Hello All,

There's a style of role-playing that I've found to be far more common among gamers than I originally thought. Personally, I'm having trouble understanding it mainly because I don't understand what the "point" of it is. So, from a GNS stand point what exactly is this:

1) The style I'm thinking about is highly improvisational. The GM basically comes to the table with little more than a situation. "You've been sent out to find the Widget of Something or other." The players are expected to show up and just play their characters in whatever manner they see fit.

2) The rules are usually ignored or improperly employed. Usually, character creation is either intact or left looser than the rules suggest. Only the core resolution mechanic is used and most other elements of the system that would other wise faciliate some kind of GNS style are simply left out or are often not even known by the participants. In other words the rule system is litteral used as just a randomizer to say Yes or No to disputes with little care for the actual outcome. Character improvement systems are left intact but the GM generally hands out disproportionate amounts of "XP" or what have you. Either too little or too much.

3) These games generally devolve into silliness with most of the roleplaying consisting of the players laughing at their characters slapsticky antics. As such these games usually take place with games that already have some element of this such as Tales of the Vegabond, Paranoia or Toon which wouldn't baffle me so much if it weren't for #2 and the fact that I have seen this style done with slightly more serious games such as In Nomine or Changling.

Notes: I hesitate to call this style dysfunctional because those who engage in it seem to be having a good time. I also hesitate to call this style "munchcanism" mainly because I don't necessarily see power tripping or ego boosting going on.

What is this style of gaming and why is it so prevalent among gamers? Or is it not as prevalent as I think it is and I'm just hallucinating?

Jesse

I think that this gets outside of GNS and what you are seeing is people slipping towards Collaborative Storytelling or Interactive Fiction. In it's regular form, there are few if any rules to this, as people just take turns making stuff up. BTW, it's remarkably common.

In your case you probably have people who feel that they have "evolved" past the need for a lot of rules and that their penchant for telling a good story will keep them in line in a better fashion than the rules could. I see Narrativism as an attempt to reach those same ideals while still employing mechanics. And I think that it works in that you can have mechanics in a narrativist game that can prevent it from spinning off into that silliness that you've noted. The mechanics can help keep the players hooked into the Premise.

OTOH, if you had the right group I could see doing Collaborative Storytelling and keeping a tight focus. Just not my bag.

Remember that GNS pretty much only applies as designed to Table-top Role-Playing Games. Which are diferent from CS, IS, LARP, CRPG, Wargames, and any number of other forms which are generally not the subject of discussion on The Forge, but have distinct similarities.

Mike

jburneko wrote:

There's a style of role-playing that I've found to be far more common among gamers than I originally thought. Personally, I'm having trouble understanding it mainly because I don't understand what the "point" of it is. So, from a GNS stand point what exactly is this...?

Fang's right about my call - I'd prefer to watch or participate, and get an idea of the GOALS involved, and then find out the answer. In other words, I suspect that this "method" may be employed for a variety of goals or goals-combinations.

Boy, that's about as aggravating a response as I can imagine. Friggin' academics, never give a straight answer, mumble grumble.

Anyway, more specifically, it looks to me like we are really talking about the group turning to DRAMA methodology and not GNS necessarily. Games to check out for this sort of thing include SLUG (which comes free with Fudge, also available on the internet, I think) and The Window.

Best,
Ron

On 2001-12-05 18:28, Ron Edwards wrote:

Fang's right about my call - I'd prefer to watch or participate, and get an idea of the GOALS involved, and then find out the answer.

Most likely the goal here is the "other S" - socializing. People get togther and bullshit, over the trappings of an RPG rather than the trappings of a poker game (or whatever). A perfectly valid recreational activity, but not one that really needs much analysis to make "work well".

At least, that's my guess. I've certainly seen it - for both RPGs and card/boardgames. It annoys the heck outta me in the latter case (if I'm playing a flat-out competitive game, I expect a certain focus, darn it!). For RPGs - not my thing, but at least I can see where some people would enjoy it.

Gordon

In my opinion, if it has no rules or the rules are ignored, then it's not a game. It's an activity, therefore GNS does not apply.

Peace,
Bret

Seems to me that if the games you're talking about are mostly Toon and Paranoia and so on, what you're seeing is the players ditching the prohibitory mechanics and playing the game how it's funnest. I mean, the last thing I want to do during a Paranoia game is worry about my kombat modifiers. Not playing by the rules is almost a side effect of wanting to be silly.

Especially with games like Changeling and In Nomine, where the premise of the game is frankly pretty silly, and the mechanics are just one big wad of trying to get you to take it seriously.

