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

[Old Fezziwig]

Also has to be noted that the idea that the purpose of rules is to introduce unwelcome things is basically taking the actual historical point, throwing it in the garbage, and making a new purpose to be retroactively applied to games that weren't designed like that.

If that kind of logic was applied to lawmaking, it'd be an egregious human rights violation, to be clear.

The purpose of rules for TTRPGs is only superficially similar to the purpose of rules for governing society. Sure, they're both about distributing authority within a system, but that's about it. There's a massive difference between determining how many spells an elf can cast per day and determining tax rates and designing social programs. It would absolutely be a problem, morally, if the purpose of the laws that govern our society was to introduce the unwelcome. But it's, at most, contentious in terms of TTRPGs. It's not the only way to arrange the rules, and it's not problematic.

 

[FrogReaver]

It’s pejorative connotations.

Then I’d have expected pushback on the idea that collaboration can play like writers room. Not on the conclusion once that premise is already accepted.

And if that pushback was on that premise i wouldn’t have even posted about writers room.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So why the pushback on calling those moments ‘writers room’?

Not to answer for @Manbearcat , but for me, I don't like the phrase because it reads like full on collaboration, where everyone agrees on how things go, and then that's what happens.

But that's clearly not what's happening most of the time in Blades in the Dark, and most similar games. Things don't go in a way that everyone agrees with. The key moments are decided by dice. The GM introduces complications and obstacles regardless of player desire. And so on. There's not some grand consensus that guides these games.

Even games like Microscope and Kingdom which work in a much more collaborative manner still don't function that way at all times.

When people describe RPGs in this way, it's typically seems to be for one of two reasons. First, they don't fully understand how the game works and how poor a categorization the label is. Second, they're trying to portray the game in a way that is inaccurate.

I think you're falling more into the first group than the second.

 

[zakael19]

Then I’d have expected pushback on the idea that collaboration can play like writers room. Not on the conclusion once that premise is already accepted.

“Writer’s room” in the classic media sense means: collaboratively determining the outcome or totality of the narrative. BITD/PBTA resist implicitly any control of the narrative. At most, you’re asking a player for some details about elements of a singular scene that will still require rolls / moves to see the outcome of, which cannot be determined ahead of time.

 

[Emberashh]

The purpose of rules for TTRPGs is only superficially similar to the purpose of rules for governing society. Sure, they're both about distributing authority within a system, but that's about it. There's a massive difference between determining how many spells an elf can cast per day and determining tax rates and designing social programs. It would absolutely be a problem, morally, if the purpose of the laws that govern our society was to introduce the unwelcome. But it's, at most, contentious in terms of TTRPGs. It's not the only way to arrange the rules, and it's not problematic.

You missed the point of making the analogy. The point was that you can't retroactively reinterpret things as something else, and thats in response to the specific idea that what RPG rules are for is introducing the unwelcome. That isn't true and arbitrarily reinterprets (more accurately, disregards) why RPGs were designed the way they were.

And for the record, its not like Baker is the only one whose done something like that. The whole OSR was predicated on a romanticized reinterpretation of what pre-WOTC DND actually was. But they're also not going on to make sweeping declarations about RPGs.

 

[kenada]

So why the pushback on calling those moments ‘writers room’?

I’ve played Blades and had writers’ room occur in my game. The experiences were very different. There’s a difference between the GM’s asking for input on a Devil’s Bargain or some kind of consequence. The GM still has a say over what happens and how it manifests. When I had writers’ room happen, one player was effectively trying to play another’s character by suggesting various things he should do even when his character wasn’t present and had no way to communicate with the other character. That kind of problem happens outside your purview of the GM. I had to address it outside of the session because it wasn’t appropriate.

Players are responsible for playing their own characters and not each others’. I’m not strict about everything you say being in character, but there are boundaries that shouldn’t be crossed.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

The point was that you can't retroactively reinterpret things as something else, and thats in response to the specific idea that what RPG rules are for is introducing the unwelcome. That isn't true and arbitrarily reinterprets (more accurately, disregards) why RPGs were designed the way they were.

