Sven and GNS
Hi.
This post is solely devoted to me, trying to explain GNS to Sven.
Everyone else is not allowed to post here. They are not allowed to ask questions. They are not allowed to jump in and reply to Sven on their own. They are not allowed to correct me.
If you wish to ask me your own questions, or correct me, e-mail is just fine.
Sven:
Here's some initial advice -- take anything you've ever read about GDS and put it out of your mind. Despite the fact that GDS is a precursor of GNS, they are really describing totally different things and it is important to keep that in mind.
Further, just to give me a sense of what we are working with, have you read any of the GNS essays on the Forge? Which ones? Have you read Ron's "The Big Model -- This is it" post, and do you have a sense of the different levels of the model (social contract, exploration, creative agenda, techniques, ephemera)?
This post is solely devoted to me, trying to explain GNS to Sven.
Everyone else is not allowed to post here. They are not allowed to ask questions. They are not allowed to jump in and reply to Sven on their own. They are not allowed to correct me.
If you wish to ask me your own questions, or correct me, e-mail is just fine.
Sven:
Here's some initial advice -- take anything you've ever read about GDS and put it out of your mind. Despite the fact that GDS is a precursor of GNS, they are really describing totally different things and it is important to keep that in mind.
Further, just to give me a sense of what we are working with, have you read any of the GNS essays on the Forge? Which ones? Have you read Ron's "The Big Model -- This is it" post, and do you have a sense of the different levels of the model (social contract, exploration, creative agenda, techniques, ephemera)?
15 Comments:
Let's go!
Post ONE - GNS
First. From were am I?
The sheer existence of this thread pushed me into do some further reading and some rereading of texts that I had read before. In your Livejournal post that started this you link to seven articles. Of those i have not read the glossary, Step on Up or Story Now. The other four I have read in their entirity, and have now started to read Step on Up (but an upcoming larp will stop me for reading the remaining part until the weekend).
So, yes I can somehow understand the terminology you are using, even if I donät have a great history of practical use of them.
Hmm... okay.
I guess if I would have to start from scratch, I would want to talk about what a Creative Agenda is before I talk about how they are classified. This is partially a "you have to walk before you can crawl" thing and partially because I think that the notion that a Creative Agenda exists is frankly way more important than the shape we put them into as theorists.
So what is a Creative Agenda?
A creative agenda is what you, the player and creative artist, want to get out of your play experience.
You should seperate this from anything that has to do with the contents of the game itself. "Mystery," "Plot," "Story," "Character Development," "Immersion" and any number of other things can be used in service of any sort of creative agenda. Rather, a creative agenda is about what you as a person get out of the game.
The best way to do this, I think, is to think of some of the game experiences that you've had that you would call "really good" and then think about what sort of experience you, as a person, were having when you played them, and what sort of social feedback you were getting from the other players.
This is a first stab. Is it clear? If not, I will try a different tack.
yrs--
--Ben
Ghah! Crawl before walk! Crawl before walk!
typo--
--Ben
Post TWO - GNS
I
"You should seperate this from anything that has to do with the contents of the game itself. "Mystery," "Plot," "Story," "Character Development," "Immersion""
I think I get the point. If I should comment one detail I should say that to me it's not obvious that 'immersion' or 'strive for immersion' is 'content' more than gamism. But I also know that this notion always is diregarded by GNS aficionados. It's really in place for me to be humble, so for now I just assume that you are right. (Another point is of course that the meaning of 'immersion' is so vague that it can be argued that it doesn't mean anything at all.)
(And right now, after writing I read Vincent's rant on immersion. Damn he makes sense again! Think about this, I will.)
II
"A creative agenda is what you, the player and creative artist, want to get out of your play experience."
Yep, most of what I have read agrees with this notion. But in Ron's texts there is also the notion that CA is som sort of decision rule; the reason fopr decsisions the player cvhoose for the character. Should these two descriptions be seen as on and the same? I guess if a certain CA is the reason for playing then this will also govern the decision the player make for the character?
Post three - GNS
As you remember, my original question was mainly concerning the S-part of GNS. All thre CA:s are of course very wide, my problem was that to my uninformed mind the boundries of S seemed to be wider than of the other two and I was wondering if I had really got it right.
"The best way to do this, I think, is to think of some of the game experiences that you've had that you would call "really good""
I have a quite good grip of what makes me tick. There are several things that I can like in rpg:s, some of which are not offered in nordic style larp (lajv) and freeform (friform).
But what I'm a real sucker for, and what keeps be active and really care about this so much is scenes of conversing with other characters in character. I often like it more when dealing with everyday stuff, the point is to play a character with a different POV than mine and see what that conversation lead. Tomorrow I will do only that for five hours. I write about it regarding Wt:F here.
. But I also know that this notion always is diregarded by GNS aficionados. It's really in place for me to be humble, so for now I just assume that you are right.
This is important: I can only speak for the theory. I cannot speak for all the theory's supporters, as some of them hold strange ideas that I consider wrong or confusing.
