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

[Thomas Shey]

I took @AbdulAlhazred to be making the point that,

I was referring to Umbran.

 

[Emberashh]

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.

Also has to be noted that the idea that the purpose of rules is to introduce unwelcome things is basically taking the actual historical point, throwing it in the garbage, and making a new purpose to be retroactively applied to games that weren't designed like that.

If that kind of logic was applied to lawmaking, it'd be an egregious human rights violation, to be clear.

Besides that, it is very assumptive of what players would be willing to do under freeform improv. Its by no means a universal truth that they'd never do something like letting their character die or whatever, unless one internalizes the cynicism that TTRPG players are generally entitled OC types.

And, most critically, we have to take that statement with the context of what Baker went on to create and what he's literally saying game rules should do.

I've been pretty adamant in my assessment of those games causing blocking and it, in turn, pretty much ruining the experience. By this statement, that is clearly intentional.

I've also exhaustively talked about how these games are fundamentally very similar to a GM railroad for the same reasons.

If a specific fiction must be produced, and what you can even say must be compelled, you are being railroaded.

In arguments past, I've also talked about the inability to just play in these games; I can't play without there being a story told. This is, again, clearly intentional.

The fiction must happen.

 

[FrogReaver]

Also has to be noted that the idea that the purpose of rules is to introduce unwelcome things is basically taking the actual historical point, throwing it in the garbage, and making a new purpose to be retroactively applied to games that weren't designed like that.

I can see introducing the unwelcome being applicable to early d&d combat and dungeon/world design as well. Except it’s just as much about introducing the exceptionally welcome as the unwelcome. So I don’t quite agree that it wasn’t present early on, but at this point it’s basically just an ideal that really good and really bad things shouldn’t just happen, there should be some structure/process to get there.

If that kind of logic was applied to lawmaking, it'd be an egregious human rights violation, to be clear.

I find this part pointlessly inflammatory.

Besides that, it is very assumptive of what players would be willing to do under freeform improv. It’s by no means a universal truth that they'd never do something like letting their character die or whatever, unless one internalizes the cynicism that TTRPG players are generally entitled OC types.

I find most players in my 5e games quite willing to put their characters on the line. Even intentionally sacrificing them at times for story reasons, such as buying time/etc.

And, most critically, we have to take that statement with the context of what Baker went on to create and what he's literally saying game rules should do.

I've been pretty adamant in my assessment of those games causing blocking and it, in turn, pretty much ruining the experience. By this statement, that is clearly intentional.

Presumably there’s a difference in system blocking and the DM blocking. Yet, in the systems in question the DM has wide latitude in determining consequences when the system says there should be one. So much latitude and consequences coming up so regularly that I’d argue the GM can force just about anything he wants to eventually happen.

I've also exhaustively talked about how these games are fundamentally very similar to a GM railroad for the same reasons.

I think they can be, though principles in some games could be argued to solve this potential issue. D&D doesn’t mention any such principles, but most ‘good’ DMing styles have their own implicit principles that prevent this.

If a specific fiction must be produced, and what you can even say must be compelled, you are being railroaded.

I don’t agree here either. The games in question don’t have specific fiction that must be produced, and what you can say isn’t compelled, albeit both have restrictions, then that isn’t a railroad.

In arguments past, I've also talked about the inability to just play in these games; I can't play without there being a story told. This is, again, clearly intentional.

The fiction must happen.

Some fiction must happen. That doesn’t mean this particular fiction must happen.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Exactly, there is NO detectable incentive operating on RPG designers to make games that are more objectively realistic. In fact I would say the trend in such peaked somewhere in the early to mid 1980s with some FGU games (which were always very crunchy and seemed to be aimed a bit in that direction). Aftermath always struck me as pretty close to the hardest attempt at a game that was seriously realistic but also moderately playable (it is a bit overly complex for my tastes, but it is inarguably playable enough to appeal to an audience). That trend seems to have largely exhausted itself since then. You find games at various levels of realism, but I've yet to see any sort of building on techniques of realistic and playable to get closer to that goal. It seems more like simply variance that you would expect if realism beyond some rather limited point was not actually important.

 

[FrogReaver]

Exactly, there is NO detectable incentive operating on RPG designers to make games that are more objectively realistic. In fact I would say the trend in such peaked somewhere in the early to mid 1980s with some FGU games (which were always very crunchy and seemed to be aimed a bit in that direction). Aftermath always struck me as pretty close to the hardest attempt at a game that was seriously realistic but also moderately playable (it is a bit overly complex for my tastes, but it is inarguably playable enough to appeal to an audience). That trend seems to have largely exhausted itself since then. You find games at various levels of realism, but I've yet to see any sort of building on techniques of realistic and playable to get closer to that goal. It seems more like simply variance that you would expect if realism beyond some rather limited point was not actually important.

