Is GNS a Paradoxical Trinity?

[RangerEd]

Hello everyone. I have been reading posts for a few weeks now. Thank you for the great discussions. I apologize for skulking about for so long without contributing.

Ron, I joined this forum to post a question regarding the mutually exclusive qualities of gamism, narrativism, and simulationism. Have you considered Carl von Clausewitz's paradoxical trinity for warfare presented in On War, Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 28? In the Howard and Paret translation, Dead Carl (a term of endearment for the introspective warrior, shaped by a preponderance of defeat at the hands of Napoleon) says, "Our task therefore is to develop a theory that maintains the balance between three tendencies, like an object suspended between three magnets." Although the presentation of what Carl's three are is beyond the scope of this question, military theorists refer to the three as being in a state of tension. Theorists use the word tension in the physics sense of binding together opposing objects, like the rope in tug-of-war.

The Clausewitzian trinity seems to present an opportunity to revisit GNS as a paradoxical trinity that suspends the phenomenon of roleplaying games. As the paradoxical trinity of warfare suspends warfare, perhaps a paradoxical trinity of roleplaying (GNS) suspends roleplaying games in the sense that it takes all. The question and hypothesis may represent a naïve understanding of GNS Theory, The Big Model, and the ideas from your essays. It may simply be something transparent to more experienced readers. However, while reading your essays, I falsely anticipated your metaphoric use of the paradoxical trinity.

In trying to be brief, I may have been less than clear. I look forward to what you all have to say.

Thanks,
Ed

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ed, and welcome,

The idea that the three "goals" are are multiply compatible at the table seems to be making the rounds - a guy asked me about it in detail in Finland, someone buttonholed me about it at G+, and just today, a graduate student interviewed me about it for his thesis. I don't know whether some buzz somewhere else is generating this or something's in the water, or what. (I'm lifting some of the text below from one of these discussions, in fact.)

I used the word "goals" above because most of the discussion about this topic as you're framing it took place before I coined the term Creative Agenda - sometimes we said goals, sometimes "modes," or "way to play," or whatever. By the time the new term emerged, discussions at the Forge had concluded quite strongly that a Clausewitzian trinity, or as people described it, a "GNS Triangle," did not exist. Creative Agendas do not exist in tension with one another - instead you get Agenda Clash which diminishes the experience of play sharply, or Zilchplay which diminishes it dully, or solid Drift to one or the other result in what I called Coherence. There is no such thing as a partly-realized Agenda "suspended" during play along with another, productively engaged with one another. A CA is binary: it's there or it's not.

In discussing this issue, I realized long ago we need one rule: no what-abouts. Don't talk about what you can imagine. Sure, you can imagine that these two people have different Agendas and imagine that they are playing together compatibly, and provide all sorts of elaboration on how that happens. But what I see is that you can also imagine holding a rock in your hand, opening your hand, and watching it float there in the air, and then similarly justify it with stuff like "all the molecules went the same direction, unlikely but possible, so it coooooould happen, right?"

I don't care about that. I'm talking about real humans and what we've really seen. And what I really see is, when people play to the point where they look forward to getting together and playing, where this game with these people mattesr to them, and when their investment in the game so far is really fun - then different priorities at this level I'm talking about cannot be reached simultaneously. I don't want to talk about generalizations or imagined gamers - I want to see real people and talk about what they do.

One of the people I mentioned, with whom I'm still continuing our (very excellent) discussion, showed me some videos of the game he plays in. What I saw there is rock-solid single-CA Gamist awesome play, and I maintain that this table's shared understanding of that - which does not require thinking it in those terms or saying it out loud - is a primary reason there's a successful group.

Let me put it this way. The theory suggests strongly that working Creative Agenda is the indispensable glue for maximally functional play - perhaps not sufficient, but necessary by definition. It does not say "there can only be one," although deduction suggests it. Fine - deduction isn't everything, we have to go to empiricism now. And empirically, despite much effort in both play and design, we found that only one of them can really shine for a given group playing a given game at a given time.

Games that played a big role in people reaching this conclusion include The Riddle of Steel especially, and Capes provides a negative example by trying quite hard to be both Gamist and Narrativist and consistently falling apart unless you do one or the other.

(Similarly, there aren't three CAs by definition. The number is an empirical discovery, and in fact tested quite hard among people who differed in their initial assumptions. If such investigation yielded a fourth, then we'd have four.)

