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

[Emberashh]

If unpopular my perrenial advice on having fun in the hobby is to stop trying so hard to tell stories and just play.

 

[Wolfpack48]

If unpopular my perrenial advice on having fun in the hobby is to stop trying so hard to tell stories and just play.

Well, I think he was pointing to players who are playing, but for multiple reasons, aren't having fun. One of those reasons could be player agency (The White Wolf example). He'd point to more character development at the outset and actively encouraging participation and character growth (spiritually as well as the stat blocks). Story making wasn't really a goal and and he seriously bashed on 'scriptwriting exercises.'

 

[Emberashh]

Well, I think he was pointing to players who are playing, but for multiple reasons, aren't having fun. One of those reasons could be player agency (The White Wolf example). He'd point to more character development at the outset and actively encouraging participation and character growth (spiritually as well as the stat blocks). Story making wasn't really a goal and and he seriously bashed on 'scriptwriting exercises.'

Sure, but my point was that its often that the issue has to do with trying to force a story out of the experience and less with whether or not player agency is being respected. The latter doesn't always mean the former.

 

[kenada]

Story making wasn't really a goal and and he seriously bashed on 'scriptwriting exercises.'

There’s a part in the third video (see below, warning starts with NSFW language) where he discusses a PbtA move with a 7–9 result that is “Someone is watching from the shadows”. The problem as he sees it is the game is not telling you who has the authority to say what that is. Does the GM? Do the players? He also goes on to discuss constraints. If there are no constraints —the answer is completely out of the blue—he likens it to playing Mad Libs.

I particularly liked this part because he’s not excluding games he purportedly should favor from criticism, but he also touches on a problem I’ve had running complications and consequences (in Dungeon World, my homebrew system before some rule changes, etc). I get too cute with a complication that seems like it came out of nowhere, much to the players befuddlement? GM’s playing Mad Libs instead of doing his job.

 

[TiQuinn]

There’s a part in the third video (see below, warning starts with NSFW language) where he discusses a PbtA move with a 7–9 result that is “Someone is watching from the shadows”. The problem as he sees it is the game is not telling you who has the authority to say what that is. Does the GM? Do the players?

But his response is navel-gazing drivel! It’s concern trolling before a willing puppy dog of an interviewer who wants to maaaaybe get some extra clicks because he’s giving a floor to an old doofus who once upon a time wrote an obscure RPG and has an opinion.

The GM has the authority is the answer but they share the opportunity to create the scene with the player as well IF the player has a good idea to contribute to it. It’s that simple. And if that sounds like mad libs, well, mad libs is a game too. He may thumb his nose at it but then again what the feck has he done that’s more important than a mad lib?

 

[Umbran]

To be fair, this kind of condescension is entirely in keeping with Edwards.

Yeah. After so much time, we could have hoped for a bit of growth in that regard - and possibly more useful theorizing as a result. But, I guess not.

 

[kenada]

But his response is navel-gazing drivel! It’s concern trolling before a willing puppy dog of an interviewer who wants to maaaaybe get some extra clicks because he’s giving a floor to an old doofus who once upon a time wrote an obscure RPG and has an opinion.

The GM has the authority is the answer but they share the opportunity to create the scene with the player as well IF the player has a good idea to contribute to it. It’s that simple. And if that sounds like mad libs, well, mad libs is a game too. He may thumb his nose at it but then again what the feck has he done that’s more important than a mad lib?

There seems to be an issue with your quote. It’s missing the last sentence in that paragraph about constraints. That’s an important one because it’s the one that introduces his comment about Mad Libs. I think he’s right on that point. If you’re just making up stuff unconstrained, what preserves causality? What’s to stop silly answers from ruining the game? People could declare they have a million bucks or can just jump to the moon. Maybe the guy watching from the shadows is here to deliver my pizza. Without constraints, they’re all good responses.

From my perspective, I thought it was a good reminder than when a system tasks you to introduce consequences, they have to follow. Whenever I’ve screwed that up, my players never liked it. You rolled a partial success, then a guy wanders into the area where you’re fighting to get in the way. You get a mixed success while persuading someone, then a guy in the background wanders off. You’re trying to discern realities, then suddenly ogres.

 

[TiQuinn]

There seems to be an issue with your quote. It’s missing the last sentence in that paragraph about constraints. That’s an important one because it’s the one that introduces his comment about Mad Libs. I think he’s right on that point. If you’re just making up stuff unconstrained, what preserves causality? What’s to stop silly answers from ruining the game? People could declare they have a million bucks or can just jump to the moon. Maybe the guy watching from the shadows is here to deliver my pizza. Without constraints, they’re all good responses.

From my perspective, I thought it was a good reminder than when a system tasks you to introduce consequences, they have to follow. Whenever I’ve screwed that up, my players never liked it. You rolled a partial success, then a guy wanders into the area where you’re fighting to get in the way. You get a mixed success while persuading someone, then a guy in the background wanders off. You’re trying to discern realities, then suddenly ogres.

Paradoxically, one’s players provide the constraints. If the result says “someone is watching from the shadows” and the DM says “it’s Santa Claus. Santa Claus is watching your PC from the shadows and plotting to take your PC’s lunch money”, how are you going to react?

Probably, you’re gonna go “WTF” along with everyone else at the table. Then, you or they’re going to very likely start trying to walk back what was just said to get the game back on track. And if that doesn’t happen, people are eventually going to stop showing up to the game and it ends unceremoniously as many TTRPGs do. In a way, it’s no different than any games Rule Zero. The GM can always break the rules of the game to make the game “work”. However if they abuse it, the players will reject it.

That’s not a failing. That’s a feature.

 

[kenada]

Paradoxically, one’s players provide the constraints. If the result says “someone is watching from the shadows” and the DM says “it’s Santa Claus. Santa Claus is watching your PC from the shadows and plotting to take your PC’s lunch money”, how are you going to react?

Probably, you’re gonna go “WTF” along with everyone else at the table. Then, you or they’re going to very likely start trying to walk back what was just said to get the game back on track. And if that doesn’t happen, people are eventually going to stop showing up to the game and it ends unceremoniously as many TTRPGs do. In a way, it’s no different than any games Rule Zero. The GM can always break the rules of the game to make the game “work”. However if they abuse it, the players will reject it.

That’s not a failing. That’s a feature.

Ideally, a game should be put together well enough that people can play it without having to worry how they can break it. Silly plays are obviously bad (and obviously can lead to a player exodus if the GM is just being dumb about it), but well-meaning ones can also be bad if they come out of nowhere. Those were the examples I gave from my own experience (though Suddenly Ogres is a Dungeon World meme). My players didn’t bail, but it certainly soured them on having consequences integrated into resolution until I made foregrounding consequences a part of the process as a way to prevent misplays.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yep, in the video he mentions it could be cultural as well as rule based. I think he wanted to focus on rules that would lead to better tools and hence improvements at the table. And give more alternatives if the table isn't a good fit. For tables where all are having fun, there's nothing to worry about.

I do remember he bashed 2e pretty harshly. Maybe that was more due to organization and the growth of all the classes in the splatbooks(?). Not sure about that part of the video.

The problem is that there can absolutely be a better game for what a group is doing, but if they have a strong tendency to stay with what they're used to, that's likely what will happen.