Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9334114" data-attributes="member: 42582">I guess I don't know what this is meant to do. Like, is it supposed to be a comprehensive taxonomy? A guide for designers? Something else?GNS as set out be Edwards is an attempt to identify aesthetic goals of RPGing. It starts from a premise - that RPGing is a form in which (i) participants control characters who find themselves in situations that provoke them to action, and (ii) the action is ultimately in the imagination of the participants. It then asks, Why would human beings expend time, creative energy, and emotion, doing this thing?And then three candidate answers are offered:They might do it because it creates something comparable to literature or film, but taking advantage of this distinctive medium (ie both (i) and (ii)) - that is *narrativism (= "story now"). (Is there some literature and film that don't really "count" here - eg Hardy Boys books, perhaps the worst of James Bond films? Probably. On the other hand, I don't think Edwards is going to assert that narrativist Champions is, in thematic and creative terms, on a par with War and Peace or Citizen Kane.) They might do it because they want to compete and see how well they can do, just as happens in a lot of other game play - that is *gamism (= "step on up"). The parameters of this competition - between whom in real life and between whom in the fiction - can of course be very varied (eg party play D&D typically has little competition among the PCs, often has competition against the GM's adversity - eg "beat the dungeon" - and may but need not have competition among the players, eg as to who is cleverest in combat or spell load-out or who gets the most XP or the best magic items). There might be no further reason for doing this imagining than *for its own sake, as a way of "exploring" an imaginary world, or as a way of "experiencing" an author's story (eg this is how DL works, or Dead Gods, or many CoC modules)  - this is simulationism (= "the right to dream").From the point of view of RPG design, if we know which aesthetic goal we would like our game to best support, we can then look at what sorts of mechanics will suit that goal. Eg Vincent Baker and Luke Crane did this, respectively, in designing Apocalypse World and Burning Wheel. They came up with quite different mechanics for supporting the first - "narrativist" - goal above. This shows what Edwards already worked out two decades ago, that there is no particular correlation between aesthetic goals and particular mechanical solutions, although there may be some mechanics that better fit one or other goal.The same is true for system more generally: AW and BW use different procedures of play in pursuit of the "story now" aesthetic experience; Rolemaster and railroady-y CoC modules use different procedures of play in pursuit of the "right to dream" aesthetic; Moldvay Basic D&D and can-you-solve-the-mystery? CoC scenarios use different procedures of play in pursuit of the "step on up" aesthetic.The purpose of GNS, as articulated by Edwards, is not to pigeon-hole mechanics, or techniques, or procedures of play like GM prep or map-and-key framing or whatever. It is to try and speak clearly about aesthetic goals of RPGing, and then let us think about how to support those goals using the resources the medium has at its disposal (which in his view are system, setting, situation, character and colour). But no one thinks that, just because someone is really aspiring to narrativist RPGing, that means they will love Edwards's narrativist Champions even if they dislike high search-and-handling in resolution and are really not into Supers.No one thinks that someone who likes grounded, realistic fiction is going to get into Wuthering Heights. But liking grounded, realistic fiction doesn't make someone per se "simulationist" - there is grounded literature (eg much of Graham Greene; some of Dickens) as well as wild fantasy (eg much of REH or JRRT or Marvel Comics), and a "narrativist" might look for a RPG experience that is closer to the former than the latter. (See eg Baker's imaginary "Life o' Crime RPG" that I quoted upthread.)Similarly, enjoying "story" doesn't make someone "narrativist" - if you want the story to be provided via pre-authorship rather than arising out of the distinctive elements of the RPG medium, say by playing through a module, then your preference is "simulationist". And there is in my view quite a bit of evidence that many RPGers do want this.</blockquote>

Verification