The Forge Archives

Just wanted to add some points of clarification. As Mike says (and a lot of other people for that matter,) social issues and ground rules for acceptable social behavior is important stuff for having a good game. This is a non controversial point. So, in that, I agree with what has been formally termed around here as The Social Contract™, or as the first half of TSC.
From there it gets sticky in my mind, because now that we've agreed that we're going to act nicely to each other, say please and thank you, and all of that 'stuff', we have to agree on what kind of game to play, and the logistics of said game.
After having read a pile of GNS articles over the past few months, I find myself comparing the advice given with my own experience w/ my troupe. According to GNS, some of the greatest gaming experiences I've had should not have been.
Let's break it down to specifics:
In one particularly great game, we had three very strongly 'aligned' (for lack of a better term) personalities. One, a gamist, the other, a simulationist, and the last (me) a narrativist. I ran the game, and based on an informal vote, we picked WWtA, using the genero setting straight from the books. Other than questions such as 'What tribe are you going to be? What city are we basing the campaign out of? And other general character creation questions, we did not discuss what 'type' of game was going to be run. Just so happened that the three of us were great pals who had very firm social interactions outside of gaming.
Now, I knew that my gamist player really liked the idea of winning, whether that be saving the day from the bad guy through a series of events, or achieving minor goals, or whatever. By 'winning' scenarios, this player feels rewarded and entertained.
My simulationist player, by contrast is a by the book sort of fellow. He likes published metaplot, he likes linear, straight forward play. He likes to know where the campaign is going at all times. This is fun to him.
I, in contrast to them both, have an 'anything goes' attitude. The story is where it's at for me, and if the story will be made better by taking unconventional actions, that's not only ok w/ me, I prefer it.
Obviously, because we had never heard of GNS, we did not apply any of its principles. According to what I have read in these forums, that campaign should have been a trainwreck. There were no surveys, no data collected, no discussion of what was going to happen other than 'Hey, we're playing Werewolf tonight!'
If you add in Robin's Laws designations to the mix, we were further diversified as a group. The only thing we had in common was friendship, and a desire to play.
Using GNS designations, the campaign swung wildly from one spectrum to the other, frequently mid-session as I, being the storyteller, purposefully provided aspects of each category to satisfy each player, myself included.
Now, the argument here is that someone had to give up game time for something they liked in order for someone else to get something they liked. THIS IS TRUE!
The other argument is that if I had said ahead of time, 'This is a narrativist campaign, and I only want players who will play *this* game *this* way according to *these* rules' that the campaign would have been even more fun. This is patently false.
Why? And here's where GNS starts to disintegrate for me.
By saying that someone had to give up aspects of what kind of game was their particular favorite, everyone assumes that this will automatically cause friction. In fact, I've read account after account that this sort of friction drives groups apart. It's this friction, caused from not feeling satisfied/entertained/ rewarded/ whatever by *not* getting to play a certain way, or in an expected way that causes problems (according to the GNS theorists that I've read here.) Furthermore, players act out against a game that is not in their GNS preference, causing strife in the Social Contract. In other words, the game goes bloohey.

This was not my experience. The game went great, phenomenally so, in fact. According to GNS, it should not have. (Yes, I know that GNS says that no elements are mutually exclusive in a game, and that they can blend.) However, and here's the caveat, GNS specifically states that one element must be primary, and must be the agreed upon preference of the players prior to play in order for no friction to occur. Correct me on this if I am wrong here, btw.
Now, I look at that restriction and think if I had tried to impose that sort of Social Contract on my players, that we would have missed out on a great game. I also think of how micro managing my players and the game itself that way would have dimmed the enthusiasm for that game. Hell, I can see it happen now when I try to discuss GNS stuff with my players (with one exception.)
Why did the game work? I return to my original point, which is that the social trumped everything else. My players respected my preferences, and I respected theirs. This is what I visualize of when I think of the first part of The Social Contract. The players gave me the latitude to run wild sometimes, and I gave them the various things they wanted. We all got what we wanted in the end and did not feel cheated in any way because we focused more heavily on what drew us together to begin with, rather than focusing on our individual differences.
So how do you put a formula on that? Good damn question, and I'm still not sure of the value of attempting to. Perhaps the simple answer is that flexibility is the key ingredient in making a game successful. Add in a dash of mutual respect, and willingness to let minor issues ride, and something golden can happen. Granted, each player has to be open to that possibility.
I am open to constructive comments about this line of thought.
Warm Regards,
Lisa

Lisa, I get the impression that you think your group hasn't formed a social contract because you haven't agreed on a single style of play. In fact, you've agreed via implicit contract to have a game that varies style of play to accommodate the needs of all players. This is not only fine, it's peachy!