If I saw a group in which the social enjoyment about (e.g.) winning, or more properly not losing, and bringing thematic conflict to a boil were both present as throughlines and climax points ... (deep inhale) for a 'reward cycle' of play at the very least, and by reward cycle I mean nothing harder than seeing the character sheets change permanently due to events in play ... then sure. I'd say, "look look, the criteria I use for judging CA are holding for more than one at a time."

I mean, I can't guarantee that such a thing can't happen, any more than a scientist can guarantee that his or her experimental design is infallible. But like a scientist, I am trying to design (in this case observe) in a fashion that permits events to contradict my expectations.

I maintain that current evidence is supporting the one-CA conclusion, consistent with what the theory suggests. If you want to talk about multiple-CAs and why they can or can't happen, then I'm interested in whatever case you can make in the same terms (real people). From my current position, there's no evidence-based reason for me to try to convince you about it.

Here are some useful threads to investigate: In Frostfolk and GNS aggravation I was able to show a guy what I was talking about (the exact thing you are), and in Frostfolk, carrying on I was able to show how "system matters" was relevant to it. I was even able to do this with a very hostile conversation partner in [Rifts] GNS my session. I was able to use these three threads as a useful reference in Gamism and Narrativism: Mutually Exclusive for the whole Gamist/Narrativist contrast (read the last one through to the end, that's important). See also more recently, Agenda Clash or can two games exist at one table?.

Best, Ron

[RangerEd]

Ron,

Thank you for the thoughtful and patient reply. I'll review the links and see where the research takes me. I suppose I ought to admit that the GNS portion of the big model intrigues me because I suspect it might help explain why a friend of mine and I have such a hard time finding groups with which we feel we belong. Before I go on and potentially sound like an uninformed twit, I'll do some reading first.

Thanks again,
Ed

[RangerEd]

Ron,

Fun reading. Thanks for pointing me in a productive direction. I'd like to take a moment to offer what I suspect my mistake was in anticipating the paradoxical trinity: apparent fractal consistency across temporal game frames (instance to session to long-term play of a game) does not imply CA applies across all those frames. CA is a macro concept. Although, as a newcomer to these ideas, I have little confidence in my conclusions in front of this crowd.

In other news, I understand quite clearly now why my friend and I are gaming hermits. We are hardcore simulationists. So much so that our gaming talk (non-play) is dominated by how a particular rule set balances simulation of reality (as we understand it) and ease of implementation at the table. For a personal example, I once invested a great deal of time and energy fitting into a D&D gaming group, only to walk away in an instant after the DM ruled that druidic shape shifting was an illusion. I wasn't mad or rude; just gone. My friend and I still use that ruling as a punch line for (in our opinion) ridiculous conclusions we hear.

Another example is the gaming system I authored and run, The Journal. It is 16 pages of finely tuned simulationism meant to provide the mechanism to run D&D, Vampire, Star Frontiers, and so on. We will adopt (contort, pillage, corrupt?) any sentience-based game into The Journal. I recently wrote a three-paragraph addendum for Everyone is John (I'm going to spring it on my players in a few weeks...after they make out their "characters"). For our style of play, many things may change, but technique and CA do not. I deluded myself with some of the exchanges in the system, such as a narrative-driven character creation process and awards mechanic. Now, I realize I am really using the narrative to peak into my players' minds to get feedback on the game and ease my workload by focusing on what my players want out of the next session. In the end, it is still strongly simulationist.

Good stuff. Definitely a helpful exercise. Thank you.

Ed

P.S: Ron, I think you are crazy for doing what you do here. Your behavioral altruism mixed with laser-guided f-bombs is new to me. Eh, we're all crazy in our own way, I suppose.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

I think your phrase "macro concept" is a pretty good fit - it invokes in me the moment in the first Frostfolk thread when Levi realized that he'd been hunting for CA in the details and not at the level I was talking about. Let me know if that's what you meant by it.

I'd love to see The Journal at its current stage of development and so would a lot of other people, from your description. The best way would be to post in the Your Stuff forum about playing it, with a document link.

behavioral altruism mixed with laser-guided f-bombs

I believe I may adopt that phrase in some way - an introduction to the Adept site, or to this one perhaps.

Best, Ron

[RangerEd]

Ron,

I think we might be in a pretty tight margin of error with each other on CA scope and scale. I chose the word macro to evoke the division between micro and macroeconomics, which do not mix with each other (pre-Beinhocker). The conversation leaves me wondering whether I could ever really enjoy a G or N CA game. Thinking about it last night while my wife watched inane TV shows I pretend to watch (please don't judge, it's a win-win), I think the answer is no.

