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

kenada said:

Otherwise, I agree. The state of RPG design is a mess. There are some ideas out there that aren’t bad (e.g., I like a lot of what Baker says because it tends to be focused on design rather than play), but there are few examples of designs done from the ground up (particularly based on these ideas). So many people just take a game and rework it, and I’m not interested in that because if those games did what I want, I wouldn’t be designing my own.

Click to expand...

Is it any messier than publishing?
That's like saying we haven't figured out how to write the best book yet.
What is the audience? What is the genre? Is it a technical manual? What is the language? Should it be a hyperlinked PDF? Should you include interactive components? What about the font, layout, text size, paper quality? Hardback or softcover?
We could ask similar questions about film, music, or any other creative pursuit.
If this guy knew half as much about gaming as he brags, he'd not be calling out games as "bad." Different games for different purposes.

Hm. I'll have to look at this later, depending on how much I can stand. My guess is that I won't be able to stand very much.

The last time I seriously looked at GNS, my takeaway was that "Simulation" was an equivocation. The theory defined unintuitively compared to the plain English meaning of the word (it's basically a branch of narrative), and then later on discussions repeatedly use the plain English meaning. I don't know if it's an intentional choice or what.

However, GNS seems to try to stick a bunch of things into a bag and call it simulation, some elements of which come from the narrative aspects. Then it tries to elevate actual realism and make it equally foundational because simulation. And then justifies it by saying you need a consistent narrative for N and S and that's two-thirds of the game... in spite of the categorization not necessarily being equal divisions. It's a confusion of ideas, but maybe it's my confusion.

I do think well-designed TTRPGs are built to express ludonarrative verisimilitude if you want a $50 term for it. "The game mechanics reinforce the truthiness of the fiction, and the fiction enhances the truthiness of the game mechanics." The introduction of an implicit or explicit feedback loop between the narrative and the mechanics creates the overall game. I think that's basically all that separates a TTRPG from a legacy boardgame or wargame league. (But... also I don't dislike legacy boardgames or wargame leagues!)

Pedantic said:

This is really the thing I'd love to see change. As long kit-bashing is treated as a fundamental part of the hobby, it will always be an anchor on design. It both prevents designers from articulating a strong vision, and lets games with incomplete or weak designs slide.

There's honestly nothing wrong with it in any individual case, but homebrew as a norm is a problem.

Click to expand...

I think kitbashing is fine. The games we play need not be exactly what the game text says. What I’m lamenting is how many games are tweaked from other games, so if you’re looking for examples of applied design, you’re not going to find many. I would like to see more design diversity, especially bigger ones.

Retreater said:

Is it any messier than publishing?
That's like saying we haven't figured out how to write the best book yet.
What is the audience? What is the genre? Is it a technical manual? What is the language? Should it be a hyperlinked PDF? Should you include interactive components? What about the font, layout, text size, paper quality? Hardback or softcover?
We could ask similar questions about film, music, or any other creative pursuit.

Click to expand...

My understanding is it’s way behind the state of the art for other kinds of games, particularly video games. There’s a bunch of ideas out there, but you how to sift through stuff that’s promoting a particular style of play to get to the good stuff, and the number of applied examples is small (e.g., Baker was surprised at how long it took for people to drift away from the core Apocalypse World formula even though a lot of what it does is not strictly necessary in his view to be a PbtA game).

Retreater said:

If this guy knew half as much about gaming as he brags, he'd not be calling out games as "bad." Different games for different purposes.

Click to expand...

I’d need to watch for myself, but I suspect there is some missing context. He discussed some indie and PbtA games in the third video, but his criticisms made sense in context.

Bacon Bits said:

The last time I seriously looked at GNS, my takeaway was that "Simulation" was an equivocation. The theory defined unintuitively compared to the plain English meaning of the word (it's basically a branch of narrative), and then later on discussions repeatedly use the plain English meaning. I don't know if it's an intentional choice or what.

However, GNS seems to try to stick a bunch of things into a bag and call it simulation, some elements of which come from the narrative aspects. Then it tries to elevate actual realism and make it equally foundational because simulation. And then justifies it by saying you need a consistent narrative for N and S and that's two-thirds of the game... in spite of the categorization not necessarily being equal divisions. It's a confusion of ideas, but maybe it's my confusion.

Click to expand...

He talks about it in the third video and also in the comments. His view is that sim is not a creative agenda because it’s fundamental. It can’t be a goal because it’s what you need to have goals. In the comments, he adds that the essay was trying to turn it into a goal, but that was flawed.

Personally, I think it would make sense to look at some of the agendas that were bundled together previously and identify them as their own things. It’s possible they may share some traits, but experiencing things wouldn’t be one because that’s common to all RPG play. In reality, I think it’s unlikely to happen because of hobby politics.

kenada said:

I think kitbashing is fine. The games we play need not be exactly what the game text says. What I’m lamenting is how many games are tweaked from other games, so if you’re looking for examples of applied design, you’re not going to find many. I would like to see more design diversity, especially bigger ones.

Click to expand...

Well, of course the issue there is that sometimes a given system designer just, well, doesn't have any real new ideas (and may well know it); what he's interested in what seems a valid refinement or hybridization of extent concepts.

kenada said:

Otherwise, I agree. The state of RPG design is a mess. There are some ideas out there that aren’t bad (e.g., I like a lot of what Baker says because it tends to be focused on design rather than play), but there are few examples of designs done from the ground up (particularly based on these ideas). So many people just take a game and rework it, and I’m not interested in that because if those games did what I want, I wouldn’t be designing my own.

Click to expand...

We often agree, but let me offer a different perspective. I started in the hobby before the 2nd RPG was printed. We are in a golden age! Many highly skilled, enlightened, and experienced designers produce a cornucopia of games with unprecedented quality and at a great price. Be happy it's not 1975, be very happy.

niklinna said:

Note: This is part 3 of 3. If you're the sort of person who prefers context for things (Ron certainly is), here are parts 1 & 2....

Part 1

Part 2

Click to expand...

Do we have the cliff notes? I'd rather watch the original Star Wars Trilogy if I have that much free time.

Bacon Bits said:

I do think well-designed TTRPGs are built to express ludonarrative verisimilitude if you want a $50 term for it. "The game mechanics reinforce the truthiness of the fiction, and the fiction enhances the truthiness of the game mechanics." The introduction of an implicit or explicit feedback loop between the narrative and the mechanics creates the overall game. I think that's basically all that separates a TTRPG from a legacy boardgame or wargame league. (But... also I don't dislike legacy boardgames or wargame leagues!)

Click to expand...

I think your only experiencing a fraction of the medium then, maybe? Mechanics and process of play can lead to a number of things. I might agree there's an immediacy to narrative in RPGs that is not generally present in other games, certainly not with the same depth. Verisimilitude might not always be the primary goal though.

Pedantic said:

This is really the thing I'd love to see change. As long kit-bashing is treated as a fundamental part of the hobby, it will always be an anchor on design. It both prevents designers from articulating a strong vision, and lets games with incomplete or weak designs slide.

There's honestly nothing wrong with it in any individual case, but homebrew as a norm is a problem.

Click to expand...

I can at least attest to why modularity in general is so common; its actually quite hard to convey how a game works when no single system works independently of the rest of the game.