Anyway, I think that a game's mechanics are as likely to disrupt focus as they are to support it. When that happens, throwing them out is often your best option. And not just for silly games either, of course. Any game where the mechanics don't support the group's goal.

System Matters, right?

-lumpley Vincent

[ This Message was edited by: lumpley on 2001-12-05 21:01 ]

I don't think there's much point likening Jesse's example to theatre (I believe that's where Ron's going with "DRAMA methodology" stuff). Acting (not to be confused with Actor Stance from Ron's Essay) is all about presentation; there is hardly anything resembling 'exploration' per Ron. Even in the most closed improv exercises (like the ones where the actors explain they are 'exploring' their characters) are about having the right presentation, giving the viewers the expected 'show.' No matter what the actors say to the contrary, they are not practicing 'exploration' per Ron's writing, but more 'exploring' how they present their characters.

Heck Storytelling is also all about presentation too. Sure an author might call it 'exploration' for the first few drafts, but past that fiction writing (and maybe others) is about presenting the findings; Storytelling must be closely related in my thinking. The same would be true about Interactive Fiction (at least the kinds that are mostly branching Storytelling).

I don't think that people who "show up and just play their characters" are there trying to impress anyone with their performance; remember GNS is all about goals not methods. (Isn't it?) I've seen things like Jesse's experiences in action, and the participants were there purely 'to have fun,' "just [playing] their characters." If anything, it would be pure 'exploration' for the sake of instant gratification. (While "other S" 'social' interaction could be occuring, I don't think it necessarily needs to be the goal.)

But then I'm just griping about what I think is lacking in the GNS model again, sorry.

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-12-05 21:41 ]

I'm confused. I presumed that Ron was talking about DRAMA, as in the resolution mechanic found in games like Theatrix.

- Scott

Lumpley,

Just for the record, I've always regarded In Nomine as a serious game and I played in a serious In Nomine campaign which was extremely enjoyable. :wink:

Peace,
Bret

Fang,

Scott is right; I'm talking about Drama in the strict DFK terms of the essay, not in the sense of theatrical or literary drama.

I do agree with you that the Exploration factor seems to be very low in the situation that Jesse is describing, based as well on my own observations of similar groups.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:

Scott is right; I'm talking about Drama in the strict DFK terms of the essay, not in the sense of theatrical or literary drama.

I do agree with you that the Exploration factor seems to be very low in the situation that Jesse is describing, based as well on my own observations of similar groups.

Hi Fang,

It is perfectly all right for you to say, "These folks may be role-playing and they may not be according with GNS theory." That's an interesting point. However, I don't think you have made the case to support it, yet. Please elaborate if you want.

The most difficult aspect of dealing with your post is that you have determined to ignore any established definition of the terms until forced to do so. When you do that in reference to others using the terms, it derails argument. For instance, I used Exploring with a capital E, meaning the term defined in my essay, and you have turned it into a synonym for simply "employing" or doing," and then disagreed with that. I simply do not have the time to rein you in, soothe you, turn your head, and then point out this definition, hoping that you will then back up and see that my point was valid in reference to (and agreeing with) your previous post. This is the sort of behavior I have to take with balky sophomores, but not, I hope, with folks on the Forge.

When this happens, the whole argument stalls out. I'd like to see what you're saying, and as I said, I think I am agreeing with most of your points. It's fine if you don't want to use the terminology of the essay, but it's aggravating for others to use it, with the definitions laid out for all to see, and be ignored and read as saying utterly different things, in the manner described above.

More importantly, the rest of your post is a broadside about the utility of my posts and about the GNS essay in general. Both are off-topic. The first one might be taken to private email if you feel strongly enough about it, but it doesn't belong on a forum. You're welcome to start up the latter as a new thread.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:

It is perfectly all right for you to say, "These folks may be role-playing and they may not be according with GNS theory." That's an interesting point. However, I don't think you have made the case to support it, yet.

Please elaborate if you want.

The most difficult aspect of dealing with your post is that you have determined to ignore any established definition of the terms until forced to do so. When you do that in reference to others using the terms, it derails argument. For instance, I used Exploring with a capital E, meaning the term defined in my essay,

and you have turned it into a synonym for simply "employing" or doing,"

and then disagreed with that.

I simply do not have the time to rein you in, soothe you, turn your head, and then point out this definition,

hoping that you will then back up and see that my point was valid in reference to (and agreeing with) your previous post.

This is the sort of behavior I have to take with balky sophomores, but not, I hope, with folks on the Forge.

