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

[Umbran]

While I agree with everything you say, the last sentence is not really on point. Sometimes, people have a vision, and others don't see it.

As I noted in another post - there is a difference between design and art, and you've hit it.

 

[Emberashh]

You can't make empathy out of mechanics.

Perhaps, but you can compel behaviors. This is the sort of thing I get at when I talk about making roleplaying and metagaming indistinguishable from each other.

And its why I think its important to be explicit about the improv game and to teach it explicitly. If you want to compel a behavior identical to empathy, teaching improv is the way to do it.

Yes, and dynamics pretty much compel you to be empathetic on some level, if only in the actual behavior you exhibit (which is what matters).

That said, I'd pare back the whole collaborative art angle. These are games, and the vast bulk of the hobby isn't putting on a performance for anyone other than those at the table, and even then.

As I say "Just Play". If the game truly is supposed to be an artsy experience, "Just Play" means one should be able to play it without putting any extraneous effort into making it that kind of experience, and the game shouldn't be putting any roadblocks on that kind of play to conform to a predefined vision.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

However, I'll still maintain that GDS' use of simulation was more coherent than GNS. I'd speculate that's because the former was created primarily by people who considered themselves simulationists while the latter was created primarily by people who considered themselves narrativists.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I'm not sure "most", but with some that's almost certainly true, but its sometimes easier said than done.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Well, I'd argue that if someone (at least someone inside of the group) thinks there's a problem, there's a problem.

 

[zakael19]

If "what I want to achieve" is not strongly aligned with someone else's needs or desires, what you have isn't design, it is art.

Games like AW came out of a desire to achieve a vision and play experience from the designer, not fulfilling "other's needs." A lot of exceptional games in the video game space came from, again, the creator or team having a strong creative vision and executing on it.

This doesn't mean ignoring input in your testing phase to clarify things or adjust edge cases where it turns out some elements compromise the totality once others experience it. Also, very good design often becomes art. MOMA exists, yeah?

Edit: also, while not all creative agendas do or should include an element of "I know what's good for you" but instead "I know what I want to achieve"; a certain massive tech company has made an practice of design + "I know what's good for you" work very well.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One of the problems with GNS is that it denied fellowship was one of the reasons players played a game. In other words, it was developing a theory of fun that kept excluding exactly why many or even most people found the game fun.

This was a question that came up several times during the development of GDS; several times people wanted to add a "social" quadrant. The counter argument usually was that while social elements were important, and could trump the others, it was operating on a different layer.

 

[thefutilist]

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.

I had to find the right people and the right structure/system.

Until I had a conversation with Ron I was still putting too much emphasis on the system to facilitate things. Afterwards I focussed on finding the right people and it worked out. Part of that process was realising I couldn’t just play with friends because some of them wanted fundamentally different things than me. I mean it seems blindingly obvious in hindsight so maybe I’m dumb.

 

[payn]

I had to find the right people and the right structure/system.

Until I had a conversation with Ron I was still putting too much emphasis on the system to facilitate things. Afterwards I focussed on finding the right people and it worked out. Part of that process was realising I couldn’t just play with friends because some of them wanted fundamentally different things than me. I mean it seems blindingly obvious in hindsight so maybe I’m dumb.

You are not dumb. On the surface, games are games. Naturally, we want to pick our friends and family first when it comes to fellow gamers. Though, I have found sometimes your best friends make the worst gamers. Folks often see the forest for the trees when it comes to something as nuanced as RPGs. Design in communication for work groups is as important as mechanical design.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I had to find the right people and the right structure/system.

Until I had a conversation with Ron I was still putting too much emphasis on the system to facilitate things. Afterwards I focussed on finding the right people and it worked out. Part of that process was realising I couldn’t just play with friends because some of them wanted fundamentally different things than me. I mean it seems blindingly obvious in hindsight so maybe I’m dumb.

There's a certain cultural expectation in the hobby that with good will, everyone can have an enjoyable game. This only makes sense when the differences in expectation are relatively modest or when the game is not, in fact, the primary point in gaming.