't mean he doesn't realize it's a heck of a lot nicer than a steam engine when he sees it in action.
On 1/31/2004 at 6:46am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Re: Capt. Kirk and Col O'Neil vs the GNS from PX716435
Paganini wrote: The most common objection you'll find on the internet is that GNS is too intellectual... an ostentatious high-brow approach to something that is essentially low brow. A lot of times if you bring up GNS in a non-Foge discussion, the reaction is along the lines of "those guys are a bunch of elitist snobs. I've been gaming for 20 years, I don't need a bunch of upstart brains to tell me what it is, and how it works."A week ago I might have agreed with this. Today, I'm not so sure it's like that at all.
The difference is that I published an article this morning.
Every Friday I publish a Game Ideas Unlimited article at Gaming Outpost, going on three years now. I usually upload these before bed Thursday night, if I'm still up after it turns midnight mountain time (which is two o'clock here in the armpit of the nation). I try to stay several weeks ahead, drafting articles and tweaking them right up until they go live. Sometimes I write something that I worry will be "just another same old thing"; sometimes I worry that I'm going to lose my audience by going too far out there. This one was one of the too far out there articles: Game Ideas Unlimited: Credibility. In about two thousand words I went deeply into some of the theory we discuss here, particularly the Lumpley Principle, how system functions by apportioning credibility, what credibility is, how we use it to create the shared imaginary space, that the written rules have authority but not credibility--using those words, but defining them as I went. I expected that my audience would pan this one, and was still thinking at three this morning that I should deep six it in favor of something else.
This evening, the average rating on it was a strong eight out of ten, from an audience that usually gives me sevens. There were as yet no comments, but they clearly liked it.
I won't say that it isn't partly because the audience there already respects me; yet they have panned my articles before. I think rather it's because I set out to explain something, and I did so in an orderly fashion, carefully defining what I meant, sticking to basics where they were needed, and showing in the end how it was practical.
Probably there are people out there who don't want to read theory. On the other hand, there are times when we start talking about theory as if everyone already understood and agreed, and that's going to get you in trouble every time. Put theory in terms people can understand, and show why it helps them to understand it, and they'll get it. Tell them that this is the way it is, sorry they don't seem to have picked up on that, and they'll throw it back at you.
It's less about whether people are interested in theory and more about whether they think you're talking sensibly about something that interests them or trying to shove your ideas down their throats.
--M. J. Young
On 2/2/2004 at 2:35pm, xiombarg wrote:
RE: Capt. Kirk and Col O'Neil vs the GNS from PX716435
John Kim wrote: I'm in total agreement. Sean and Kirt's posts have the (perhaps unintentional) implication that there was something wrong with Kirk-like players who just know what they like without analyzing why. People can legitimately know what they like without having a complicated theory for why. It's up to the theory to explain why they like stuff -- not up to them to understand the theory.
Very unintentional, if at all. I'm not saying that there aren't people who DO know what they want without contemplation, but I think they're rare. Certainly I have yet to encounter someone who truely knows their preferences without contemplation.