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

AnotherGuy · May 10, 2024

kenada said:
There are probably a bunch of reasons. People have an idea for a game, they look for something that fits, then adapt that. They like a particular system, come up with an idea, then adapt it to the system.

I long tinkered on D&D through the editions. I decided a few months ago not to keep tinkering and finally designed a new engine. My experience with a variety of games is limited but I drew on that as a basis for the new engine I came up with.

kenada said:
There’s also the economic reality that using an existing system lets you appeal to that system’s audience (especially if it’s 5e), which is not helped by the problems games have onboarding new players.

This is certainly true. Although a lot of what I designed draws from the various editions of 5e (particularly 3e, 4e and 5e), but I've slain the cows of Hit Points, the 6 Abilities, Saving Throws (in a way) as well as the strictures of Class and Levels - and that has to negatively affect the appeal.

kenada said:
Really, though. I just want more new games with new ideas (even if they’re nothing more than a new take on an existing style of play.

That's why I'm watching these videos to get ideas from Edwards, not necessarily because I like how he expresses things (I don't).

Wolfpack48 · May 10, 2024

Emberashh said:
Sure, but my point was that its often that the issue has to do with trying to force a story out of the experience and less with whether or not player agency is being respected. The latter doesn't always mean the former.

Well, that would be a different (possibly additional?) problem at the table if someone wasn't having fun with that. His focus was more on player agency and identity than on forcing a story. I do think that is coming from other quarters as a 'solution.' I think Edwards would say it isn't a good solution based on the scriptwriting remark. Simply playing (where you aren't focused on story or working too hard at story) will ironically create a better (emergent) story. And he also says not too worry too much on whether it's perfect gameplay every time. You get together to have fun, don't worry about whether it's perfect story. That was a good segment. I'll see if I can find it in the video.

EDIT, they go on about "authored" stories, but then they get into the "imperfect" real time play (and that is ok):

Wolfpack48 · May 10, 2024

Thomas Shey said:
The problem is that there can absolutely be a better game for what a group is doing, but if they have a strong tendency to stay with what they're used to, that's likely what will happen.

Right, they go into that a bit:
1. Sunk costs
2. Inertia and cultural resistance ("we've always played it this way")
3. Social/personal control issues

The person who is unhappy would need to realize they are unhappy and be willing to do something about it rather than suffer in silence. There's no helping anyone who doesn't want to be helped.

They also mention that it's not always a system change that needs to occur in order to bring happiness to the table. Some approaches to any traditional game can make for better experiences so it may not be completely necessary to pry everyone away from D&D 3e in order to get to a happier state.

kenada · May 10, 2024

AnotherGuy said:
I long tinkered on D&D through the editions. I decided a few months ago not to keep tinkering and finally designed a new engine. My experience with a variety of games is limited but I drew on that as a basis for the new engine I came up with.

This is certainly true. Although a lot of what I designed draws from the various editions of 5e (particularly 3e, 4e and 5e), but I've slain the cows of Hit Points, the 6 Abilities, Saving Throws (in a way) as well as the strictures of Class and Levels - and that has to negatively affect the appeal.

I also tinkered for a long time. For my current campaign, we went 5e → PF2 → OSE → WWN → homebrew. What pushed me in that direction is I didn’t like how bland WWN felt. I missed the more archetypical classes from OSE and started with a hybrid. After the OGL mess last year, I moved further away from that to what I’m doing now. I still have attributes (even though they complication math), and defense checks are similar to saving throws, but the operation of the system is different overall because I use conflict resolution procedures and exploration has a differently defined play loop.

AnotherGuy said:
That's why I'm watching these videos to get ideas from Edwards, not necessarily because I like how he expresses things (I don't).

I appreciate what Edwards has said on stuff like authority and constraint, but I prefer Baker for what he’s written on game design and how systems work. Even if you’re not designing a PbtA game, his discussion on how he layers the game and walks through designing a game is good stuff.

