Levi Kornelsen sobre The Manyfold

1. Players don’t always all want the same stuff.
When players sit down at the table, they have goals. Things they think would be fun for them. Just the basic act of sitting down with a few friends and hanging out is one kind of fun, and it can certainly be enough to carry a night. But ‘hanging out’ isn’t actually playing, and we’re talking about the time actually spent playing, here. So, players can want different things - to get deep into character, to explore the setting in detail, to have their character make hard decisions that define them, to collaboratively create story with the game - all kinds of things. Most players want more than one thing, at different levels of intensity. And many people aren’t that good at expressing what they want to get out of the game.

2. Playstyles form from accumulated goals, habits, text, everything.
When a group starts putting all their goals together with the habits of the players, the text, and so on, they slowly create a consensus and a style of play. This style of play is unique to the group, and changes over time. Two groups using the same game system will not play entirely the same way - even if they’re composed of the same people playing a new campaign or the like.

3. Playstyles form by multiple means.
Most playstyles emerge because the group has a leader - the GM - who runs the group and works to keep things smooth. Others form by consensus - their goals and habits are similar enough that the group functions. Still others by contract - the group sits down and hashes things out. Others, yet, by aggregate; ideas get tossed around during play and added in, changing things as play goes on. And finally, a few are formed based almost solely on a consensus of text - everyone reads and follows the rulebook as written, as best they can.

4. You can’t serve what you don’t know about.
The more the group knows about the goals of all the players, the more able it is to serve those goals. If Tom wants adventure, excitement, and really wild things from a given campaign, while Sam wants hard choices and character development, the group needs to sort that out. Maybe they’ll end up playing a grim campaign of grey morals, where every choice means something. But if they don’t know what both players want, the group won’t have as much fun as they otherwise could.

5. Categories are tricky.
People often try to categorize playstyles and goals. I’ve done it myself.. This isn’t as simple a task as it might seem, and any time a set of categories gets widely know, it will get disputed widely, often because the people doing the categorizing care most about the category that includes them, and simplify everything that doesn’t. This problem has been endemic for a long time in RPG theory, and it’s a silly one, because the solution is obvious.

6. The only ‘category’ and the only goals you need to define are your own.
Figure out what you want, from each game you play. If that matches what other people want, good. If someone has a name for it that fits, good. But don’t hide behind any one set of terms. Describe your goals, the parts of the playstyle you want, as clearly as possible. Tell your group what makes gaming fun for you, and how to get it. You might want to read what other people consider “their category”; you may have things in common with them.

7. And then you need to listen to the other players.
Once you know what you want, and you’re ready to put it out there to your group, you still need to listen to the other members of your group. They have goals, just as you do. Find out what they want, and don’t discount it because it doesn’t fit your mental model. If someone at your table is a “narrativist”, it doesn’t matter if you disagree with the framework that idea came from. This isn’t about you. It’s about them. But expect the same courtesy; if you decide to call yourself an “immersionist”, they should be asking you what that means to you and how to serve it at the table.

This is also up on RPGnet, but I wanted to see if folks here had any thoughts.

So... Got any?


Partilhado pelo JRMariano, podem ler o original aqui.

Bem desde que eu li a categorização proposta pelo GNS que houve um sobreolho meu que se franziu. Não só a terminologia me pareceu arbitrária como também limitadora. Como engavetar o que cada pessoa busca no RPG em três gavetas apenas?

Contudo li e reli muito da teoria e apoio a iniciativa de se catalogar a coisa para se ajudar a compreender muito do que se passa na mesa de jogo. Gosto até de alguns jogos que surgiram dessa análise independentemente da sua génese tal como gosto de outros que surgiram da ideias posteriores e anteriores ao GNS.

Por outro lado se existe bastante confusão/hostilidade/recusa/descrédito no GNS também tem muito a ver com esta catalogação. Apoio a posição do Levi tanto quanto esta nos sugere fortemente que analisemos o que todos querem à mesa de jogo e que a terminologia GNS é efectivamente um primeiro passo nessa direcção e nada definitivo... É no fundo uma primeira Pedra de Rosetta para haver uma referência comum para a discussão.

E um apelo a todos os que jogam e principalmente o que jogam comigo: digam sempre o que pensam!

Jogos Felizes para todos! ;)

"Se alguma vez sou coerente, é apenas como incoerência saída da incoerência." Fernando Pessoa

Eu começo a gostar cada vez mais da teoria iniciada (?) pelo Walton e semi-desenvolvida por mim; gostaria de me debruçar mais sobre esse assunto, talvez falar com o Walton e expor as minhas ideias na rpg.net. A ver.