But in Ron's texts there is also the notion that CA is som sort of decision rule; the reason fopr decsisions the player cvhoose for the character. Should these two descriptions be seen as on and the same? I guess if a certain CA is the reason for playing then this will also govern the decision the player make for the character?
This is correct. The problem with this construction, to me, is that people often look at it and say "CA is an accumulation of decision points" which I don't really think is true at all. Rather, your CA is your goal in play, which naturally influences your decisions.
So far, this is all just establishing the territory. My response to your third post in a bit, should get into your actual question about simulationism and its agnosticism towards system weight.
yrs--
--Ben
Yay! Finally back and have time to respond to this.
Okay, so your question is essentially why Simulationism covers both freeform games that focus on accurate portrayal of character and fiddly games that focus on accurate portrayal of the world.
Simulationism is definitely the most problematic of the canonical creative agendas to explain, and it is historically been fraught with peril to even attempt it.
But I think that you are confusing creative agenda with technical agenda. "Freeform" is a technical agendum, or more accurately a widely varied set of technical agenda, some of which are hardly similar to each other at all.
Simulationism is best understood in terms of Exploration -- it is taking one or more elements of exploration and really revelling in them. Your Werewolf diner-scene sounds exactly like that -- character based simulationism. "Nothing" is going on, but the character is being enacted, and that makes you happy.
Now, I want you to imagine for a moment another RPGer, one who has a very different approach. He has this huge system of psychological charts and stochastic variables that he is using to simulate a character. He rolls and computes and calculates and maybe even makes some decisions and generates exactly what the guy's responses will be in conversation.
And you have to imagine that he really really enjoys this, at the same level that you enjoy your freeform conversations and I enjoy my rollicking D&D and hardcore Sorcerer. (This is purposefully a somewhat silly example, to highlight something.)
So do you see that both you and this guy are, at the level of creativity, producing the same result? You are creating a simulacrum character and revelling in his being, without any other attachments to that. Your methods (techniques) are very different, but your Creative Agenda is the same.
Does that make sense?
yrs--
--Ben
Post FOUR - GNS
Thanks
Yeah, it makes sense in the way that I understand the distinction. It might not make sense to me to have this trichotomy of GNS, if all those interests are combined into S, but that is unrelated to the main question here.
I had prepared a quite lengthy example, but since you basically answered what I was going to ask there I will skip it. Instead I will talk somewhat outside of the question.
The original thought behind GNS, as I have come to understand it, was to find distinctions to explain why some people just couldn't roleplay together. The explanation was different interests. This problem is an observed fact; we have all seen it.
When it comes to me I can enjoy a strictly narrativist game - if everyone is very clear in the beginning that this is the style of play, it's not the most natural for me - and I can in some cases enjoy gamist play (when we played Paranoia XP it was a lot of gamism and quite some immersion. A strange combination and a great game.). What I can't stand - but have played a lot of anyway, because of the interests of my dear friends - is rules heavy simulationism. Like playing a party scene and rolling for how drunk you get and seducing capabilities. I really don't like, but two of my friends seem to live for that.
Back to focus
Technical Agenda is never disussed in any article by Ron Edwards, I guess? It's very easy to confuse them, since TA:s aren't part of the core theory.
I guess the whole theory would be easier to accept by people like me if the CA:s were supplemented with TA:s. Then you can say: I don't enjoy this because your technical agenda makes me sad."
Some sort of conclusion
The definition of S is quite easy to understand if it's seen as a main interest towards SIS and internal causality. But one must remember that some of the people gathered under this one, giant roof might be the ones with least common interests when it comes to actual play. That takes away a part of the benefits of what I above claimed to be "The original thought behind GNS".
One could say that in my case I would have a very strong bias towards being able to talk in character (which I would like to see as a TA or part of one). It feels very natural for me to do that in a rules-less freeform (simulation CA) play. But this can obviously also be achieved in a gamist Paranoia XP. (You want to kill the other pl... I mean characters, to beat the other players, damn it. Time after time.)
Do I make sense to you?
The reason that technical agenda isn't in the central theory is that it is a new sort of thought. It's important to realize that we're talking, here, about a developing theory, which is growing and changing constantly.
The original thought behind GNS, as I have come to understand it, was to find distinctions to explain why some people just couldn't roleplay together. The explanation was different interests. This problem is an observed fact; we have all seen it.
What GNS emphatically doesn't mean is that just because you have your Creative Agenda ducks in a row means that you can play together. Aesthetic disagreements, rules disagreements, disagreements about exploratory elements, and social malfunction can all cause dysfunctional play as well.
The point is that creative agenda is often overlooked as a cause of unhappy play, not that differing creative agenda is always the cause of unhappy play.
I understand that, to you, Sim looks like a giant roof, and that's fine. To me, Gamism really looks like the "biggest box" these days.