I don't recall anything in GNS theory saying that you have to play a single style to have fun.  I think it is a tautology that a group comprised of players with different styles can't all have the play style the want at the same time. Yes, players will have to give up spotlight time or play a style they do not prefer to let the others have fun. With many groups, this is not a problem.

Indeed, in my own group, the role-playing-heavy players were happy to forgo that kind of personal interaction to let the role-playing-light players to have their fun pushing the buttons on their character sheets to cast spells and kill monsters, even if it did little to advance a story.  It was the latter group that failed to be flexible, however, and this is what caused a group rift.

I don't think having diverse groups necessarily drives groups apart, but it does make it more challenging to keep them together. You're obviously doing a great job of juggling spotlight time to satisfy the varied styles among your players. Great! But even you have to give up doing exactly what you want to do part of the time, if you prefer the fast and loose "whatever makes a good story" style of play, you're stuck catering to other styles and you have to cater to other styles two-thirds of the time.

Maybe that's fine. I certainly enjoy running a very gamist-sim game for one group and a very narrativist game for the other group. I like both styles in different ways. I don't enjoy arguing though, and I don't like seeing half my group sitting there bored, so it's a good thing we split the group.

The above two posts were split from Play contract "checklist"?, as I think it's a distinct topic.

Carry on!

Best,
Ron

Howdy Lisa,

You've got all kinds of interesting stuff to say, and it sounds like your group has figured out a fantastic way of working together despite what GNS might term differing priorities. Before anything else, I think it's important to note that Ron makes a pretty explicit statement that if your group is already working and your having fun, then GNS isn't for you. Admittedly I think it has value as a platform for discussion about games whether you're functional or not, but it's application is of most worth in games and within groups that need help. The easiest response though, is that GNS isn't for you.

Now that said, I'm sort of curious on some of the statements you make at the end of your post. Namely:

QuoteI also think of how micro managing my players and the game itself that way would have dimmed the enthusiasm for that game. Hell, I can see it happen now when I try to discuss GNS stuff with my players (with one exception.)

Can you go into a little more detail on this? In my experience being able to have a common lexicon to discuss from, as well as a clearer picture of mine and my player's priorities have lead to much less in the way of micro managing. I'm wondering if maybe I'm not getting what you mean by that term.

-Tim

>>Howdy Lisa,

Heya, Tim.

>>Now that said, I'm sort of curious on some of the statements you make at the end of your post. Namely:

I also think of how micro managing my players and the game itself that way would have dimmed the enthusiasm for that game. Hell, I can see it happen now when I try to discuss GNS stuff with my players (with one exception.)

Can you go into a little more detail on this? In my experience being able to have a common lexicon to discuss from, as well as a clearer picture of mine and my player's priorities have lead to much less in the way of micro managing. I'm wondering if maybe I'm not getting what you mean by that term.<<

Perfect example just happened thirty seconds ago. How's that for timely. ;) One of my players and I are getting ready to walk out the door to go shopping. He told me that he'd checked out the other GNS thread, and this one, and his view was, "Why are you even talking about it? It's boring, let's just play."
To which I say, "Why is it boring to you to talk/read about?"
To which he says, "If we know what each other likes, why do we have to catagorize, or even try to catagorize who does what? Who cares."

Good point.

The easy answer is that I don't care about GNS.
The hard is answer is that I care very much about it because this topic is important to another player of mine, and in an effort to make his experience more enjoyable, I have choosen to open constructive dialogue about this topic in attempt to maybe learn something that will make his leisure time more fun. It all comes back to the art of compromise, something that in the other thread was glossed over, and in some cases discouraged. I want my GNS player to have a good time...no, that's wrong, I want him to have a *great* time. So here am I, hashing this stuff out when everyone else in the group could care less.
I'm not saying that to be inflamatory. Nor am I saying that our way is the right way, or the one true way. I merely question how useful GNS really is in a practical setting. It seems to have conflicting messages to me, and this casts it in a negative light in my view.
Blah, I'm going shopping!
:^D

Hey Again,

Quote from: The GMHe told me that he'd checked out the other GNS thread, and this one, and his view was, "Why are you even talking about it? It's boring, let's just play."
To which I say, "Why is it boring to you to talk/read about?"
To which he says, "If we know what each other likes, why do we have to catagorize, or even try to catagorize who does what? Who cares."

