The Forge Archives

Quote from: Mark Woodhouse
In observing the ongoing attempt to map Virtuality and GDS Dramatism into the Big Model, I?ve hit on (what I think is) a revelation. GDS and GNS aren?t talking about the same thing. GDS is a model of decision-making, applied at the individual decision level. GNS is a model of outcome preference, applied at the level of an instance of play. Looked at in this way, GDS classifications more properly belong at the System level of the Big Model

I'll use this essay to give my point of view on this issue, stolen from the "RFGA GDS vs Big Model GNS: Inputs vs Outputs."  Since I touch on some other issues, I've given this post a new thread.  I'm not quite sure what Forge etiquette would call for here, so I may have done the wrong thing, no disrespect to Mark intended.  

First of all, let me clarify a thing or two.  The 'outcome preference' you are referring to above could be restated in question form as 'Why do I sit down at the table to game?'.  In fact, that's just about what Ron says in the intro to the GNS essay.  Contast this with the Threefold's 'Why do I make the choices I do during game play?'  You are claiming that the latter question is what GNS was designed to measure.  

I disagree with this assessment of what GNS is presently about.  

Many who know more about it than I do make the claim that this question is what GNS set out to answer.  If that is indeed the case, then I submit that this agenda has been diverted along the way.  Understandably so, I think -- the project's goals were very ambitious.  So much so, that I find it completely unsurprising that, IMO, they did not succeed.  Finding the Three Big Boxes of Why People Game is a very difficult task because people game for so very many different reasons.  RPGs are a very flexible tool that can be, and are, used toward many different purposes.  These purposes are divergent enough that fitting them into a handful of categories may well be impossible.  As I believe that the history of GNS has shown.  

GNS: The Project

In any event, the starting point of GNS -- the definition of the Narrativist play style* -- makes a poor base for defining the "The Big Three" of 'why do I roleplay?'.  If a useful version of such a 'Big Three' exists, then 'to explore Narrativist premise' is not one of them.  The scope of gaming encompassed by 'to explore Narrativist premise' is simply too narrow.  Ten or twenty such reasons would be necessary to fill a reasonable taxonomy of roleplaying rationales, if all the items were of the same scope as Narrativist Premise.  Hunter Logan's Big List is an example of what such a list might look like.  Larry Hols' "Element Channels" here is a similar list with more of an attempt to generalize between similar items.  

What this has done is left the model unbalanced.  There's a small, well-defined category (Narrativism), a larger category that's not quite so well defined (Gamism), and then there's the monster that ate Pittsburgh (Simulationism).  I say Gamism is less well defined because I think a clear and rigorous definition of Gamism would require the addition of more categories of 'Why do I sit down at the table to game?'  For example -- the intellectual challenge of solving the mathematical puzzle that is the rules, which changes from situation to situation .  I have known people who play RPGs largely for this element, in a mode that is cooperative or independent rather than competitive.  Surely these people qualify as Gamists, but the current definition excludes them.  As for Simulationism, the pile of differing player motivations left over is far too divergent to permit a reasonable definition of this term.  

This structural imbalance has made the stated goal -- building a Big Three with Narrativist Premise as the cornerstone element --  impossible to attain.  I submit that this difficulty has in fact been recognized here at the Forge and the original vision of the project has been largely abandoned.  As a result the current operational definitions of G,N,S answer the same 'Why' question that GDS does.  The legacy of GNS' founding goal is to be found in the continued interest in analyzing what commonality there is in motivations of the players in the different GNS modes.  

I was spurred to think about this by Mark's post above.  I had always been under the impression that GNS and GDS were measuring the same thing.  So I went back and re-read the core essays and the Glossary and a number of the recent posts, and I couldn't find anything that convinced me that I had misread in the first place.  "GNS and Other Matters" is a good place to start looking.

The Definitions in "GNS and Other Matters"

Each of these definitions deserves some degree of examination.    

Quote
Gamism is expressed by competition among participants (the real people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters, both short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual play strategies. The listed elements provide an arena for the competition.

This one does reflect back on the question 'Why do I sit down at the table to game?', and I believe it presents the strongest case for the GNS/GDS distinction Mark presents above.  If the other two were like it, the case would stronger.  However, the operational definition of Gamism does not in fact reflect this concern (more about this in just a minute).