I'll look into sharing my stuff here. Frankly, I think it may be too, mmm, tailored to my point of view. I used my life experiences and autodidactic pastimes as the mark on the wall for what I wanted the game to be. We all have probably seen how many standard deviations from the norm autodidacts can be! Sadly, I may be a statistic.

And I am glad you took my post script with a sense of humor. When I first discovered this and the Forge sites, I read for a long while. I am whitetail skittish on the internet. I thought you were a little mean at first, but read on and found the patterns of bad behavior you were striking at. I read for a while longer and decided you were just in your strikes. Sorry to sound like a QA/QC inspector, but I am glad to be here now.

Hmm, one on-post paragraph and two off-post. I'll be more disciplined in the future.
   
Thanks again,
Ed

[Ron Edwards]

Your "no" answer is perfectly reasonable at present and may or may not hold over the long term. I've generally found that sticking close to a single CA preference is a function of how successful one's been. As long as that primary itch isn't being scratched well, the person remains focused on doing so. After that, however, it's surprising how widely one might branch on a game-to-game basis. Your reference to yourself and your friend as gaming hermits suggests you might be in the not-yet-scratched-enough category.

I suggest making your work available to us as it is. You've provided all sorts of "this is different" qualifiers - I believe you, and what you say simply makes me more interested. I think the people posting here are sufficiently used to idiosyncratic, personal, or atypical ways to deal with role-playing texts. If you do post about it and link, please don't try to revise it away from the format and content you've built for it.

Best, Ron

[RangerEd]

I remain open to gaming experiences. Although kids and career have limited me a lot. I agree that I may be simulationist based on a limited data set, so to speak. I have tried other games, but the experiences were dreadful, geek hierarchy explorations (ass whoopin's by gamists and socially awkward usery by LARPers). I am intrigued by narrativism, but have not come across a group accepting outsiders. I move every few years. Maybe retirement will offer greater opportunity. Have you considered your next business venture? If not, may I suggest roleplaying retirement homes?

[Ron Edwards]

I endorse that suggestion. My only problem with it is that I'm definitely going to be the first client, rather than anyone in a position to make money off it. I can see us now, Mike Holmes and me, arguing in screechy old-man tones and trying to run each other down with our walkers.

[RangerEd]

My buddy and I joke about calling the nurses to fetch the d20 from under the adjustable bed.

[glandis]

Just because it's long been (once I understood Ron's use of "synechdoce") the thing I hate for folks to miss in CA/GNS, and I see a way to extend the association with Clausewitz ... you know how, despite this paradoxical trinity thing, Clausewitz has that "war is a mere continuation of policy by other means" statement? Or the later "war is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means?" Both of which, you know, sound an awful lot like just ONE of the trinity, the "subordination, as an instrument of policy" one?

My limited understanding of Clausewitz scholarship (that is, what I remember from talking to some legit and some wannabe military-types, plus doing a little internet research) is that this springs from issues in the translation of the German "politik" to either "politics" or "policy." Which (I think) makes my next statement not QUITE right for Clausewitz, but shows the GNS-parallel, so - pardon the (probable) distortion of what Clausewitz ACTUALLY means. Imagine he is saying something like "war is best seen as a continuation of policy, but those other two things (violence and chance, to inadequately paraphrase) will definitely happen in war too."

Now imagine other people saying "war is best seen as the outcome of human violent tendencies, but ..." or "war is best seen as the result of chance and probability, but ..." We now have three "CA"s regarding war, all of which acknowledge that the other two FACTORS do exist. Now (to get the paralell closer to GNS), imagine all these folks are talking about the particular reason a particular group is pursuing a particular war.

Which may be a long way to go to say G play doesn't mean no story-stuff or dream-stuff is happening, N play doesn't mean no challenge-stuff or dream-stuff is happening, and S play doesn't mean no challenge-stuff or story-stuff is happening; each just means that what we see happening obviously puts (G/N/S for GNS, policy/violence/chance for my psuedo-Clausewitz) as the agenda. We might even look at Sim and violence as the elements without which play (for Sim) or war (for violence) can't even exist, but which none-the-less are also not the whole of the activity ... but I've probably already over-stretched the association.

Anyway, here's hoping that's somehow helpful.

