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

[Retreater]

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

"Opening scene, the Rebel Blockade Runner the Tantive IV races in the sky above the Outer Rim desert world of Tantoonie. In hot pursuit and bombarding the Tantive with laser blasts, a Star Destroyer of the Evil Galactic Empire. "

Oh, you want a summary of the YouTube videos?
I have only watched about half the content, but this post has a decent summary so far...

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

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

www.enworld.org

 

[niklinna]

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.

I don't remember him calling out games as "bad", period. He calls them, for example, "bad for their stated purposes of play". At least in this video.

 

[kenada]

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.

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).

 

[Retreater]

I don't remember him calling out games as "bad", period. He calls them, for example, "bad for their stated purposes of play". At least in this video.

Granted, I was listening to the interviews at 1.75-2.0 speed, but I kinda recall he did. Early on he lambasts AD&D 2e as being a mess, basically calling it garbage.
I'd go through and cite the times in the videos, but when he's criticizing the works of creators with success and fans outnumbering any of his accomplishments, it's hard to think it's a worthwhile expenditure of time.

 

[niklinna]

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

Hm, one of the videos had timestamps to topics, but it wasn't the third one. My week has gotten very busy but I might buzz through the video and see if I can timestamp some things for #3.

 

[TiQuinn]

lol, I watched five minutes of that, paused, googled what he’s written before, and then closed the window entirely.

 

[kenada]

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.

I’m not trying to suggest those games are bad, but when Baker is surprised at how long it took until someone designed a PbtA game that doesn’t use playbooks, that tells me there’s a lot of space left to explore just in that particular class of games. From my perspective, I want to see people push things even further. Having different designs helps demonstrate that different ideas are okay, and sometimes they have good ideas worth incorporating.

 

[Anon Adderlan]

Currently speedrunning at 2x.

So far I've listened to 1.5 of the videos. I ... don't like Edwards. He comes across as pretentious.
"These are bad games."
"People don't play games correctly."
"You don't understand why you like playing TTRPGs."

Yes, but is he wrong?

He’s certainly a polarizing figure, but at least some of the problem seems to be the way the hobby acts. What even is the point of classifying a game as this or that when what matters is how people actually use it in play? It drives me crazy when people ask which of the categories my homebrew system is. My answer is always: it’s designed to do what I want (to support theI want at play my table).

Forget classifications, if your design cannot convey what you want play to be then you need to improve your design. And it's more than reasonable for potential players to want to know what your game is about.

Otherwise, I agree. The state of RPG design is a mess.

That's because any attempt to codify principles of design are immediately attacked.

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.

Indeed, what do we/you consider when answering these questions?

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.

Then let me refine that for you: Why do people play games which are bad for them? Because they do. Observably and explicitly. And the solution is often to remove features other players appreciate.

The games we play need not be exactly what the game text says.

I'd argue we never are. However games are always about the procedures we implement at the table, which can as easily be from written rules as player culture. So what are they? How often are they ignored or in conflict? What are they designed to achieve? What do they actually achieve?

 

[Wolfpack48]

I don't remember him calling out games as "bad", period. He calls them, for example, "bad for their stated purposes of play". At least in this video.

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.

 

[kenada]

Forget classifications, if your design cannot convey what you want play to be then you need to improve your design. And it's more than reasonable for potential players to want to know what your game is about.

Right, but people in the hobby really seem to like putting things into boxes. It can be a tiresome conversation to have. Is my game some amount of G or N? I don’t care. I look at it as a low-prep hexcrawl game, and that’s how I’d describe it to people.

That's because any attempt to codify principles of design are immediately attacked.

I allude to this in my comment about hobby politics. Many years ago, I used to identify strongly as a simulationist. I now agree with Ron’s take on simulationism. Reflecting now on what I was doing, it wasn’t what I thought it was. Could I dig into that and analyze that play? Sure, but I doubt I can do so publicly as frankly or candidly as I’d like because I don’t really have the energy for the arguments that are likely to follow.

I'd argue they never are. However they are always about the procedures implement at the table, which can as easily be from written rules as player culture. So what are they? How often are they ignored or in conflict? What are they designed to achieve? What do they actually achieve?

I think I agree with this, but really I was just trying to be diplomatic.