Quote
Simulationism is expressed by enhancing one or more of the listed elements in Set 1 above; in other words, Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play. The players may be greatly concerned with the internal logic and experiential consistency of that Exploration.

This is not at all reflecting on 'Why do I sit down at the table to game?' but is completely concerned with the GDS question 'Why do I make the choices I do during game play?'  A GNS-aware Sim player would be very likely to answer 'Why do I make the choices I do during game play?' with 'because the internal logic dictates the answers.'  'To heighten and focus Exploration as a priority of play' is no better; it only makes sense as a description of how to play.  

Quote
Narrativism is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The listed elements provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis).

In the context of what GNS says about Narrative Premise, this can only be taken as an answer to 'Why do I make the choices I do during game play?'  A GNS-aware Nar player might well answer 'Why do I make the choices I do during game play?' with 'to create a story about a character who is torn by moral question X.'  The question 'Why do I sit down at the table to game?' should be answered with something like 'to examine the moral dimensions of question X.'  The story is only a means to his end -- to examine the moral question.  Largely, I think this is a matter of how the definition is stated here.  In practice, I think the definition of Narrativism is the only one of the three operational definitions which does in fact address the GNS-why question.  

Part of the difficulty of separating out these issues is that, at some level, the question 'Why do I sit down at the table to game?' can be answered with the same answers one would provide to the question 'Why do I make the choices I do during game play?'  


The Concept of Tells

Practically, GNS determines mode by looking at 'Tells'.  Tells are based on the evidence of how one chooses to make his decisions when faced with a tradeoff between two different modes.  There are certain categories of 'how' that are assigned to each mode -- if one if addressing challenge, it is because one enjoys the interplayer competition in tacking that challenge, and one is playing in the Gamist mode.  These 'hows' are measuring the same sort of thing that the GDS categories are measuring (ie, 'Why do I make the choices I do during game play?').  I will call them GDS-whys.  

The idea that player motivations can be ascertained by looking at GDS-whys depends on there being an isomorphism between the GNS categories of player motivation and some sets of GDS-whys.  That is, there must be sets of GDS-whys such that use of GDS-whys from Set A implies that 'to explore Human Questions' is why the player sat down to game; use of GDS-whys from Set B implies that interplayer competition is why the player sat down to game, and similarly for Sim.  

As near as I can tell, the existence of this isomorphism has been largely taken for granted.  No forum search I could devise found any discussion about that topic.  

I won't challenge that this works for Narrativism.  In fact, I submit that, as defined operationally, Narrativism is the only one of G,N,S that answers the GNS-why question and not the GDS-why question.  

Tells and Gamism

Lets look at Gamism.  In this case, the GDS-why that indicates mode is Challenge.  For Challenge to be a Tell that indicates Gamism, all players who orient their games toward Challenge must do it for interplayer competition.  But in matter of fact, there are a number of players who enjoy Challenge for other reasons.  Many of them enjoy the Challenge of solving a good, crunchy rules system as an exercise in game theory.  Most of the gamists that I have actually enjoyed playing with are not very competitive.  In fact, my enjoyment of a Challenge-based game is inversely proportional to the element of competition among the players.  Enjoying a Challenge-based game is not at all an indication that interplayer competition is a player goal.  

I submit that this has long been implicitly recognized here at the forge, and the operation definition of Gamism has been reduced to any play that focuses on Challenge.  Let's look at one of Caldis' recent posts:  

QuoteAs an example consider a game based on gladiatorial combat. The metagame decision is made that all players will be gladiators and that they either dont want to or cant escape. Play will focus on combat sessions in the arena where due to a ranking system gladiators will usually fight against someone of the same skill level. Players are free to do what they chose but . . .  most situations that develop outside the arena floor will not be played out. Once play starts internal cause is king and whatever happens happens. Meets the standards of virtuality as presented here but the game is going to provide the 'step on up' that a gamist is looking for and not the 'right to dream' of GNS simulationism.

There is no attempt at all to investigate whether or not the other players will be the slightest bit competitive, or whether or not there will even be any other players; the game is categorized as Gamist solely on the basis of Challenge.  This is not an unusual use of the term, either -- it's quite standard.  Look at Mike Holmes' recent "New 3D Model" thread.  The most telling quote is from MJ Young, but the whole thread shows the same sensibility:  

Quote
The creation of theme, the overcoming of challenge, the satisfaction of curiosity--these are, I think, objectives sought through play. They define the "Creative Agenda" we recognize. There is a sense in which these things are what you want, what you do, why you do it, all wrapped into one.

