Thought I'd start a little thread on my take on GNS.  Not a popular theory around here, and I'm not about to sing its praises.  I think it gets a couple of things right but gets some more very wrong.

The main thing that it gets right is incoherance.  I've seen this in play, and it pretty much ripped a long running group apart.  It was a D&D game I was playing in that involved the PCs as important members of a council in a city beset by enemies.  We were embroiled in debate and conspiracy, trying to uncover clues that another faction was betraying the city.  I did note that it was pretty much me and another player talking to the GM.  I tried to get the other players involved, but they didn't much seem to care.  We soon discovered a tribe of orcs nearing the city, so we set out both to defeat them and to look for clues they'd been hired by the enemy faction.  The other players were now animated and excited, as if the real game was finally starting.  I went through it, but was constantly distracted, worried that our delay with these orcs would cost us position at the council.   When we went back I was excited to get back at it, but noticed the other group of players were disappointed.  It was then that I realized we were having trouble because we were trying to play two different games at the same time.

GNS is an attempt to answer this.  I think the thing they get right is not their definitions of the agendas, but the fact that they do exist.  And following the theory can lead to very consistant, fun games.  They've put out a lot of good, interesting stuff.

However, there's some problems out there.  The language is the first.  I'm sorry, but if you can't explain your gaming theory to gamers it isn't good for very much.  Narrativism is paticularly appalling, because it has nothing to do with a narrative.  It's a bit like calling your ideas on card-based mechanics "dice-ism" and then get snotty and post links to huge essays whenever someone thinks you're talking about dice.

The agendas themselves I don't find a paticularly good split.  Narrativism can make for some fun games, but if I hadn't heard of it I never would have tried it.  It is an extremely niche focus, hardly deserving to be one of the three main kinds of play.  Directly addressing themes isn't something most gamers do on their own.  Gamism too, is something that most people in gaming simply do not do because of the requirement that players compete against each other.  Nearly every game describes such behaviour as dysfunctional, and few players seek this out.  Simulationism they've finally admitted is a grab bag for everything that isn't G or N, which is almost everything.

Now GNS can solve incoherence by focusing gameplay on the same agenda with the unspoken assumption that those that don't like this agenda simply won't play.  This overlooks the simple truth that gaming is primarily a social activity.  I'm not playing with Bob and Sue because we all have the same agenda.  I'm playing with them because we're all friends.  Or will be soon.  So how can I solve incoherance when I still want to play with my friends who may have different agendas?

One way, the most obvious, would be at the social contract level.  That is, we talk about this like rational adults and agree to indulge in what each person likes.  We'll do some roleplaying character development stuff for Bob, then go kill a whole mess of orcs for Sue.  Another is the use of metagame mechanics, which can let players re-contextualize actions as fitting an agenda.  Sue doesn't get irritated when Bob does his roleplay crap because it nets him some Hero Points that will be useful later on.  And Bob isn't irritated by Sue being a combat monster, because he'll get extra points for helping her deal with the after effects.  They have a way of smoothing over the differences.

Overall I think GNS makes a couple of good points, but is flawed and certainly is not a grand unified theory of gaming.

From your description, you and the other players were both trying to "win" the game as you understood it.  For you it was a political intrigue game -- and that meant focusing on the time in the council.  For the others it was a heroic fantasy game -- and that meant killing the orcs.  The problem with GNS is that it tries to define one as "game" and the other as "narrative".  They're both games that create narrative.

QuoteGamism too, is something that most people in gaming simply do not do because of the requirement that players compete against each other. Nearly every game describes such behaviour as dysfunctional, and few players seek this out. Simulationism they've finally admitted is a grab bag for everything that isn't G or N, which is almost everything.

If you're trying to do the best you can to create a story, or roleplay a character -- and you think that's what the game is about -- you're doing your best to "win" the game, either for yourself or for the team.  This is really not that different than trying to use number crunching, luck, and tactics to "win" the game.  Only the understanding of what the game is has changed.

Most RPGs are team based -- usually the team vs. the game system itself.  This is just like Shadows over Camelot, or Arkham Horror.

Whether the challenges in the game are based on
* effective and creative storytelling
* believable, moving, or deeply "immersive" roleplaying
* wargaming style tactics, resource management, and luck

The players are doing their best to excel at those challenges and succeed in the game.