Good point.

It's a great point, some people don't. It's totally valid too, and in your case it sounds like things have been going along quite well. Except for this next bit of a hitch, which seems to have some additional stuff built into it.

QuoteThe easy answer is that I don't care about GNS.
The hard is answer is that I care very much about it because this topic is important to another player of mine, and in an effort to make his experience more enjoyable, I have choosen to open constructive dialogue about this topic in attempt to maybe learn something that will make his leisure time more fun.

It's pretty obvious to me by how much effort you seem willing to go to as to why your game has been so successful. Is your GNS guy new to the group? New to GNS? What's his stated preference? How many other players are there?

QuoteIt all comes back to the art of compromise, something that in the other thread was glossed over, and in some cases discouraged. I want my GNS player to have a good time...no, that's wrong, I want him to have a *great* time. So here am I, hashing this stuff out when everyone else in the group could care less.

Well, there are certainly folks on here who would rather cut loose than compromise. There are plenty of others who would vote for compromise and discussion. There's an adage of compromise being the way to ensure both sides are unsatisfied with the result, that I can't recall exactly at the moment. I think that's a bit unfair, but I also think there are times when compromise leads to those feelings. At the end of the day I think that most folks can agree that compromise sucks if you have to give up so much that a game's no longer fun, but that it doesn't have to be that way. Hopefully we'll be able to help you get the info you need to make that call.

QuoteI'm not saying that to be inflamatory. Nor am I saying that our way is the right way, or the one true way. I merely question how useful GNS really is in a practical setting. It seems to have conflicting messages to me, and this casts it in a negative light in my view.

Well, I don't think it's really debatable that GNS has some use in a practical setting. It's certainly been useful in mine. That said, it's certainly possible that you'll come to the conclusion that GNS isn't useful in your setting. I'm curious though on what you see as the conflicting messages? I think a lot of times things are read into it that aren't really there and that tends to create these sort of conflicts.

-Tim

QuoteIt's pretty obvious to me by how much effort you seem willing to go to as to why your game has been so successful. Is your GNS guy new to the group? New to GNS? What's his stated preference? How many other players are there?

The "GNS guy" is yours truly, Tim. Lisa is a long time friend, as are her husband and fellow gamers.

Interestingly, I'm relatively new to the group in terms of gaming. Lisa's husband, Flash, and I have gamed together for years and years. We did so with another group of fellow classmates that stuck together after high  school and college up until last year. For various reasons, that group disintegrated. This, then, opened more opportunity for me to play with Flash & Lisa's own group (mostly classmates of a different college still chumming later on). This has evolved into regularly weekly play since about August of 2002, give or take.

So, yes, comparatively I'm new to the group (I did not participate in the Werewolf chronicle referenced above), but I'm not exactly new in actuality, and certainly not new to the group socially. Gaming-wise, we've been participating in a Riddle of Steel campaign that's progressed for over a year now. I've also run various stop-start games and playtests with the group, and Lisa has run a handful of the same.

I am, I think it's safe to say, not new to GNS, and I have a pretty solid handle on the theory and it's related issues.

My stated preference? I guess I've been very interested in Narrativism for a while, but I very much appreciate all modes. Admittedly, I probably get over-enthused about narrativism, but especially lately I've been appreciating other forms of play -- call it rediscovery, if you will.  

So, while my GNS preferences are many, I do have two key hang-ups:

One: Our group has, I think, the problem that Ron hinted at in another context: "Let's all airy-fairily agree on everything while predicating nothing." That is, we acknowledge vocally, overtly that a game we're going to play will explore this avenue (For example, narrativism, or we discuss things like Directorial stances without calling them by that name).

Here's the interesting bit. Play begins, but actual play does not often occur as it was stated vocally by group assent. Is the actual play broken? For the "old" social group, I think there's little amiss. For relatively new guy me, I'm bummed that the agreement of how the this game would be played is not fulfilled.