When someone states that a given game has plenty of opportunity for Step On Up, what they most often really mean is that the game caters well to Challenge, not that the game caters well to competition.  

The operational definition of Gamism used is in fact based on Challenge (a GDS-why), not Competition (a GNS-why).  

The Case of Simulationism

The very definition of Sim is an answer to the GDS question 'Why do I make the choices I do during game play?'  Look at it:  

Quote
Simulationism is expressed by enhancing one or more of the listed elements in Set 1 above; in other words, Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play. The players may be greatly concerned with the internal logic and experiential consistency of that Exploration.

There's nothing at all here that addresses the GNS-why question; it's all about the GDS-why.  The "Right to Dream" essay doesn't touch much on the GNS-why, either.  I think that's because there are many divergent GNS-whys that fit into the Sim box as presently defined by GNS.  

Summing Up

In matter of fact, GNS is more about GDS-whys than GNS-whys.  Classification of play is done by looking at the answers to GDS-why questions, without much concern to link the GDS-whys and the GNS-whys they are surrogates for.  What this means in practice is that what GNS measures is 'Why do I make the choices I do during game play?', and what GNS speculates about is 'Why do I sit down at the table to game?' and the connections between the answers to these two questions.  

This shift in operational definition is a good thing, because it better suits the model's purposes.  The model's purpose is to diagnose CA conflicts in play.  The best way to do that is by categorizing the GDS-whys.  I think it would be best to formalize this covert shift, and come out and recognize that GDS-whys are what GNS has been measuring for some length of time. An overt recognition of the shift and a conscious moving of the goal posts would ease the task of coherently defining Sim, I think.  

----------------
*I am working off of second-hand information here; please let me know if I am wrong.

I have a couple of quibbles.

Firstly, I reject the claim that gamism is about about interplayer competition, regardless of that piece of text you quoted and to which I directed you.  Disputes over the relevance of the term 'competition' has already been much discussed and the sim essay describing step on up was a response to that angle.  IMO, we (western people) default to the term 'competition' too easily and for essentially ideological reasons and it is not an accurate term.  Challenge and step on up are better.  Does this make it similar to GDS-G?

I agree that the GNS tells, specifically, are a lot like the GDS why's.  I just respond with a shrug and a 'so what'.   We discuss the tells a lot because, frankly, people have a hard time with the nebulous "instant of play".  But the tells are only indications; they are NOT expressions of "why do I sit down to play", they are rather "what did I do at this moment".  I don't really understand why you claim that analysis of the tells supercedes the noted intent and the model itself.  It would be rather like describing a disease only by its symptoms - its relevant to diagnosis but not necessarily to treatment.

On Sim, while I agree that the passage you cite is written from a certain distance, as it were, it still seems to me to point to a GNS- rather than GDS-why: although it does describe an action, in the heightening of exploration, it is easily read IMO as descibing this action to convey intent.  That seems an easy enough interpolation to make given the stated purpose of the document.

Really, I am not seeing a problem here.  I agree that GNS only really sepculates about the intent, in that it does not particularly provide argumentation for why these three intents exist, and measures "GDS-why's", which is only to restate "actual behaviour" as it appears in the model, but do not see this as a problem - the model has always maintained that the three intents are drawn from observed decisions.  If you would like to more discussion on whether the claimed intents actually exist, and why they are what they are, I'd be happy to engage with it.  

Lastly, why should I care about or want a reconciliation between GNS and GDS at all in the first place?  Now I'm aware that your argument is more about the form of analysis than necerssarily the content fo the GDS model, but as above I'm not convinced the case holds.  But secondly, I find the D category worryingly vague to the point that I am not happy with it and so would not support simply asking GDS-D-why, that would seem to have too many feasable answers.

I'm not sure that GDS vs. GNS really break down to "why vs. what" or anything like that--on some basic levels, maybe--but on a functional level ... I don't think so.