I don’t think that’s the takeaway.

One might say that realism (or at least genre realism) and playability are often in opposition.

If you were to invent a hyper-realistic game that was as playable as the most playable and currently less realistic ones, then I think you’d find people generally flock to that.

Such a game doesn’t currently exist and I doubt it ever can. So what we can glean is that on a practical level people prefer some combination of realism and playability over maximizing either. But that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t prefer more realism if it could be added with no impact on playability.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

Well, you know my position is that "the idea of writers' room" in Blades in the Dark isn't remotely legitimate. Its about as illegitimate a position as one I've seen because the key feature that makes up the formulation just isn't there (its entirely the opposite). And this gets to why I end up writing such long posts that are always overburdened with parentheticals for elaboration and context. Because I don't want these kinds of takeaways to happen.

You've read what I've written on this subject so many times. I don't know how your takeaway is that I'm drawing a distinction that supports the position that writers' room is a dynamic that exists in a game like Blades in the Dark.

Let me do that elaborating that I didn't do in the above post.

Obliging means both (a) frequency of obliging, (b) magnitude of obliging, and, (c) most essentially, the type of obliging is around ensuring exactly the sort of unwanted and unwelcome outcomes (that Baker speaks about at the bottom) don't materialize in play.

This is not the sort of obliging that Devil's Bargains do.

This is not the sort of obliging that "ask questions and use the answers" does.

This is not the sort of obliging that "follow the players' lead" does.

This is not the sort of obliging that "keep the metachannel open" does.

This is not the sort of obliging that "don't block" does.

This is not the sort of obliging that "play goal-forward" does.

This is not the sort of obliging that "put it on a card (eg make everything transparent and table-facing)" does.

---

I get it that long-tenured, Traditional TTRPG players who have a certain sort of immersionist priorities are uncomfortable with (a) this sort of game engine transparency, (b) this sort of metachannel employment, and (c) the kind of systemitized player authority that allows them to generate seminal content which play centers around/pivots on. But all of these things grant zero immunity to unwanted and unwelcome outcomes persistently haunting PCs/Crew and consistently cascading to new situation/game-states (I mean, the term "a game of spinning plates" and many players' laments that the game just overwhelms them with duress is frequent precisely because of this). That is the kill-shot for writers' room dynamics. Frequency and magnitude of player input (and the medium by which it happens - via open metachannel) are irrelevant to a formulation of writers' room when the type of obliging of immunity to unwanted and unwelcome outcomes is absolutely vetoed (and again, in fact, its routinely complained about how overwhelming the frequency and magnitude of unwanted and unwelcome materializes in the course of Blades in the Dark play).

So all we're left with is long-tenured, Traditional TTRPGers with a certain sort of immersionist priorities are uncomfortable with a certain frequency (quite often) and magnitude (play-centering) of player input and a particular medium (meta-channel) by which that player input is offered. These things are all necessary for writer's room, but not remotely sufficient (because exempt from it is the type of outcome immunity above). Writers' rooms shepherd their stories through to conclusions, beholden to no extra-social duress upon or foiling of their designs (such as the kind of "system's say" that Blades in the Dark possessess which constantly generates the unwanted and unwelcome). That feature is absolutely paramount for the dynamic of writers' rooms.

 

[Umbran]

... when clear and obvious differences that I have experienced...

"Clear and obvious," is often not clear and obvious to others.

Accepting that, in fact, thoughtful, rational people can live through similar (or even exactly the same) events, but come away with different impressions, and that none of them are necessarily wrong about their impressions, is key to coming to understanding.

Fighting over who is "right", however, will generally get in the way of that understanding.

 

[Emberashh]

I can see introducing the unwelcome being applicable to early d&d combat and dungeon/world design as well. Except it’s just as much about introducing the exceptionally welcome as the unwelcome.

No, it really wasn't. The point of those rules is what they say on the tin. Nothing more.

This is why I'm saying this is all retroactive reinterpretation.

I find this part pointlessly inflammatory.

But it does illustrate the problem with the logic. Retroactive reinterpretation isn't a v3ru kosher way of thinking and shouldn't be put in practice. And especially not to make declarative statements like what was in question.