In response to the bolded part, of course we can. People reinterpret things all the time. We talk about why people said they did things and whether they were being honest or whether they even really knew at the time. Some of those interpretations are valuable and interesting. Some of them are not, ranging from being just not particularly compelling to outright wrong.

As far as the rest, there is no why RPGs were designed the way the were that's true for all RPGs any more than there is a single why a novel was written that was true for all novels, unless we're going to be needlessly reductive to the point of uselessness. I guess I could get on board if we wanted to argue that RPGs were designed the way they were because it seemed like it'd be a good time or that these novels were written because the author had something to say. But, if that's what we're doing, who cares? It's so general as to be utterly meaningless.

And for the record, its not like Baker is the only one whose done something like that. The whole OSR was predicated on a romanticized reinterpretation of what pre-WOTC DND actually was. But they're also not going on to make sweeping declarations about RPGs.

But they're kind of making an argument for what they think RPGs could/should be. And the authors that came out of the Forge are, too. They can all make those arguments, and they can be more or less committed at different times. They can change their minds. There's no need for us to be so precious about it.

 

[Campbell]

The reason I personally bristle at associating writer's room or collaborative storytelling with the way I run / play games like Apocalypse Keys is that to me they imply an intention and approach to play that is concerned with making decisions for the sake of a satisfying story or narrative, that is concerned with things like character arcs, wherein we always build on one another's ideas instead of simply interacting with them.

I can only speak to my intentions and expectations. When I ran Apocalypse Keys and Girl By Moonlight this year I never concerned myself with narrative outcomes or where characters' arcs were heading. I always made framing decisions around making dynamic scenes that would test the characters without regard to what possible fallout may come.

If anyone wants to call both the way I approached my short run of Girl By Moonlight and the way Brenan Lee Mulligan approaches his D&D games both collaborative storytelling go ahead, but understand there is a profound difference in intention, expectations and technique.

Look I have run and played (and will continue to do so) several games where we use similar approaches to the way Dimension 20 plays. Games where the expectation is that we all are intentionally playing towards what we think would make the best story. Games where we are mindful of character arcs. I was a White Wolf / Ars Magica / Legend of the Five Rings kid. That sort of play was my bread and butter. Apocalypse World ain't that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not to answer for @Manbearcat , but for me, I don't like the phrase because it reads like full on collaboration, where everyone agrees on how things go, and then that's what happens.

But that's clearly not what's happening most of the time in Blades in the Dark, and most similar games. Things don't go in a way that everyone agrees with. The key moments are decided by dice. The GM introduces complications and obstacles regardless of player desire. And so on. There's not some grand consensus that guides these games.

Even games like Microscope and Kingdom which work in a much more collaborative manner still don't function that way at all times.

When people describe RPGs in this way, it's typically seems to be for one of two reasons. First, they don't fully understand how the game works and how poor a categorization the label is. Second, they're trying to portray the game in a way that is inaccurate.

I think you're falling more into the first group than the second.

i think it’s important to distinguish between the whole game is like this and this moment in the game is like this. I’m very much arguing for the later. Nor do I think the example I’m using is evidence of the former.

I think there may be a case for the former, but that’s a very different discussion. And it likely opens the door to just as unflattering comparisons about non-narrativist RPGs, so probably not worth going there.

 

[kenada]

You missed the point of making the analogy. The point was that you can't retroactively reinterpret things as something else, and thats in response to the specific idea that what RPG rules are for is introducing the unwelcome. That isn't true and arbitrarily reinterprets (more accurately, disregards) why RPGs were designed the way they were.

And for the record, its not like Baker is the only one whose done something like that. The whole OSR was predicated on a romanticized reinterpretation of what pre-WOTC DND actually was. But they're also not going on to make sweeping declarations about RPGs.

I’m having trouble following the logic in this discussion. The quote @pemerton posted was Baker’s saying why he thinks RPGs have rules — that as far as he was concerned, they served this particular function relating to the unwelcome and unwanted. Maybe he’s right, or maybe he’s not, or maybe it’s only applicable sometimes; but isn’t that how ideas develop? Everything isn’t known from the beginning, so it has to be figured out some way eventually.