I don't know a name for describing "how decisions get made by the GM to aim for a Narrativist game" but I do know that if the GM, at every turn, holds the player's desire for premise in high regard (as well as holding off on the Force) that Narrativist play should reliably ensue. The best term I can think of for requesting that is "Narrativist GMing."

While the big theory works okay for that (and possibly for a request for "Gamist GMing") I think it falls apart when someone tries to request "Simist GMing."

At very least, were we to make that request of each other, we'd both come away with very, very different ideas of what was being requested.

This doesn't requre GDS be "integrated" (GDS Dramatist play is, I agree, too vague as a request--but the concept of GDS Sim (or Virtuality) doesn't exist comfortably under the GNS taxonomy either). There needs to be some modification (either along the lines of Mike's or Ralph's model)

-Marco

Quote from: contracycleI have a couple of quibbles.

Firstly, I reject the claim that gamism is about about interplayer competition, regardless of that piece of text you quoted and to which I directed you.  Disputes over the relevance of the term 'competition' has already been much discussed and the sim essay describing step on up was a response to that angle.  IMO, we (western people) default to the term 'competition' too easily and for essentially ideological reasons and it is not an accurate term.  Challenge and step on up are better.  Does this make it similar to GDS-G?

I think it does make it similar to GDS-G; right off the top of my head I can't think of any way to distinguish the two.  More importantly for the issue at hand, it is now measuring the same thing that GDS-G is measuring.  

The updated defn in the new Gamism essay is exactly the sort of definitional change I'm referring to.  I referred to the defn out of "GNS and other matters" because it still gets a lot of lip service.    I think making a concious effort to stay away from that defn would improve clarity.  

Quote
I agree that the GNS tells, specifically, are a lot like the GDS why's.  I just respond with a shrug and a 'so what'.   We discuss the tells a lot because, frankly, people have a hard time with the nebulous "instant of play".  But the tells are only indications; they are NOT expressions of "why do I sit down to play", they are rather "what did I do at this moment".  I don't really understand why you claim that analysis of the tells supercedes the noted intent and the model itself.  It would be rather like describing a disease only by its symptoms - its relevant to diagnosis but not necessarily to treatment.

I'm not sure what to say here, as it seems below that you largely agree with my primary premise:  that GNS is measuring GDS-whys.  I think that that is the real indication of what GNS is about.

Quote
On Sim, while I agree that the passage you cite is written from a certain distance, as it were, it still seems to me to point to a GNS- rather than GDS-why: although it does describe an action, in the heightening of exploration, it is easily read IMO as descibing this action to convey intent.  

I'll agree it is easily read as describing that action to convey intent, but it makes no effort at describing what that intent is.  And you must have this in order to make it a GNS-why rather than a GDS-why.  

Quote
Really, I am not seeing a problem here.  I agree that GNS only really speculates about the intent, in that it does not particularly provide argumentation for why these three intents exist, and measures "GDS-why's", which is only to restate "actual behaviour" as it appears in the model, but do not see this as a problem - the model has always maintained that the three intents are drawn from observed decisions.  If you would like to more discussion on whether the claimed intents actually exist, and why they are what they are, I'd be happy to engage with it.  

I don't dispute at all that the claimed intents exist, or why they are what they are.  What I dispute is that the given sets of observed decisions have an isomorphic mapping to these intents.  I think it's evident that this has not been established.  I also think it's evident that precisely because this has not been established, the GNS theory has changed to move away from depending on it.  But that move has been incomplete and haphazard.  I think that GNS would be more consistent if it were consciously addressed.  As it is, I think that N largely measures something different than G and S do.  I think things like Mike Holmes' "New 3D Model" are attempts to address this incongruence (in addition to other goals).  

Quote
Lastly, why should I care about or want a reconciliation between GNS and GDS at all in the first place?  Now I'm aware that your argument is more about the form of analysis than necerssarily the content fo the GDS model, but as above I'm not convinced the case holds.

I'm not at all convinced that a reconciliation between GNS and GDS is necessary to place all 3 arms of GNS on the same footing, but it would be one way to do it.  

Quote
But secondly, I find the D category worryingly vague to the point that I am not happy with it and so would not support simply asking GDS-D-why, that would seem to have too many feasable answers.

