"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.", Socrates.
Looking over my site stats, it seems that I've had quite an up tick in recent traffic despite my rather inconsistent postings of late. Reviewing them I noticed that a number of rpg web forums are encountering a new round of GNS debates.
Those exchanges will on occasion link to this site, mostly to my Why RPG Theory has a Bad Rep series (starts here, with links to the next article in the series at the bottom).
To anyone arriving here, welcome. I hope you find something useful.
Most the traffic is coming from http://www.giantitp.com/, but there are others and I've seen reports of similar exchanges on other websites. It appears that followers of GNS are making a reappearance for whatever reason. They're following their old methods of operation, i.e. arrive at a forum and attempt to turn everything into a GNS exchange.
From what I've seen of the postings, they aren't based around any new games or insights. Instead they are focused on what I'd call '1st generation' Forge Games before they openly leaped into games about rape and worse. They also try to explain away the worst of the GNS history as mistakes of word choice or the like (if anyone should bring it up).
It seems that the GNS cult has lain low for the last few years in the hopes that people forgot what they stood for, and so that they could begin again with a clean slate to regain their glory.
I'm pleased if my little blog in any small way stands in their path.
I've spoken before about the validity of GNS, in the history article and elsewhere. I don't think there's anything further for me to add except to wish well any who rejects that model. You're right, and with luck we'll see GNS continue its fading with this new traffic being the last gasp of a decaying corpse.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
I think the NS part has relevance, I know lots of gamers that prefer narrative games or simulation games separately. The "gamist" term I think is bs, but I think I've made that point before. Still I think the surge in interest is due to gamers wanting to branch from 4th edition as they find that D&D isn't offering more of a wargame experience rather than a role playing one. As people look for new systems to try with their friends some look to try and define what they prefer in a game and in that there are definite simulationist and narrativist leanings.
Well, I've made the point before that Drama--Sim was the one good axis from the old Threefold, but one has to keep in mine that N is not Drama and has little to do with how most people view the concept of story based campaigns.
Keeping the above in mind, I must strongly state that nothing in GNS is valid.
As to people looking for something other than 4E...
I don't know if that is or is not true, at least with respect to Drama/Sim needs. The WotC study indicated that system didn't matter in this way. Further Story can be generated at a different Layer than Game (referencing another of my articles).
I do think that some GNS types may be wishing this was the case, and that may help explain all the noise now.
If so, they are in for a disappointment. Their games suck, and even if there is a movement away from D&D- their games will still suck.
I posted links to your great history articles on GNS in GITP. Several times. This is because there's a Forgey nutcase on the general forums there constantly talking to himself about the GNS theory. He's made like 6 threads already. Whenever I can, I link to your history of the GNS, so people in GITP can be better equipped to handle someone like that.
I agree that Narrative rules aren't drama, but that doesn't change the fact that there are narrative rules that exist in games today. Now how relevant those narrativist rules are to the whole Role Playing experience is up for debate and I'll leave my opinions out of it, but it's my interpretation that a Narrative rule is one where a stat or rule has direct influence on an element of the story only indirectly tied to one's character. White Wolf's Backgrounds are an example of a narrative stat. They represent NPC's that will help your character out. (And other things.) There's no drama tied to this, it's not a rule for interacting with NPC's. A more controversial example of narrativist rules is giving out some sort of terrain changing perk that can be unleashed at the player's will. Say like: "That character that's attacking me slips on a banana peel." Stuff like this exists and while you may or may not like that sort-of thing, I think the terminology applies to it. If you think there's a better word for these sorts of things I'll hear it, and maybe even concede the point, but so far I've found none better.
@Wyatt: So you're the one :)
Thanks for the link. I hope the articles provide the perspective needed.
Samurai Jill (the creator of the threads) is quite the work. I wonder if it's just another handle for old Forgie or someone new who has joined the cult. Not that it matters much.
@Helmsman: those type of mechanics aren't really Narrative in the Forge sense.
And yes, that's confusing. But that's GNS for you.
They're not even really Drama per the Threefold. They're just mechanics.
I have even added the links to my signature. I know at some point the moderation of GITP may become upset with me, but I simply cannot be cordial or accepting of the monstrous stupidity going on.
If there were any referrers from the German forum Tanelorn, than that has been me.
Context has been what "modern game design" constitutes of, and I used the GNS history article to prove that the times when the Forge has been cutting edge are gone and why its driving ideas as GNS have become largely ignored.
I think I've used it also on 2 or 3 more other German gaming sites, but I can't find the instances with Google anymore.
Maybe that's where the disconnect is. I've never really bothered to read much more on the Forge forums than the GNS theory, and really I only apply narrative and sim ideas to mechancics. I agree with WoTC when they say that system doesn't alter how a GM runs dramatic tension in a game or a player RP's his character. The system might offer mechanics to resolve add to or influence the outcomes of that dramatic tension and RP, but it won't change the style of play that much. However I do think that the system and it's mechanics will either lend themselves to or detract from a given preference in style-of-play.