Umbran · May 10, 2024

Thomas Shey said:
The problem is that there can absolutely be a better game for what a group is doing, but if they have a strong tendency to stay with what they're used to, that's likely what will happen.

If the group is having fun, that there might somewhere be an even better game for them is not a "problem".

Having something good isn't a problem. Making perfection the enemy of good is.

Aldarc · May 10, 2024

Bacon Bits said:
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!)

kenada said:
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.

Keep in mind that GNS was loaning and modifying an earlier set of concepts that had been circulating on the Internet in the hobby, namely GDS (Gamism, Drama, Simulationism), so "simulationism" as a TTRPG concept doesn't originate in GNS. If there was an "equivocation" of the term, it was already present prior to GNS.

Wolfpack48 · May 10, 2024

Umbran said:
If the group is having fun, that there might somewhere be an even better game for them is not a "problem".

Having something good isn't a problem. Making perfection the enemy of good is.

Yep, one thing I think we run into in the hobby is this idea that "if only others would see the light, they would know how bad they have things." Stop trying to convert people who are happy with their games and focus on those who want something more -- or even more specifically -- the same things you want from your game. And then go game with them.

So, story from back in the day: we were heavy into AD&D in the late 70s and early 80s. We were playing the heck out of it and having a grand time. At a theater party my mom was having at the house one day, one of the invitees noticed some of our D&D stuff, and said something to the effect of "why don't you grow up and play a real game like RuneQuest? It has much more realistic combat and a much better realized skill system." At the time, I was taken aback, and really annoyed with the guy -- "we are having fun, why are you slagging it?" Now since then, I've come to really love RuneQuest, but it had zero to do with the guy slagging AD&D. I approached it separately in college around the time RQ3 came out, and was looking for something that was a bit more skill based than AD&D had been. Telling someone they are "doing it wrong" never works as a recruiting tactic, no matter how "right" you are.

Scott Christian · May 10, 2024

Wolfpack48 said:
They also mention that it's not always a system change that needs to occur in order to bring happiness to the table. Some approaches to any traditional game can make for better experiences so it may not be completely necessary to pry everyone away from D&D 3e in order to get to a happier state.

I would argue that most tables could find happiness just by switching up players, eliminating the "one player" that people don't gel with, inviting new players, or taking on a new DM.

kenada · May 10, 2024

Aldarc said:
Keep in mind that GNS was loaning and modifying an earlier set of concepts that had been circulating on the Internet in the hobby, namely GDS (Gamism, Drama, Simulationism), so "simulationism" as a TTRPG concept doesn't originate in GNS. If there was an "equivocation" of the term, it was already present prior to GNS.

The essays weren’t written in a vacuum, so I can understand why Edwards would keep simulationism at the time (regardless of when he realized “The Right to Dream” was based on a flawed idea). However, I don’t think we need to hold ourselves to that today. The discourse can continue to develop and change.

When I talk about goals of play, I prefer to discuss specific goals instead of a goal taxonomy. The taxonomies are too rigid and too politicized, and the tendency to apply those taxonomies to players and games is incredibly annoying. If there are some traits shared between goals, identifying those can be good, but I’d only want to do that if the grouping provides value (e.g., it allows you to make new inferences or intuit gaps that could be addressed).

Wolfpack48 · May 10, 2024

Scott Christian said:
I would argue that most tables could find happiness just by switching up players, eliminating the "one player" that people don't gel with, inviting new players, or taking on a new DM.

Sure, but there are lots of tables with lots of different situations. Diagnosing what is happening is the first step. There is no silver bullet, and there very well could be no problem at all.

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

AnotherGuy

Hero

Wolfpack48

Hero

Wolfpack48

Hero

kenada

Legend

Umbran

Mod Squad

Aldarc

Legend

Wolfpack48

Hero

Scott Christian

Hero

kenada

Legend

Wolfpack48

Hero

Similar Threads