Second point: I'm usually very disinterested in participating in illusionist play. Our RoS campaign had some growing pains in this regard, and we've since crafted a wonderful dynamic that very satisfactorily (that is, satisfactorially to me) avoids illusionism.

Oh yes, your last question: The number of players actually fluctuates just a bit. There are generally about five "core" members, another pretty regular member, and the occasional guest player (pretty rare, actually).

This all seems so moot. GNS does not say anywhere that any game in which there are players who have different opinions on how to play that it won't work. Lisa, you've got to get past that point. GNS specifically, and repeatedly says that if you're not having a problem then the theory does not apply. It very much acceeds that GNS problems will not arise in every group where there are conflicts.

So, your anecdotes aren't relevant. I, OTOH, can provide anecdotes of the opposite happening. Which are proof positive that GNS issues can be a problem. Note, "can be", not "must be".

All GNS says is that there are some groups where the problems are great enough that they have to be addressed. And you know what? Nowhere does it say that the only way to address GNS problems is to adjust the style of play. It completely leaves open the option that players can work these things out on the social level sometimes. So nobody is saying that your solution doesn't work. Marco, a frequent poster here advocates exactly the same thing that you do. And nobody disagrees with him that he has a valid solution.

IOW, there's no argument here. Nothing that you've said contradicts what GNS says.

What you'd have to prove to say that GNS is wrong is that adjusting play style is not a method that will ever help, when this sort of problem exists. That everybody's problems can all be solved on the social level. But I posit to you that your anecdotes simply don't represent the sort of situation where GNS would be the right analysis to apply. For you to say that my annecdotes are inadequate to prove the opposite would be to say that I lack the social skill to be able to fix theings as you do. In addition to being insulting, I'd say that, even if true, it misses the fact that then GNS would be the logical recourse.

So, I'm wondering where the conflict is. It seems to me that it's all in your expectation that GNS is something that it's not. Namely the only cure for every problem. GNS is one cure amongst many for a very specific problem that only certain groups have.

So, is everything copacetic now? Or do you still see something that contradicts your experience.

Mike

Hey Matt,

I must admit I feel a bit odd doing GNS commentary about someone who's been around here far longer than I have. I've gotten myself in this far though, so I figure I may as well keep going. Ron and others are pretty good about jumping in when someone's misstating their points. On that note, when you said:

QuotePlay begins, but actual play does not often occur as it was stated vocally by group assent. Is the actual play broken? For the "old" social group, I think there's little amiss. For relatively new guy me, I'm bummed that the agreement of how the this game would be played is not fulfilled.

When you say this, are you referring to what Ron's taken to calling the ephemera, i.e. stance, system, etc. of the game? So, people talk about a lot of director's stance and that doesn't happen? Or are you talking about a more explicit GNS statement? I.e. Let's focus on Step On Up, or Story Now. I wonder if there's some disconnect between what you take from what they're saying and what they actually mean. That for example you're reading a GNS preference where they're expressing ephemera?

QuoteSecond point: I'm usually very disinterested in participating in illusionist play. Our RoS campaign had some growing pains in this regard, and we've since crafted a wonderful dynamic that very satisfactorily (that is, satisfactorially to me) avoids illusionism.

Is this to mean that in general you feel like the group leans towards illusionist play? The fact that you bring it up implies to me that you still see issues on this front somewhat. Am I reading that right? Also, do you feel like there are others that are currently frustrated with how play is going, or are you on your own about it?

-Tim

QuoteI wonder if there's some disconnect between what you take from what they're saying and what they actually mean. That for example you're reading a GNS preference where they're expressing ephemera?

I'm not sure what you mean by ephemera here, Tim. Can you point me to an explanation by Ron, or explain it yourself?

QuoteIs this to mean that in general you feel like the group leans towards illusionist play? The fact that you bring it up implies to me that you still see issues on this front somewhat. Am I reading that right? Also, do you feel like there are others that are currently frustrated with how play is going, or are you on your own about it?

Not quite. Yes, illusionism is an issue. It's strange, because it's as though the group slips into illusionist play for a scene or even a whole session because they don't really consciously, vocally define (and therefore come to terms with) what that means. That is, our group has started two new games in recent weeks (rotating among games), along with ongoing RoS play. Inspired by our RoS play (which incidentally is quite enjoyable on the whole, the group keeps referring to "player driven" play. Basically, this term has become the group lexicon for the counter to illusionism.