Quote from: MaddmanOne way, the most obvious, would be at the social contract level.  That is, we talk about this like rational adults and agree to indulge in what each person likes.  We'll do some roleplaying character development stuff for Bob, then go kill a whole mess of orcs for Sue.  Another is the use of metagame mechanics, which can let players re-contextualize actions as fitting an agenda.  Sue doesn't get irritated when Bob does his roleplay crap because it nets him some Hero Points that will be useful later on.  And Bob isn't irritated by Sue being a combat monster, because he'll get extra points for helping her deal with the after effects.  They have a way of smoothing over the differences.

This is, to me, one of the various main thrusts of the discourse. That is, there seems to be a sense among certain members of...other gaming fora...that the social contract level is not sufficient. One of the responses is to say "we'll create mechanics at the meta-game level that will address conflicts in Creative Agendas and faciliate (force), mechanically, smooth play."*

My response would be "find another group that plays the way you want." I know you are playing with your friends, Bob and Sue (though everyone knows Bob should be at the office doing accounting work). If that's the case, then social contract should be enough - if not you might want to rethink your friendship. If you're not playing with Bob and Sue, then you don't have the same friendship ties and can find another group that plays the way you want.

Having said all that, the sad part is that some of those very mechanics, the ones meant to facilitate the differences in agendas, can be interesting in and of themselves.  There have been a couple I've seen that could be tweaked to add a little oomph to the existing panoply of games.  It's the context that's killing the discussion, IMHO. And that context is having a coherent theory (the irony is too much) and evangelizing it.

Lastly, as I mentioned, this is only one of the main thrusts.  There's "power" issues (I think a subset of the creative agendas issue), focus issues, blah blah blah.

* The other response is to create games with a focus on a single agenda.

I think I'm already subscribed to Maddman's newsletter.

Do players have different agendas in their play?
Sure.

Are these agendas inherently incompatible?
In no way.  Its up to the GM to figure out how to incorporate them so that everyone enjoys themselves. What your GM should have done is split up the party so that those of you who are best at (and most interested in) the Orc Hunting went off to do that, while you (and anyone else who wanted to) stayed and handled the Political side of things, and create challenges for both of you. There, problem solved.

Does GNS theory in ANY way shape or form encompass the totality or even accurately represent the categories of player agendas?
Not on your life.

RPGPundit

Not to mention that your agenda may change mutliple times over the course of a campaign.

QuoteOne of the responses is to say "we'll create mechanics at the meta-game level that will address conflicts in Creative Agendas and faciliate (force), mechanically, smooth play."*

My response would be "find another group that plays the way you want."

I'm aboard this boat. No mechnics for something there should not be mechanics for, such as to be what amounts to a mediator between incompatible players.

hey, if your play styles don't work together, don't play together.

seems simple to me.:confused:

Quote from: RPGPunditDo players have different agendas in their play?
Sure.

Are these agendas inherently incompatible?
In no way.  

RPGPundit

Exactly.

GNS's "insight" isn't that people have different goals... that's a basic observation.

Virtually anyone who's ever played an RPG (or done any kind of semi-structured group activity) has run into this.

GNS does provide some ideas about what to do about different goals at the table, but its recommendations are bizzare and severe (play very narrow games to mechanically elminate different goals of play -- and presumably only play with people who share exactly the same goals).

GNS also supposes that properties of the games themselves (failure to constrain play sufficiently) most-likely result in on-going power struggle.

I'd guess I'd be happy, if unimpressed, by the basic observation if the theory's recommendations didn't have such a negative view of gamers and popular games.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Mcrowhey, if your play styles don't work together, don't play together.

seems simple to me.:confused:

Personally (and I know I'm not alone) I don't have enough friends that are also gamers to pick and chose which styles are at my table. Besides haven't you "don't play together" folks never heard of compromise, or is it cool to be selfish nowadays?

Quotehey, if your play styles don't work together, don't play together.

I'd like to add that this sort of thing is rubbish if given as advice to new players as part of a rule book.  It's not reasonable to tell 10 year olds to kick other kids out of their game.  For 20+ year olds, maybe, but I think RPG designers need to think more about the younger people.  How old were you when you first played an RPG?  I was 9.