(Since thinking about Clausewitz has left a dark stain on my brain ... I can absolutely, disgustedly see prioritizing the "natural force" of "primordial violence, hatred, and enmity", or "the play of chance and probability within which the creative spirit is free to roam" as alternatives to - and even less desireable than - the prioritization of "policy." Clausewitz's "politik" may actually be best understood as including all of 'em, but I'd sure prefer it if "policy" was actually always the prioritization. Then again, maybe that's only because I've a delusion that policy at least has a chance to be set in a sane manner.)

[RangerEd]

Glandis,

I have been abused mightily by many terminal degree-holding individuals over what Dead Carl meant. All of which were the correct answer, and all different. Best to keep ones head down and make for the exit when two or more political scientists and historians start going at each other. I have made up my mind about how and when I employ his work—how it is useful to me. Interestingly, I find him a shining example of "you never read the same book twice." Carl had a tough life. Unfortunately, I think reading his work is mostly a form of commiseration after discovery learning by myself. Carl never helps me see the mistakes before I make them, but I can always find a passage or two after the fact.

The German word Carl used, politik, when treated non-anachronistically, crosses over what a modern American understands as policy (including institutionalized sets of relationships and objectives of the governing), politics (how leaders deal with one another), and the socio-cultural relationships that exist to influence how people relate to one another (such as the fifth estate). I think of it as relationships between people as framed by power. By that understanding, politics by other means is relating to people by violence or the threat thereof. Carl may have accepted that war is part of the human condition, but I also think he observed it as part of a pattern of escalation in convincing others to bend to one's will.

A comment on translational problems: the German military officers I have studied with buy a copy of the same translation I have and take it with them. They say it is easier to understand. The same multi-word translation complications can be seen for Sun-Tzu by comparing Ames's book with the works that preceded it. Ames spent a lot of page space demonstrating how native speakers carry all the meanings a word has into the text.

I think the GNS subset of CA could have been similar to the paradoxical trinity, suspending roleplaying as if between three magnets. Like you said, any of the three could be present in some measurable way simultaneously. Humbly, it doesn't matter what I think. We are afforded a strange opportunity here on the forum to query the author of the theory and ask him what he meant, as many theorists are dead or unapproachable due to their own success. Ron told me his theory does not mean what I thought it might. That was a pretty cool interaction from my standpoint.

Like all theory, it only matters if you find it useful. This is an idea from Reynold's book A Primer in Theory Construction. A theory needs to have abstractness (independent of time and location), intersubjectivity (agreement on meaning of terms, definitions, and logic), and empirical relevance (the possibility should always exist that other scientist can evaluate the correspondence between the theory and the results of empirical research). Ron has all three nailed down tightly. Now, how I choose to use it, well that's up to me.

Ed

[glandis]

Hi Ed,

I'm Gordon, BTW - I guess I lost track of the "sig with my name on it" thing here. To be clear, I'm not challenging in any way that CA is NOT suspended between the three. But there's a subtlety in the Big Model as a whole, where people hear (e.g.) "face a Challenge" associated with Step On Up play and go "What! I love facing challenge, it's in all my games, but I'm totally a Right to Dream [or Story Now] gal. Obviously this GNS thing is crazy!" The thing is, just because there's challenge, that doesn't mean it's Agenda challenge. As a practical matter it's pretty easy to see the difference in actual play, but explaining it was historically a huge pain.

Which seemed (very) roughly analogous to the confusions with Clausewitz, and thus my post. Does that make it any clearer? If not, go ahead and ignore this - I'm probably getting at a subtlety Ron'd prefer I stop harping on.

-Gordon

[RangerEd]

Gordon,

Yeah, I'm not sure I understand Ron's model well enough to comment. I read his essays and sifted through posts, and then called myself a simulationist. Ron took a look at some of my writing samples and corrected my assessment to narrativist. It seems I need to polish up on my taxonomy and reread some stuff. Regardless, his theory and everyone's input on this site is boosting my confidence in discussing game play, so I am willing to keep at it.

I think Clausewitz coupled with CA might work. I don't want to corrupt either theory, but there's no rule against combining theories in application. I think you made a good argument and I hope my response wasn't too harsh. I enjoyed the exchange.

Thanks,
Ed

[RangerEd]

Gordon,

I forgot to mention, if you like Clausewitz analysis, my favorite is Echevarria's Clausewitz and Contemporary War.

Ed