When this happens, the whole argument stalls out. I'd like to see what you're saying, and as I said, I think I am agreeing with most of your points.

It's fine if you don't want to use the terminology of the essay, but it's aggravating for others to use it, with the definitions laid out for all to see, and be ignored and read as saying utterly different things, in the manner described above.

More importantly, the rest of your post is a broadside about the utility of my posts and about the GNS essay in general. Both are off-topic.

The first one might be taken to private email if you feel strongly enough about it, but it doesn't belong on a forum.

You're welcome to start up the latter as a new thread.

Fang Langford broke down his arguments into points thusly:

* Actors don't explore.
* Jesse's exemplars are not acting.
* They are 'Exploring.'
* Thus they are definitely role-playing gaming.
* They are not applying GNS goals consciously or unconsciously.
* They are having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion.
* They are not unique or rare in this practice.
* Therefore something is missing from the GNS model.
* Most arguments about this missing element(s) fail because they have to use proprietary terminology (that by natural design supports GNS).

There's a style of role-playing that I've found to be far more common among gamers than I originally thought. Personally, I'm having trouble understanding it mainly because I don't understand what the "point" of it is. So, from a GNS stand point what exactly is this:

1) The style I'm thinking about is highly improvisational. The GM basically comes to the table with little more than a situation. "You've been sent out to find the Widget of Something or other." The players are expected to show up and just play their characters in whatever manner they see fit.

2) The rules are usually ignored or improperly employed. Usually, character creation is either intact or left looser than the rules suggest. Only the core resolution mechanic is used and most other elements of the system that would other wise faciliate some kind of GNS style are simply left out or are often not even known by the participants. In other words the rule system is ... used as just a randomizer to say Yes or No to disputes with little care for the actual outcome. ...

3) These games generally devolve into silliness with most of the roleplaying consisting of the players laughing at their characters slapsticky antics. As such these games usually take place with games that already have some element of this ... which wouldn't baffle me so much if it weren't for #2 and the fact that I have seen this style done with slightly more serious games such as In Nomine or Changling.

Notes: I hesitate to call this style dysfunctional because those who engage in it seem to be having a good time. ...

What is this style of gaming and why is it so prevalent among gamers? Or is it not as prevalent as I think it is and I'm just hallucinating?

Apologies in advance to everyone - I'm writing this post at work in between doing other things, and it may jump around. Please bear with me.

I think we might be able to argue that there are, in some sense, two distinct activities going on round the table here.

1) The players are participating in a role-playing game (which they definitely are).
2) The players are laughing and joking, deriving some or all of their enjoyment from the fact that they're roleplaying in what even they themselves perceive to be kind of a crap manner.

I would argue that any GNS application, conscious or unconscious, goes on in 1). So player X may bring his mild gamist leanings to the table, while player Y brings her desire to be part of the creation of a good story. But while the players may have these inclinations, little or nothing is done to apply them. The game system's default position (and I'm guessing it's Gamist or Simulationist) and the GM's are expressed a little, probably... even if the rules are, in general, being ignored.

I don't know - are we seeing some kind of "next level of removal" in the enjoyment of RPGs, like those people who come to LARPs and don't play but just sit around and watch? (Is this "audience" behavior? Hell if I know.) But let me say one thing...

I always kind of assumed, (from an early age...) that it was understood that most RPG play was hard to categorize, because it was a mish-mash of priorities from the different players and the system. In this case, I'd say that we're probably seeing that, but at a very low priority. The social dynamic (or meta-enjoyment of the game by poking fun at it) is seen as more important than any GNS priority, because the players derive more enjoyment from the heckling than they do the gameplay itself. * And I think this is particularly interesting because this isn't some unrelated social activity like random chit-chat or flirting, but is a game-related social activity, like flexing character nuts (another popular gamer pastime).

So what GNS category does this fall into? Well, we'd have to look at the gameplay itself to understand that, but I think it's more significant that the gameplay is so deprioritized. I think analysis of this kind of player behavior may fall outside the categories of GNS.**

Now, I'd like to propose a very tenuous, almost tongue-in-cheek method of analyzing the GNS priorities of the players. I think that humor in these situations derives from deviation from the norm. Spot what each player is most amused by, and you may figure out what he or she considers to be normal or "desirable" gameplay... and you're off and running.

But I guess my main point is that this is confusing because while the enjoyment doesn't seem to be what you or I might call gameplay, it's definitely an activity that's involved with and interconnects with gameplay.

I think this merits further discussion. And I think this post makes no sense, or not very much anyway. Sorry.

