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

pemerton · May 9, 2024

Retreater said:
Early on he lambasts AD&D 2e as being a mess, basically calling it garbage.

He says the rulebooks are a mess, and that people having fun playing AD&D 2nd ed are selecting from and/or adding to the books to create the actual game they're playing.

This actually relates to @kenada's point about design. A lot of published RPG books take it for granted that the players of the game will build a good chunk of the process of play themselves. Gygax and Arneson got away with this, because they expected their readers/players to bring tabletop wargame intuitions and procedures to the table. But it's weird that RPGing has stuck to that paradigm - of presenting incomplete rules texts - for so long.

Not universally, of course, but in many cases.

Wolfpack48 · May 9, 2024

Had seen the 3rd one before but the other 2 were interesting. A few highlights, not having any history from The Forge or Ron Edwards.

Basic impression is that he's an avid gamer who at the heart of things wants people to be happy at their table and with their rules.

Biggest concern is with players who are unhappy at their tables but want to be in the hobby and have fun.

Is less concerned with previous Forge labels and more concerned with player agency (as one source of frustration). He seemed more personally frustrated with the White Wolf scenario tendency(?) to use PCs as bystanders to the GMs 'awesome novel.' To the point where the PCs are merely an audience and don't actually do anything. His biggest concern is building player agency back into the games, both in the rules and at the table's culture. Really doesn't care about the system as long as player agency and character backstory (non-War and Peace length) is present, active and matters. Does like some systems better than others for this, however, though specifically mentioned Vampire as one system that leaned in on GM as the sole storyteller.

Does not view narrative games as 'script writing exercises' though some tables have regrettably taken it that way.

Does not view player agency as the ability to do lunatic things ('everyone can fly!') on the player's turn.

Emberashh · May 9, 2024

Wolfpack48 said:
Had seen the 3rd one before but the other 2 were interesting. A few highlights, not having any history from The Forge or Ron Edwards.

Basic impression is that he's an avid gamer who at the heart of things wants people to be happy at their table and with their rules.

Biggest concern is with players who are unhappy at their tables but want to be in the hobby and have fun.

Is less concerned with previous Forge labels and more concerned with player agency (as one source of frustration). He seemed more personally frustrated with the White Wolf scenario tendency(?) to use PCs as bystanders to the GMs 'awesome novel.' To the point where the PCs are merely an audience and don't actually do anything. His biggest concern is building player agency back into the games, both in the rules and at the table's culture. Really doesn't care about the system as long as player agency and character backstory (non-War and Peace length) is present, active and matters. Does like some systems better than others for this, however, though specifically mentioned Vampire as one system that leaned in on GM as the sole storyteller.

Does not view narrative games as 'script writing exercises' though some tables have regrettably taken it that way.

Does not view player agency as the ability to do lunatic things ('everyone can fly!') on the player's turn.

Whats interesting is that all those things are pretty core to my own philosophy and how I've been designing Labyrinthian.

Particularly given those who most often differ to Ron have demonstrably rejected a lot of things I'm doing to accomodate that philosophy.

Wolfpack48 · May 9, 2024

Emberashh said:
Whats interesting is that all those things are pretty core to my own philosophy and how I've been designing Labyrinthian.

Particularly given those who most often differ to Ron have demonstrably rejected a lot of things I'm doing to accomodate that philosophy.

Frankly I was surprised at how similar my views were to Ron's and the 'you're doing it wrongbad' voices are coming from other quarters. He seemed reasonable to me, and only was pushing for all voices at the table to contribute to the game's story.

I liked his example of a player (instead of the GM) making a dead monster sound effect upon killing something, and that being perfectly ok and encouraged at the table.

Emberashh · May 9, 2024

Wolfpack48 said:
Yeah, frankly I was surprised at how similar my views were to Ron's and the 'you're doing it wrongbad' voices are coming from other quarters. He seemed reasonable to me, and only was pushing for all voices at the table to contribute to the game's story.

I liked his example of a player (instead of the GM) making a dead monster sound effect upon killing something, and that being perfectly ok and encouraged at the table.

Yeah I've read too much of Ron's thoughts to give him that big of a benefit of a doubt on the reasonable point.

But yeah, he's really not that far off from the most basic advice ever to just stop railroading your players and be more collaborative.

Like, yeah games can intrude, and I have a whole spiel on the specific mechanism behind that, but its also not really a coincidence pretty much every trad-ish game has some blurb about just ignoring the rules if it happens.

I don't think such a blurb should be necessary and that designers should be more conscious of it and just design the problem out of the game, but at the same time, we either want to get to the table and play or we want to sit on a forum and debate phoney philosophy for a week straight.

If you want to get in the game and play, just be practical and cull what isn't working.

Wolfpack48 · May 10, 2024

Emberashh said:
Yeah I've read too much of Ron's thoughts to give him that big of a benefit of a doubt on the reasonable point.

But yeah, he's really not that far off from the most basic advice ever to just stop railroading your players and be more collaborative.

Like, yeah games can intrude, and I have a whole spiel on the specific mechanism behind that, but its also not really a coincidence pretty much every trad-ish game has some blurb about just ignoring the rules if it happens.

I don't think such a blurb should be necessary and that designers should be more conscious of it and just design the problem out of the game, but at the same time, we either want to get to the table and play or we want to sit on a forum and debate phoney philosophy for a week straight.

If you want to get in the game and play, just be practical and cull what isn't working.

There's this other aspect of building in techniques and mechanisms for narrative play, which they didn't get into, but my sense was that he appreciated what D&D 4e and RQG Passions (maybe PBTA?) was doing in that space, and that even the act of thinking about and designing social and cultural systems beyond combat into the game was a good trend.

Autumnal · May 10, 2024

KYRON45 said:
I watch things like this and read various forum posts and think....Is anyone having any fun with this stuff anymore?

I immediately think of people like @pemerton and @Manbearcat who do seem to be getting a lot of happy, satisfying gaming.

pemerton · May 10, 2024

Autumnal said:
I immediately think of people like @pemerton and @Manbearcat who do seem to be getting a lot of happy, satisfying gaming.

Not as much as I would like over the past 6-12 months, due to a significant increase in my work demands - but when I play or GM I enjoy it!

Thomas Shey · 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. 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.

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).

I understand your urge here, but the truth is, genuinely original work is rare in everything; even the majority of what most people consider high quality creations are recombinations that do something useful, different or entertaining.

Thomas Shey · May 10, 2024

Wolfpack48 said:
Actually, he's very clear to make a distinction about 'folks continuing to play games they are clearly unhappy with and are not getting the things they want out of.' He doesn't call the games objectively bad, just not working for some people.

Of course that can often be less a flaw in the game per se, than them using the wrong tool for the job. And there can be any number of practical reasons for doing that, most of them more social than anything else.

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

pemerton

Legend

Wolfpack48

Hero

Emberashh

Hero

Wolfpack48

Hero

Emberashh

Hero

Wolfpack48

Hero

Autumnal

Bruce Baugh, Writer of Fortune

pemerton

Legend

Thomas Shey

Legend

Thomas Shey

Legend

Similar Threads