But the issue is in getting players to not only say they understand what "player driven" play is, but also to show that they understand it in play -- whether as GM or player. That is, getting everyone to recognize that their choices in play can dramatically affect what's going on in play has been a stuggle, I think. I think the group sometimes waits for cues from the GM, if for no other reason than because that's what's familiar and traditional. In kind, the GMs (myself included!) have done an insufficient job injecting conflicts and compelling scenes.

QuoteI'm not sure what you mean by ephemera here, Tim. Can you point me to an explanation by Ron, or explain it yourself?

I swore I saw him post something using that word, but I can't for the life of me find it now. In any event, what I meant (and correct me if this is not how you use it Ron) by ephemera are all the things that go into the 'how' of playing, but not the 'why.' So, stances, rolling dice, game rules, all of these would be ephemera. My question was mostly trying to figure out if the other players were talking about these sorts of things. By way of example (italics are unspoken):

Narrativist: I really want us to use a lot of director stance. I love director stance as a tool for Story Now.
Gamist: Ok, that's cool, I like that idea What an interesting arena to produce Step on Up!

It's actually why I think GNS is useful, even if just as a common dictionary of terms. There's a lot of chances to sort of miss the mark when talking around the theory because you get all these loaded words that mean different things to different folks.

QuoteBut the issue is in getting players to not only say they understand what "player driven" play is, but also to show that they understand it in play -- whether as GM or player. That is, getting everyone to recognize that their choices in play can dramatically affect what's going on in play has been a stuggle, I think. I think the group sometimes waits for cues from the GM, if for no other reason than because that's what's familiar and traditional. In kind, the GMs (myself included!) have done an insufficient job injecting conflicts and compelling scenes.

I'm actually working with this right now with my group actually. I think when you have a group of folks that are used to playing a certain way it's hard to change that. Even when the group is willing, or even when it's already worked, it's sometimes difficult to replicate. I'm still working on ways to break those boundaries, both for myself and them. To your credit, our Dust Devils game has gone a long way towards helping that.

On the bright side, it sounds like the group is pretty amenable to what you're hoping for, it's just not always meshing. I'm finding that games structured heavily towards a certain play style can help break these barriers. Have you tried DD with them? Or MLwM? Or Trollbabe? All of those force people to reconsider how a GM player relationship works, which seems like where a lot of the default illusionism comes from.

-Tim

Eeeech! The "ephemera" thing is clouding the issue of Lisa and Matt's game. Tim, you're butcherin' it just a little.

Guys, let me get to that topic in my own time. It's not really an issue for this thread.

Thanks,
Ron

Ugh. Well, then there ya go Matt. Ignore my explanation of ephemera. I'm still curious how you answer the point of the question minus the term though.

-Tim

Fair 'nuff, Tim. I'll attempt to answer the question. . . .

I think you're asking about Stance and Techniques, but I could be misreading.

I don't think that what's happening is that I say "Let's do Narrativism, all in favor? Aye. Motion passes" while they hear, "All for Director stance? Aye? Motion passes."

Rather, I think what's happening is we say "Let's have player driven play? Aye. Motion passes." Then, I'm seeing "Cool, Narrativism here we come." Meanwhile others maybe seeing "Ok, so there's not plotline," and maybe not much else. Simply put, they aren't "seeing" stances or techniques, because they aren't thinking of game play in such atomic bits. It's just "play." So, it's hard to change the discrete bits consciously.

Quote from: Matt SnyderRather, I think what's happening is we say "Let's have player driven play? Aye. Motion passes." Then, I'm seeing "Cool, Narrativism here we come." Meanwhile others maybe seeing "Ok, so there's not plotline," and maybe not much else. Simply put, they aren't "seeing" stances or techniques, because they aren't thinking of game play in such atomic bits. It's just "play." So, it's hard to change the discrete bits consciously.

In the game where this is pretty much working for you with this group (i.e. RoS) do you feel like the other folks are playing narrativist? How about you Lisa? Given what you understand about GNS, do you think everyone is playing towards Narrativist in that game?

I'm sort of getting the feeling that the group is just evolving and it's taking a little while for everyone to settle into the new way of play. Maybe there's more resistance to it than I'm seeing, but most of it seems just like some rough intial going.

What am I still missing?

-Tim

-Tim