* Man, I wish I knew how to do them cool footnotes Fang does. Anyway, I'd like to say here that we've been running on the assumption that mish-mashy, no-clear-GNS-priority gameplay is bad and makes players unhappy. And I think that's true for some players: I'd argue that it made Jesse Burneko unhappy. But I think it makes you unhappy only if gameplay is a high priority for you. Then somewhere in the middle we've got that guy Ron keeps ragging on, the guy who says "this game sucks, but I stick around because these people are my friends." And then at the far end of that priority is the guy for whom gameplay is actually a low priority and heckling (or whatever other social activity) is the highest one.

** Although maybe an essay on this might make sense, since it's an ancient and accepted gamer behavior - in fact, I distinctly remember someone (was it Greg Costikyan? I think it was, but cussit, his site seems to be down) writing an article back in the day in which he advocated doing things like naming your character stupid names and deliberately acting like your character was aware of his own nature as a game character, all in the name of humor. Man, that was a long runon sentence. In fact, I guess that's Narrativism, huh - total disregard for competitive gameplay or immersion or whatever, since the point is to make a funny story, specifically one which relates to gaming in some way. I don't know if Jesse's example kids are doing that, though.

Let me preface this by saying I tire of problems called upon the GNS model always collapsing into "Why should we change what works?" with the response of "Because it’s too confusing to the rest of us." and then silence.

On no occasion have I seen has anyone ever substantiated a case where sticking with terminology that has proven confusing is good for any reason outside of tradition and familiarity. I do not accept those reasons when, because of the terminology, time and again people come to the Forge and launch arguments out of that confusion.

As has been said (yet not effectively responded to), if terminology causes confusion, change it.

Anyway, on to my response.

Clinton R Nixon wrote:

Fang broke down his arguments into points thusly:

• Actors don't explore.
• Jesse's exemplars are not acting.
• They are 'Exploring.'
• Thus they are definitely role-playing gaming.
• They are not applying GNS goals consciously or unconsciously.
• They are having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion.
• They are not unique or rare in this practice.
• Therefore something is missing from the GNS model.
• Most arguments about this missing element(s) fail because they have to use proprietary terminology (that by natural design supports GNS).

Here's my take, from someone who's had a long-standing interaction with the GNS model, and finds it good.

Let me quote from Jesse first, for a little source background:

There's a style of role-playing that I've found to be far more common among gamers than I originally thought. Personally, I'm having trouble understanding it mainly because I don't understand what the "point" of it is. So, from a GNS stand point what exactly is this:

1) The style I'm thinking about is highly improvisational. The GM basically comes to the table with little more than a situation. "You've been sent out to find the Widget of Something or other." The players are expected to show up and just play their characters in whatever manner they see fit.

2) The rules are usually ignored or improperly employed. Usually, character creation is either intact or left looser than the rules suggest. Only the core resolution mechanic is used and most other elements of the system that would other wise facilitate some kind of GNS style are simply left out or are often not even known by the participants. In other words the rule system is ... used as just a randomizer to say Yes or No to disputes with little care for the actual outcome. ...

3) These games generally devolve into silliness with most of the role-playing consisting of the players laughing at their characters slapsticky antics. As such these games usually take place with games that already have some element of this ... which wouldn't baffle me so much if it weren't for #2 and the fact that I have seen this style done with slightly more serious games such as In Nomine or Changelings.

Notes: I hesitate to call this style dysfunctional because those who engage in it seem to be having a good time. ...

What is this style of gaming and why is it so prevalent among gamers? Or is it not as prevalent as I think it is and I'm just hallucinating?

I would first take issue with the fact these players are 'Exploring,' in the Edwards definition of the term ("The best term for the imagination in action, or perhaps for the attention given the imagined elements, is Exploration. Initially, it is an individual concern, although it will move into the social, communicative realm, and the commitment to imagine the listed elements becomes an issue of its own.")

These players are using their imagination to make a humorous situation, however, they are not imagining the listed elements, where the listed elements are the context of the RPG. They are, in Jesse's words, "laughing at their characters slapsticky antics."

This does not fit into the GNS model, because the point is not role-playing. The point is social joking, in an RPG context.

This may seem contradictory. Consider a parallel activity, spoofing, or "MST3K"ing, a movie. The movie watched is usually considered bad, and the point is not actually to watch the movie, but to make jokes, in the context of watching a movie. (I find that often the people that enjoy the activity described in Jesse's post enjoy MST3king movies.)

That said; if we ignore this point and consider that they are role-playing, do they fit in the GNS model, and how do they? You point out:

• They are not applying GNS goals consciously or unconsciously.
• They are having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion.

