![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
GNS / Big Model Open House
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.
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.
no subject
The situations force one to "fill-in blanks" in the character. Ie, one starts out with a set of precepts that formulate the character and some background where those precepts come from. If situation that comes up has already been handled by me in my head, then I follow the pre-arranged character concept. Otherwise, I attempt to figure out what the character would do in that situation from what I already know. If there is not enough info, I attempt to come up with missing pieces that would not make previous actions inconsistent.
I make characters that I consider interesting. This usually does not involve being very close to a breaking/turning point.
Decisions:
Almost entirely based on what the character would do.
If both of those are viable, but the later lets me stay with the character longer and explore him longer (by putting him in more situations), then I will probably be likely to stick with the second option.
This would depend on how the situation originated. If the source of the situation is me, then it is really my fault for making a character who is likely to abandon his group in a game where this act would make the other players have a lot less fun in their game. I would check whether out of game it was okay for me to leave and roll up a new character, or if that option was not available, I would stay and revise the character idea to explore why one would choose the less likely option and see how that could still be a reasonably consistent character.
I feel out of game knowledge should not impact in-game decisions like that. I would prefer to not know that at all though.
no subject
I'd like you to picture this scenario as one of actual play, with other players who are your friends.
You are playing a character who it has been previously established is a cold blooded killer. You have been hired to kill a woman who, upon investigation, turns out to actually be a little girl. This is the character of another PC.
My question is not "do you kill her or not" but this: Do you regard "do you kill her or not" to be a valid question?
yrs--
--Ben
no subject
Essentially you are introducing two questions in one here and I am going to reply as such:
1) Woman is actually a little girl
Answer - depends on his motivations for being a killer. Depends on his loyalty to the boss/etc. Frankly it can depend on how well the little girl pleads her case. To summarize - there are always situational factors that prevent one from making blanket statements about a character's actions.
2) Person who is going to be killed is another PC
Answer - part of any roleplaying game is having fun. If I feel that the other PC would be completely devastated out of game by this character dying (which is a problem all in itself) regardless of how interesting/exciting/deep the roleplaying during the encounter will be, I might think of a way to keep them alive that is character consistent. I might also ask the PC out of game first, just to make sure things are clear. That is the only effect this being another PC has on the situation (in addition to my responces to the "leaving the party" question).
To answer concisely, yes it is a valid question.
no subject
My diagnosis here is that you are approaching most of the games you are in with a Simulationist creative agenda, focusing on exploration of character, focusing on a cause-and-effect psychological realism. Your main technique towards this is a total disregard for any system in favor of trance-state immersion. The one exception to this is that you don't want to cripple other PCs. I imagine that this is one of the main sources of frustration in your role-playing, the others being, possibly, that there is too often "nothing to do" and that other players are power-gaming or otherwise making decisions that don't seem to jive with their character profile. I imagine that you deal with these frustrations by either avoiding these players in play or by rationalizing their actions somehow.
Fair enough?
yrs--
--Ben