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

[FrogReaver]

'System doesn't matter but the games you like are vastly inferior for mechanical reasons'.

Depends on the context for whether system matters. I know…. nuance is such a tough BBEG.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You mean like happens to me when I share my lived experiences with other games, where others are dismissive of my lived experience when my lived experience doesn’t match theirs or their theories?

I think there's often pushback. Look, all of this has a subjective element of interpretation. There are facts, like play A said X and consequently Y was established. I'd say there are differences of that sort between playing 5e in a typical fashion and playing AW by the book. I am entirely sure there's people playing 5e a bunch more like we play AW etc. than typical. We would all probably have to play together or something to establish exactly where everyone is at.

But there's been plenty of categorical denial of even the existence of Narrativist Story Now play, even in this thread to a degree.

 

[pemerton]

You mean like happens to me when I share my lived experiences with other games, where others are dismissive of my lived experience when my lived experience doesn’t match theirs or their theories?

Huh?

Playing your character and the dm playing the others is collaborative storytelling, but it’s not just that. One can collaboratively storytell without any roleplaying at all.

Resolution mechanics just add some structure to that improv - roleplaying - collaborative storytelling that’s occurring.

I don't agree with this, for the reasons that Vincent Baker has given:

if all your formal rules do is structure your group's ongoing agreement about what happens in the game, they are a) interchangeable with any other rpg rules out there, and b) probably a waste of your attention. Live negotiation and honest collaboration are almost certainly better. . . .

As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of an rpg's rules is to create the unwelcome and the unwanted in the game's fiction. The reason to play by rules is because you want the unwelcome and the unwanted - you want things that no vigorous creative agreement would ever create.​

In other words, rules (including resolution mechanics) don't just structure the "improv". They generate constraints on what can, or must, be said that produce fiction that no one would get to simply via improv.

To give one very simple example: in many RPGs, including D&D, a character can die even though no one at the table wants that outcome as part of their shared fiction.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Are you talking trends and popularity in design? Do not care about that.

I suspect he's talking about what the mass of players/GMs care about. That isn't necessarily a trend so much as recognition of what people have generally indicated they want for a very long time. You don't have to share their wants, but you have to live in the ecosystem they produce, none the less.

 

[Thomas Shey]

As a lived experience they're quite distinct, and when clear and obvious differences that I have experienced, like the nature of player authority in different styles of play, are described as being irrelevant, non-existent, or trivial, then I know as an observed fact that said description is fatally flawed, right?

When said description seems trivial to them and critical to you, there's not much of anywhere to go with that; the fact the two of you see it differently is not going to change just because of the other one, and its not particularly likely that trying to explain why you each see it that way will change the other, either. Mostly only time and exposure will do it, if anything.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I’d suggest what’s actually happening is they are asserting the difference to be in a different place - not that there isn’t a big difference

Okay… then what are the differences?

You mean like happens to me when I share my lived experiences with other games, where others are dismissive of my lived experience when my lived experience doesn’t match theirs or their theories?

I don’t think that’s what happens. When you’ve shared details about games you’ve played beyond D&D, folks tend to push back a bit because the description isn’t always complete, or the account is a bit unclear, so clarifying questions are needed.

The worst I’ve seen in response is that people draw the conclusion that your group and/or GM is perhaps running the game contrary to the instructions and principles provided in the text.

I can’t say for certain that’s always the case but absent more specific details, that’s generally what I’ve seen.

 

[pemerton]

I feel like there's a fundamental difference between 'have a mechanic' and accurate presentation of realistic outcomes. Like if the later, even accounting for playability, is the goal, won't games tend to build on one another/themselves towards a higher degree of authenticity/accuracy. Yet I don't detect any such trend. It's almost like there's only a nominal bar that you have to exceed beyond which there's no further value at all.

Are you talking trends and popularity in design? Do not care about that.

I suspect he's talking about what the mass of players/GMs care about. That isn't necessarily a trend so much as recognition of what people have generally indicated they want for a very long time. You don't have to share their wants, but you have to live in the ecosystem they produce, none the less.

I took @AbdulAlhazred to be making the point that, if the goal of this sort of design was realistic outcome, then there would be a type of progress or development in design somewhat comparable to what one sees in the development of scientific models and solutions to problems.

But there is no such trend. RM does it one way, RQ does it another way, Burning Wheel does it yet another way.

 

[FrogReaver]

In other words, rules (including resolution mechanics) don't just structure the "improv". They generate constraints on what can, or must, be said that produce fiction that no one would get to simply via improv.

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.

 

[Manbearcat]

Huh?

I don't agree with this, for the reasons that Vincent Baker has given:

if all your formal rules do is structure your group's ongoing agreement about what happens in the game, they are a) interchangeable with any other rpg rules out there, and b) probably a waste of your attention. Live negotiation and honest collaboration are almost certainly better. . . .​

The above might look and play very much like a writers' room, pending how obliging the "live negotiation and honest collaboration" are.

As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of an rpg's rules is to create the unwelcome and the unwanted in the game's fiction. The reason to play by rules is because you want the unwelcome and the unwanted - you want things that no vigorous creative agreement would ever create.​

In other words, rules (including resolution mechanics) don't just structure the "improv". They generate constraints on what can, or must, be said that produce fiction that no one would get to simply via improv.

To give one very simple example: in many RPGs, including D&D, a character can die even though no one at the table wants that outcome as part of their shared fiction.

Now the upshot of this here above; the purposeful introduction and attendant dynamic-altering of the unwelcome and the unwanted upon play via "system's say?" Kryptonite for both the look and feel of writers' room play.

Which, of course, is the point of it!

Now what are the odds this does any work in dispelling the absurd notion that this sort of play is writers' room in dynamic?

Edwards himself finally settled matters when he played 4e and declared that it clearly embeds a Narrativism orientation in its game engine. Zero units moved. Baker here lays out exactly how games (such as his Dogs in the Vineyard and Apocalypse World among plenty of others) are intentfully designed to foil writers' room dynamics. I'm going to go out on a limb and project zero units moved!

 

[FrogReaver]

The above might look and play very much like a writers' room, pending how obliging the "live negotiation and honest collaboration" are.

I think you draw out a good distinction here.

Games like Blades in the Dark give that kind of advice explicitly. I think it goes a long way in showing where the idea of writers room legitimately comes from.

That said that’s not the only place it’s applied. The other application is more contentious I think.