"The term 'GNS' is moronic and annoying" – well this should be an interesting interview

[hawkeyefan]

i think it’s important to distinguish between the whole game is like this and this moment in the game is like this. I’m very much arguing for the later. Nor do I think the example I’m using is evidence of the former.

I think there may be a case for the former, but that’s a very different discussion. And it likely opens the door to just as unflattering comparisons about non-narrativist RPGs, so probably not worth going there.

But then what game doesn't include collaboration of some sort?

I think writers' room implies a level of collaboration that is simply not present in most RPGs because they're games and many outcomes are left to some sort of chance.

 

[FrogReaver]

You missed the point of making the analogy. The point was that you can't retroactively reinterpret things as something else, and thats in response to the specific idea that what RPG rules are for is introducing the unwelcome. That isn't true and arbitrarily reinterprets (more accurately, disregards) why RPGs were designed the way they were.

A rose by any other name is still a rose. I don’t think rpg designers way back when had any clue what welcoming the unwelcome was, but you can still see elements of it in their games. One reason i suppose is that games at their fundamental level (at least most games) are all about welcoming the unwelcome to some degree. To win one must risk losing after all.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I’m having trouble following the logic in this discussion. The quote @pemerton posted was Baker’s saying why he thinks RPGs have rules — that as far as he was concerned, they served this particular function relating to the unwelcome and unwanted. Maybe he’s right, or maybe he’s not, or maybe it’s only applicable sometimes; but isn’t that how ideas develop? Everything isn’t known from the beginning, so it has to be figured out some way eventually.

I think it's a relevant idea in that it's what the system is meant to do in many games. Allow some unwanted result, without there being anyone to "blame" for it. It's similar to the idea of disclaiming decision making. Let the system say what happens.

This is what keeps it from the kind of complete collaboration that I think is implied by the "writers' room" label.

 

[kenada]

I think it's a relevant idea in that it's what the system is meant to do in many games. Allow some unwanted result, without there being anyone to "blame" for it. It's similar to the idea of disclaiming decision making. Let the system say what happens.

This is what keeps it from the kind of complete collaboration that I think is implied by the "writers' room" label.

I think it makes sense for the kind of conflict Baker was incorporating in the games he was developing at the time, but it’s possible his thinking has evolved. He posted an article a couple of days ago about conflict and task resolution that went on to discuss other types of resolution (that are neither). I don’t think the ideas in that article invalidate or negatively affect what he did in Apocalypse World. It’s just something new and different to consider.

 

[FrogReaver]

But then what game doesn't include collaboration of some sort?

Right! I’m suggesting the specific act of collaborating by brainstorming ideas for consequences of a move goes beyond the basic collaboration needed to simply play an rpg.

I think writers' room implies a level of collaboration that is simply not present in most RPGs

I agree. I think we disagree on where that line is but that’s okay.

I think what we can agree on is that all RPGs are collaborative (the improv game aspect certainly is). I think we can also agree that some RPGs place meta conversation style collaboration over certain elements that others do not. And also the frequency this comes up is important.

And really it’s these ideas moreso than the semantics of the phrase writers room that really matter.

because they're games and many outcomes are left to some sort of chance.

its not clear to me why you suggest mere chance negates writers room. If the writers in the room came up with versions and then flipped a coin for which to go with, I wouldn’t consider that any less of a writers room.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is what keeps it from the kind of complete collaboration that I think is implied by the "writers' room" label.

if what you mean by writers room is complete Freeform collaboration on most all the narrative then I think everyone agrees that’s not happening.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Its weird when you say you disagree with me and then when you elaborate you basically agree with me.

On constraints - structure on improv generates the constraints you speak of. Without that structure there are no constraints.

The purpose of that structure on improv (or constraints as you call it) isnt just to produce unwelcome truths, though they can certainly be used for that as well. They are to propel the improv in particular directions.

'propel' how? 'in particular directions' is the kind of statement that makes me a bit nervous. Like, Stonetop for instance, provides certain elements which we can USE in order to construct elements of narrative that go in various directions, but it isn't PUSHING in any one direction. Whether Yorath acts like a sneaky scumbag, a stuck up smartass, or a pious fool, none of that is pushed for by the game or its mechanics. The mechanics and process of the game are a lot more like a steep hill that things are bound to roll down, but where they end up? that's kind of anyone's guess. Now, maybe there's other interpretations of 'propel in particular directions' that I'm not thinking of.

 

[thefutilist]

Right! I’m suggesting the specific act of collaborating by brainstorming ideas for consequences of a move goes beyond the basic collaboration needed to simply play an rpg.

I agree. If I was playing a game where you could ask for suggestions, I’d suggest to the group we either disallow it or hack it out. I’m pretty picky about this kind of stuff, even if it isn’t break the game egregious. I’ve also only adopted this view in the past few months but I'm finding it makes everything better.

 

[FrogReaver]

'propel' how? 'in particular directions' is the kind of statement that makes me a bit nervous. Like, Stonetop for instance, provides certain elements which we can USE in order to construct elements of narrative that go in various directions, but it isn't PUSHING in any one direction.

I don’t know stonetop so pardon me for not commenting on it.

Whether Yorath acts like a sneaky scumbag, a stuck up smartass, or a pious fool, none of that is pushed for by the game or its mechanics. The mechanics and process of the game are a lot more like a steep hill that things are bound to roll down, but where they end up? that's kind of anyone's guess. Now, maybe there's other interpretations of 'propel in particular directions' that I'm not thinking of.

As an example. Setup to roll downhill would be propelling things in a downhill direction.

 

[niklinna]

I think it's a relevant idea in that it's what the system is meant to do in many games. Allow some unwanted result, without there being anyone to "blame" for it. It's similar to the idea of disclaiming decision making. Let the system say what happens.

This is what keeps it from the kind of complete collaboration that I think is implied by the "writers' room" label.

I was going to comment on your earlier post but I'll do it here. It's all collaborative in Story Now, with system say, in that participants can propose things that are attempted, or even that happen in the moment. Further, it's collaborative in that the participants agreed in advance to abide by what the dice say about outcomes (or whatever mechanic introduces the potentially surprising and unwelcome).

But that is not writers' room. In writers' room, the writers propose ideas about outcomes and future events, which become established by everyone agreeing to the ideas in and of themselves. And even then it's subject to change, because they are constructing a story as an object to be published/broadcast, not revealing and unfolding a story through play. Scripts have draft revisions; roleplaying game sessions typically do not (barring the occaisional minor retcon due to a screwup or misunderstanding).

Someone in a writers' room may well propose something surprising and unwelcome (even to themselves), but whether it becomes established is still dependent on everyone approving, which often in those cases means discussing and arguing and politicking for their favored outcomes. With game mechanisms that have been agreed to in advance, those mechanisms have final say. Even if participants in a game negotiate the possible outcomes of a dice roll in advance, that is not writers' room, because it's the dice that say how things shake out, and nobody gets to say what happens well down the road.