Presumably there’s a difference in system blocking and the DM blocking. Yet, in the systems in question the DM has wide latitude in determining consequences when the system says there should be one. So much latitude and consequences coming up so regularly that I’d argue the GM can force just about anything he wants to eventually happen.

Blocking is blocking. And what you point out is a consequence of designing while unconscious to underlying improv game; neither the players nor the Rules have any built in way to interact in a feedback loop with what the DM can introduce.

That doesn't mean the solution is to overcorrect and collapse the role into basically nothing, but it does mean you need to address how that DM plays. OSR games do this well by philosophy, and speaking for myself I'm hoping to do it by just being explicit about improv.

I don’t agree here either. The games in question don’t have specific fiction that must be produced, and what you can say isn’t compelled, albeit both have restrictions, then that isn’t a railroad.

That's in reference to another poster talking about PBTA et al; I of course agree DND isn't like that. But as the other poster said, that is what PBTA is like.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, you know my position is that "the idea of writers' room" in Blades in the Dark isn't remotely legitimate. Its about as illegitimate a position as one I've seen because the key feature that makes up the formulation just isn't there (its entirely the opposite). And this gets to why I end up writing such long posts that are always overburdened with parentheticals for elaboration and context. Because I don't want these kinds of takeaways to happen.

You've read what I've written on this subject so many times. I don't know how your takeaway is that I'm drawing a distinction that supports the position that writers' room is a dynamic that exists in a game like Blades in the Dark.

Let me do that elaborating that I didn't do in the above post.

Obliging means both (a) frequency of obliging, (b) magnitude of obliging, and, (c) most essentially, the type of obliging is around ensuring exactly the sort of unwanted and unwelcome outcomes (that Baker speaks about at the bottom) don't materialize in play.

This is not the sort of obliging that Devil's Bargains do.

This is not the sort of obliging that "ask questions and use the answers" does.

This is not the sort of obliging that "follow the players' lead" does.

This is not the sort of obliging that "keep the metachannel open" does.

This is not the sort of obliging that "don't block" does.

This is not the sort of obliging that "play goal-forward" does.

This is not the sort of obliging that "put it on a card (eg make everything transparent and table-facing)" does.

---

I get it that long-tenured, Traditional TTRPG players who have a certain sort of immersionist priorities are uncomfortable with (a) this sort of game engine transparency, (b) this sort of metachannel employment, and (c) the kind of systemitized player authority that allows them to generate seminal content which play centers around/pivots on. But all of these things grant zero immunity to unwanted and unwelcome outcomes persistently haunting PCs/Crew and consistently cascading to new situation/game-states (I mean, the term "a game of spinning plates" and many players' laments that the game just overwhelms them with duress is frequent precisely because of this). That is the kill-shot for writers' room dynamics. Frequency and magnitude of player input (and the medium by which it happens - via open metachannel) are irrelevant to a formulation of writers' room when the type of obliging of immunity to unwanted and unwelcome outcomes is absolutely vetoed (and again, in fact, its routinely complained about how overwhelming the frequency and magnitude of unwanted and unwelcome materializes in the course of Blades in the Dark play).

So all we're left with is long-tenured, Traditional TTRPGers with a certain sort of immersionist priorities are uncomfortable with a certain frequency (quite often) and magnitude (play-centering) of player input and a particular medium (meta-channel) by which that player input is offered. These things are all necessary for writer's room, but not remotely sufficient (because exempt from it is the type of outcome immunity above). Writers' rooms shepherd their stories through to conclusions, beholden to no extra-social duress upon or foiling of their designs (such as the kind of "system's say" that Blades in the Dark possessess which constantly generates the unwanted and unwelcome). That feature is absolutely paramount for the dynamic of writers' rooms.

You are imagining a much more grandiose writers room than I. Take some BitD move that rolled a consequence, BitD specifically says to get ideas from your players if you struggle to think of a consequence as they often have better ideas than you (I don’t think I need to cite the page to you?).

That collaboration on deciding what happens next in the fiction is ‘writers room’. All the rest of your ‘requirements for writers room’ arent necessary and isn’t what anyone using the term actually means.

*Now I actually think BitD advice on going to the players when being stuck on deciding the consequence is good advice as long as it’s used sparingly.

Other than the different definition of writers room you use - I don’t see how this should be a contentious observation at all. It flows almost directly from your comment:

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

You agree that negotiation and collaboration can play very much like writers room.

You agree BitD encourages collaboration at specific moments in determining the fiction. Right?

So why the pushback on calling those moments ‘writers room’?

 

[Emberashh]

So why the pushback on calling those moments ‘writers room’?

Its pejorative connotations.