GNS / Big Model Open House

[benlehman]

Hi.

I know that a fair share of RPG theory interested folks read this blog.

I'd like to test my own understanding of GNS / Big Model.

So:

I will answer any questions about the Big Model or GNS that you have, if you ask them in response to this post or in a private e-mail to me.

It would help if you would first read the essays here and here. These other ones won't hurt. Just the top part of the last two is fine.


a few ground rules:

1) I'm going to try to explain a theoretical model to you. I don't want to argue whether it is right or wrong. You can come to your own conclusions about that. If you post, I will assume that you are trying to understand the model, no more, no less.

1a) If you want to destroy the model, may I suggest that understanding it is a good first step?

1b) So no "that's stupid," stupid though it may be. "That doesn't make sense, please explain it a different way" is fine.

2) I will not diagnose GNS goals of games I've never played. I will not discuss any theory applying to LARPs, because they are complicated. I will not discuss books, movies, plays, improv theatre, ballet, or any other artform in the context of GNS, because doing so is stupid. I will discuss games which I have played, as examples, but pretty much only at the request of the GM who ran said game.

2a) If you ask about the GNS of your game, do not take a diagnosis that isn't what you want it to be to be an insult. It isn't.

3) I may add ground rules as things progress.

Comments

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

The point is that the terminology is used in a specific way. Someone who is clearly misusing it probably doesn't understand the theory. What they've done, in terms of actual play, may or may not invalidate it. But we can't understand what they've done until they do one of these things:

1) Explain it without the theoretical terms.
2) Understand the theoretical terms well enough to explain it.
3) Develop their own set of theoretical terms, explain all of them, and then use those to explain their play experiences.

The fact that theory has been explained, historically, with a lot of hand-waving and "y'know..." probably accounts for some of this.

[yeloson.livejournal.com]

Right, overall people are ill equipped to convey to each other what's happening on a social level, and even less so especially with regards to roleplaying games. It usually requires a massive jump for people to even get the idea that "everything that happens imaginatively, happens because of the people at the table make it that way"... It is incredibly more difficult to then explain ideas based completely on that premise if that first jump hasn't been made.

Beyond that, most of the misunderstanding usually falls in this format:

"Hi, I played Game X, in a Sim fashion, with red dice"
"But I played with green dice!"
"Uh, you can use whatever color dice you want."
"But I've always gotten Sim play, and I've always used green dice! Now you're telling me red dice will work too?"
"Yes. The dice are irrelevant to the other issues!"
"But, if the color of the dice doesn't matter, your whole theory is bunk!"
"The color of the dice doesn't change what game you're playing, or how you play it..."
"Sez you! You don't know the first thing about roleplaying!!! Next thing you'll tell me is that I can have fun with elves whose ears are only 2.5 inches long..."

Yep.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Hey, Chris? You had said over at anyway that you had some basic misunderstandings? Or something like that? Part of the reason for this post is to try to clear them up, if you're up for it.

yrs--
--Ben