My essential point in the last post is that you do share something in common with the other sim players, even if you don't like playing that way. You share a driving creative goal to glorify and explore a particular exploratory element. Narrativism and Gamism don't do this at all -- exploratory elements are tools (good and useful tools that should be respect, yes) -- not the point of play itself.
yrs--
--Ben
"You share a driving creative goal to glorify and explore a particular exploratory element. Narrativism and Gamism don't do this at all -- exploratory elements are tools (good and useful tools that should be respect, yes) -- not the point of of play itself."
I think I understand what you are saying. But I must say it gives me the feeling that narrativism views the characters as chess pieces, that can be moved by the players according to their will. The players have to follow certain rules - not to break coherence - but are otherwise free to move as they wish.
I guess my main interest in most RPG:s (not all, not always, but most of the time) is in the Exploration. Isn't this what always is the interesting part when reading a novel?
"not the point of of play itself."
Even if the explorative content is the interesting part during play a big part of the interest might lie somewhere else. You and others have recently been talking about educating games.
Say that you have found this great author that for the moment seems to tell you everything you have ever wondered about relations. You get the novels to understand, you get sucked into the story. Then you leave it, with something learned. But you learn through caring for what is described and understanding - or not understanding and thinking about it - the actions of the people in the novel.
I guess this is how I often see at the games I seek to play, and sometimes get to play. While in there, only the SIS is important. But the game is chosen and constructed (I see usually see character as a part of a game) to teach me something.
(As I kid I mostly liked to invade space station admittedly, occasionly I still do. But quite a few things seem a bit more urgent these days.)
But I must say it gives me the feeling that narrativism views the characters as chess pieces, that can be moved by the players according to their will.
Okay, two points here:
1) Narrativism needs no more or no less to treat "characters as chess pieces" than any other creative agenda. The point is that Narrativism is using the characterization to get at something else. The characterization can be as "immersive" (we use the term "actor stance" on the Forge) as you like. Does that make sense?
2) All characters, in all games, regardless of Creative Agenda, "can be moved by the players according to their will." If you the player are not controlling them, who is?
I guess my main interest in most RPG:s (not all, not always, but most of the time) is in the Exploration. Isn't this what always is the interesting part when reading a novel?
See, to me, what is most interesting is usually the plot arc, or the symbolism and meaning. All the interesting setting and world and character doesn't make up for a lack of important decisions by the characters or plot structure. *shrug*
Anyway, novels aren't RPGs, as often as that comparison gets made, and ought to use a different critical structure. The point is mainly -- hey, look, tastes differ.
yrs--
--Ben
As for the after play, etc -- I think it is important, but GNS (and in fact the whole Big Model) only describes events during play.
yrs--
--Ben
1) and 2) makes definitely sense in this discussion, good you reminded me, since these are things I have seen before in GNS texts. I get your view.
"See, to me, what is most interesting is usually the plot arc, or the symbolism and meaning"
I guess this discussion is about to end, but here is one thing I have to ask you about. In your view plot arc is not in the explorative content? This is not totally obvious for me.
But I guess your view would be that the plot arc is created between the players, through the SIS and therefore isn't explored but created through players use of the explorative content. Is this understandable by GNS-folks?
I'm actually quite uninterested in plot arcs, I see them as necessary tools to put light on the characters.
Plot Arc can be explorative content but, to the extend which it is explorative content, it is not satisfying to a Narrativist player.
For example, one could imagine a situation in which the GM has charted out a story in advance, and guides the players through it without them ever making a significant decision. This would be deeply unsatisfying to a Narrativist (or Gamist) player.
There are moments in games when everyone playing the game holds their breath for a second, looks at one player, and asks themselves what is he going to do now? Both Narrativist and Gamist play thrive on these moments, which are explicitly non-exploratory (they are meta-game, between the players.)
yrs--
--Ben
I think we could let this be my closing statement of this thread. I'm sure we will discuss things on other places later. But probably not much specificly about GNS.
For example, one could imagine a situation in which the GM has charted out a story in advance, and guides the players through it without them ever making a significant decision. This would be deeply unsatisfying to a Narrativist (or Gamist) player.
I can find this satisfying if the focus of the play is on something else than the story. If the focus in the game is on the development of the story, then this is very flawed. I have played some very predetermined free form where th GM basically let's a lot of stuff happen. Then the interesting stuff his: what are the characters reaction to this. I like.
There are moments in games when everyone playing the game holds their breath for a second, looks at one player, and asks themselves what is he going to do now? Both Narrativist and Gamist play thrive on these moments, which are explicitly non-exploratory (they are meta-game, between the players.)
I have been thinking about this since I first read it. My first impression was: I have felt this too. I thrive on this too! But then I started to think: in which games do I feel this?
I think, and this might be a flawed of trying to fit reality with theory, but I think this is not something that is present in my LARPing (which strive fpr immersion). But i gather it's present in certain boardgames.
But I might very well be lying to myself here. I will think about this in the future.
Post a Comment
<< Home