They obviously are not applying GNS goals to the RPG experience. That is an acceptable given in this situation. Are they having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion, however? Jesse mentioned that this activity wouldn't bother him, if it weren't extended to more serious games, like Changeling or In Nomine.

While it has become fashionable for RPGs to say, "Ignore the rules if they get in the way," I think we can follow this logic:

• RPG rules should be written to facilitate a game's premise or goal, whatever that may be, GNS or otherwise.
• If a rule does not facilitate that goal, it is dysfunctional.
• Therefore, removing rules because they 'get in the way' is a sign of dysfunction.

I would say that the question "are they having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion" has multiple answers.

• They are having fun.
• Their goal is obviously to laugh, and in that, they are not dysfunctional.
• They are not fulfilling the game's goal. This may be their fault, or the game's, but it is dysfunctional.

To your last points:

• They are not unique or rare in this practice.
• Therefore something is missing from the GNS model.

It is fully admitted by Edwards that "GNS is the central concept of my theorizing about role-playing ... However, it is not sufficient, and the three modes themselves do not address any and all points about role-playing."

He speaks specifically about the social aspects of role-playing here. Your argument that this is not included in the GNS model has already been agreed to.

I think you mean this to prove that the GNS model is flawed,

I don't think it proves that. A lot of effort has gone to prove that the GNS model is flawed in some way,

and I think they all miss a few points:


• The GNS model is a way to model games. It is not the way.
• If a game cannot be categorized in the GNS model, it is considered flawed according to the model. That does not mean that it is flawed, but that it does not fulfill a goal in GNS.
• Arguing with defined terms in a model, is, to be blunt, moronic. The terms are defined in the context of that particular model. If you define them differently, you are speaking outside that context.

I don't think this proves the GNS model is flawed because, as I stated in the beginning, these players do not have the goal of role-playing.

Their goal seems to be purely social,

As GNS tries to model role-playing behaviors, and not social behaviors, it cannot be validly used to characterize this activity.

---

With all that said, I have an aside. No one will have a civil argument with you, Fang, if you do not return civility.

Hey Fang,

I am rather fond of GNS, but as Gordon mentions in another recent thread, it fails as a ‘theory of everything’ (yet most ‘fans’ fall back to using it that way, at least unconsciously).

Can you blame the theory for this? Somehow I think it's a human tendency to over-extend the significance of any theory. Have you ever had that 2:30 a.m. conversation with a drunken college student, the one where he tells you the freshman psych solution to inner city crime? Take a look at university press journals or the collected papers of student conferences and you'll see a zillion examples. "Objectivism in the Novels of Charles Dickens." That kind of crap.

Is it the fault of the theory that enthusiastic fans generalize it beyond its intended context?

Paul

On 2001-12-07 14:34, Le Joueur wrote:
I like [the GNS model] so much I want it to be better. I want it to include more. I want the terms used in it to be intuitive to newcomers. I want it to be capable of being used pro-actively (not just to analyze problems).

Clinton R Nixon wrote:

Fang wrote:

I like [the GNS model] so much I want it to be better. I want it to include more. I want the terms used in it to be intuitive to newcomers. I want it to be capable of being used pro-actively (not just to analyze problems).

First, let me say I agree with most of your post, specifically the point that the behavior examined does not fit in the GNS model. I think I said that plenty above.

Here's my take on the rest: I don't think GNS is the end-all categorization of role-playing games and their associated behaviors. I think that is such a diverse subject that there's no real way to encompass it all in one model.

I think this is where we disagree (and I where I disagree with a lot of people on GNS): it's a model solely to examine the three major goals of role-playing game system design. It's not supposed to be used to examine every aspect of role-playing.

If you want to suggest a model to examine personal reasons for role-playing, and the social behaviors that result, I'm all for that.

To touch on your other points:

Cartoon-style role-playing games - well, it depends. I'm not going to make a guess here, because I haven't played any.

I would suggest:


• If the system tries to make things work according to "cartoon logic," that's a Simulationist trait.
• If the system uses techniques to evoke humor, that sounds like a Narrativist trait.
• If the players are dropping rules in order to make the play more to their tastes (as in Jesse's example), it sounds like straight-up drift. It sounds like the game does not fulfill its intended purpose, or at least the goals of the players.

As far as an 'Alternatives to GNS' forum: I'd recommend taking it up in RPG Theory. I'd love to see a thread about models for the social aspect of role-playing. If there's enough interest in a thread, I'll expand it into an entire forum.