Quote from: BagpussBesides haven't you "don't play together" folks never heard of compromise, or is it cool to be selfish nowadays?

Well, normally you would try to compromise before you "don't play together". The thing is that there are people who have such different play styles that they cannot enjoy a game fully together. If anyone @ the table isn't enjoying the game , be it the GM or players, then something has to be done. If you try everything and still have the same problem, it's obivous that a parting of the ways is the best solution.

Quote"The thing is that there are people who have such different play styles that they cannot enjoy a game fully together."

I have a hard time imagining a game outside of the RPG hobby where this is true or even beginning to give people the advice to not play the game together.

You might get people not wanting to play a particular game...
"Hey wanna play Monopoly?"  "Naw, Monopoly is boring."

But you wouldn't get people starting to play Monopoly and then realizing they have such different play styles that they can't enjoy the game together.

This would only happen with crazy people...
"Hey, what the hell -- you're supposed to be in Jail!" "Ah, not so -- my character has tunneled out of the jail."  "Dude, we can't play this game together anymore -- our play styles are too different."

That's a positive thing you can say about some games:
"Hey, want to play My Life With Master?" "Naw, I'm not into that."

If people are playing a game and THEN realize they have "different play styles" that makes them need to tell people to leave, etc.  It means either:

1) There's something really wrong with one or more of the players
2) Thers's something that could be done better in the way the game is designed and presented to new players

Quote from: StuartIf people are playing a game and THEN realize they have "different play styles" that makes them need to tell people to leave, etc.  It means either:

1) There's something really wrong with one or more of the players
2) Thers's something that could be done better in the way the game is designed and presented to new players

Ok, so you have two players. One only wants to play "smash the orcs" style of game all the time, and he has fun that way. Another like the storytelling aspect of RPing. If neither one of them is willing to give, how is it going to work?

Sure you can try to play on, but you will have one player who just wants to roll dice smash orcs and skill all that narration jargon. The other player OTOH wants narration and story telling.

If neither is willing to give, it will not work. NO, despite what people might believe designing a game that forces one style of play or the other through mechanics is not going to solve the problem.

Quote from: Stuart1) There's something really wrong with one or more of the players
2) Thers's something that could be done better in the way the game is designed and presented to new players

I think you are downplaying the role of the GM, as well as the co-operative nature of roleplaying, unless you include this in number 2.

First off, there'll obviously be cases where a GM miscommunicates entirely the style of campaign he or she is going to run, saying "You will be masters of your own destiny!" and then running a heavily railroaded game.

Secondly, roleplaying is co-operative. Many people like football, but not everyone who likes football should play on the same team. (It's even worse in roleplaying, because at least in football the team's aim - get as many goals as you can - is set in stone. A group of players need to decide what they want to achieve in the game, how to go about it, what the criteria for success are...)

Quote from: WarthurI think you are downplaying the role of the GM, as well as the co-operative nature of roleplaying, unless you include this in number 2.

I'm including that in number 2.  The GM advice section should probably contain more advice on making sure everyone understands what the game being played is about before getting started.  The game book might be about "anything you can imagine" but it's probably a good idea to tell the players (or discuss with the players) what the game everyone is sitting down to play together is going to be about.*

Quote from: WarthurSecondly, roleplaying is co-operative. Many people like football, but not everyone who likes football should play on the same team. (It's even worse in roleplaying, because at least in football the team's aim - get as many goals as you can - is set in stone. A group of players need to decide what they want to achieve in the game, how to go about it, what the criteria for success are...)

I don't like this annalogy as much because players on opposing teams are still playing the same game.  "Smash the Orcs" and "Political Intrigue" can actually be different games altogether.

Edit: * And by "about" I don't mean the setting or theme.  I mean what is the actual gameplay going to be.  What are the challenges, rules, rewards, etc.

Quote from: StuartI  "Smash the Orcs" and "Political Intrigue" can actually be different games altogether.

Exaclty what I'm saying.

I not sure that is possible to make a game have enough of one of two, without neglecting the other.

sure you could have a game the has some of both, but then both of the above types of players are going to walk away with a "meh" feeling about the game.

If you are lucky, like I have been most of the time, you get players that enjoy both styles and a mix of the two. But if you get two players that are polar opposites in gaming styles, its going to very difficult to GM a game that they both will enjoy.