Now I don't delve into gameplay theory as heavily as you do I admit, I just dabble as a way of trying to gauge what people might like in my own game, but I know when I read GNS model some of it rang true according to my experiences. It's got it's flaws for sure, but so do both republicans and democrats and any religion on the planet... but that's not to say nothing of what any of those parties have to say is totally irrelevant, you just have to decide what you choose to believe. If in your case that's 'none of it' then so be it, but I see differently.
@Wyatt: I hope the sig doesn't get you into trouble. Forum mods have in the past been great allies to Edwards and his followers for a number of reasons, so one has to be careful to follow the rules while dealing with them.
@Skyrock: I've noticed a good number of German hits over the months. Now I know the cause of some of them :)
Of late, more from an site in Italy. It's been interesting how international readers have been.
@Helmsman: I thinking it may be worth a general 'review' of GNS to shed some additonal light on its problems beyond those already covered in the history article.
The short version is that mechanics only matter when they are called into the use by the players- and the reason and goal for that calling is not something within their control any more than a rock has a say in what the man picking it up does next.
I wouldn't worry about the mods on our board at GitP. They're strict, but generally fair. This latest GNS incursion is a fairly determined one, but I think the GNS advocates have come off worst in the exchange - they don't seem to have made any converts but have succeeded in making quite a few enemies. :)
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying "players don't have the power to dictate when and under what circumstances they roll the dice"...? Or are you saying, players only roll the dice when the outcome is uncertain...?
Or are you saying something else all together?
I have your article series on this as recommend reading for my gaming group as well.
I'm not sure why there's an upswell, but I think there's a lot more awareness of the shortcomings of GNS, as well as some of the history of the arguments this time around.
Dancey's blog seems to have undergone a change, and the link to the WotC study doesn't work anymore.
I'd like to remind myself how it really shows that System Doesn't Matter. Of course, any study like that only shows that System Didn't Matter when the study was done.
Where does this arguement that "system doesn't matter" come from? What's it's context? Because alone it sounds about as absurd as any GNS ravings. Anyone who's migrated from Palladium or Rifts can attest to the fact that system certainly "matters" to them. It's getting awfully close to talking in absolutes, and when absolutes start coming up in regards to such an ethereal concept as "having fun" there are bound to be more people who are wrong than right.
@Anonymous: I agree, the Forge people have come off badly in the thread I read with people scoring excellent points against them.
And that's good news about your forum, I hope it holds.
@Zach: recommend reading huh? Is cool. My ego is now larger.
@K. Bailey: I think Dancey's blog is no more.
Here's another link to the information (plus I've updated the link in my article)-
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html
@Helmsman: I'll go ahead and take up some of this in another blog post.
As to System Doesn't Matter, it more of rejoiner to GNS than a statement of it's own: i.e. it doesn't matter in the way GNS says it does. I'll explain more the upcoming blog post.
The link was cut off...
And I'm having trouble with putting in a comment.
It's updated in Part IV of the history series. Please grab it there.
Anyone who's migrated from Palladium or Rifts can attest to the fact that system certainly "matters" to them.
Speaking of absolutes.
Palladium gets a lot of flack about their rules, but let me reinforce your own argument about the dangers of speaking in absolutes in saying that I have run RIFTS before. Though I don't disagree that it is complicated, it is also quite runnable, if my group's demands that I run it again are any indication.
System Matters as a personal choice. I don't run RIFTS anymore, but it's not because it's "broken", "unplayable", or any of the other common negative adjectives that tend to be vigorously applied to the game. I just prefer games with simpler rules.
Thank you, thank you very much for this article and all the others that you wrote about the subject.
I found this blog thanks to Wyatt's links on GitP, but that was not my first meeting with forge's guys.
I used to be a very active member of one of Italy's greatest RPG communities. But two years ago someone started to translate and publish forgite games in Italian, and to promote them they started a true flamewar in the community. Now, after many flames, I recently stop posting there -and I was only the last of many.
Thank you, because now I know where does all that troubles come from.
But, if I may ask a thing, what is the relation between gns and big model? Because I've seen forge's guys speak a lot of it, but rarely clearly, and my impression is that the latter is just a continuation of the former, with a different name to avoid righy criticism.
@Federico "Angelo" Pilleri: I'm sorry to hear what happened to the board in Italy. That's very much their MO.
English speaking loses include The Forge (which used to have a completely different character), Rpg.net to a large extent (I'm not current), Gaming Outpost, and now I hear http://rpg.geekdo.com/.
So we share your pain.
As to the Big Model, it's really just a large article that includes GNS. I've started a series on the flaws of GNS today, and I'll address it more directly in that series sometime in the near future.
But the short answer is that it doesn't reject any of the GNS concepts, it includes. It is much longer and more wordy and is used to answer anyong finding problems in GNS with 'the Big Model' is used now.
It's basically a Dodge and change of subject.
Post a Comment