Well, I think that if you want to find only 3 boxes in which to place all of roleplaying, and you want these 3 boxes on an equal footing, then I don't think you've got any choice but to have some pretty vague boxes.  If you want the boxes more narrow in scope, I think you got to have more than 3.  If you haven't yet, take a look at the link above for Larry Hols' "Element Channels".  I think paints a good picture of what such a taxonomy might look like.

Quote from: Lee Short
I'm not at all convinced that a reconciliation between GNS and GDS is necessary to place all 3 arms of GNS on the same footing, but it would be one way to do it.  

Apart from the fact that human find symmetry attractive, why SHOULD they all be on the same footing?

Is there any essential reason to think that if there are three relevant CA's they necessarily exhibit the same depth, or the same features, or any form of similar internal structure?

If so, what is this reason?  I have asked this question before and nobody has given a response.  Do we have some reason to think the theory is broken unless the three elements are equalised?  Why?

Aesop told a fable about two men taking a donkey to market, who were influenced to change their means of travel by every criticism they received along the way. In the end, the donkey fell in the river and drowned. The moral was that you can't please everyone.

I imagine that that's a problem here.

Caveat: the following history may be flawed, as I am relying on memory of events some of which were only known to me second-hand.

When System Does Matter appeared in 1998, it was presented in part as Ron's view of what GDS/Threefold was trying to do. He did not at any point in that article suggest that this was something new and different in competition with the earlier model, but rather that it was his understanding of that model.

Subsequently, he received a lot of criticism from some of those involved in rec.games.frp.advocacy. Narrativism, he was told, completely misrepresented Dramatism. Simulationism wasn't what he said at all. Only his original exposition of Gamism was not attacked as being different.

So he abandoned the notion that his GNS and the original Threefold were trying to do the same thing, and accepted the assertions that they were unrelated. In publishing the Step On Up essay, he allowed Gamism to diverge from that version that had been accepted as substantially the same as the GDS version, suggesting (my paraphrase) that players in gamist play are after glory, wanting to demonstrate their skills to each other.

I don't know who was involved in the GDS discussions, nor who criticized the GNS model. The only name I knew from that was John Kim (whose fame precedes him, I suppose). John has consistently maintained here that there are serious differences between GNS and Threefold which make them disconnected (if not perhaps unrelated) theories.

Lee now says that GNS is looking at the same data GDS was examining, and attempting to do the same thing with it. The surprise isn't that it might be doing that, but that this was what the theory said initially that was so soundly rejected by others in the Threefold camp.

I've said before that I don't completely understand GDS. I do see that those who do understand it can't agree as to how it relates to GNS. Probably I should invest the time in delving into the old discussions and documents to see whether I can grasp the concepts; at the moment, though, I'm a bit backed up on other things.

Perhaps, Lee, I'm not understanding your critique of GNS primarily because you're relating it to GDS, which I don't understand. If there's something here that is about inherent problems in GNS, can it be explained without reference to the other model? At least until we can agree as to whether GDS is an earlier version of the same model or an unrelated and different model which inspired this one, it's going to be difficult to grasp criticisms based on that.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: contracycle

Quote from: Lee Short
I'm not at all convinced that a reconciliation between GNS and GDS is necessary to place all 3 arms of GNS on the same footing, but it would be one way to do it.  

Apart from the fact that human find symmetry attractive, why SHOULD they all be on the same footing?

Is there any essential reason to think that if there are three relevant CA's they necessarily exhibit the same depth, or the same features, or any form of similar internal structure?

If so, what is this reason?  I have asked this question before and nobody has given a response.  Do we have some reason to think the theory is broken unless the three elements are equalised?  Why?

Because in any form of hierarchal organization where one is putting elements into tiers you need two things.  You need the defining thing that illustrates why a given element belongs in one level of the hierarchy and not another.  And you need a consistant scale for each tier so that elements in 1 tier are not overlapping elements of the other.  That's basic hierarchal organization.

In The Big Model we have a number of tiers.  One of those is the Creative Agenda and another is Techniques.  For the longest time we haven't had a clear and concise definition of what a CA is.  Its been assumed by precedent and understood through context but very hard to pin down an actual defining feature of what makes a CA a CA and not a Technique.  As proof of this lack of clarity witness the number of times that Illusionism is discussed as if its actually a CA, while other times it is discussed as if its a technique.

One of my goals with my recent essay was to identify what the concise definition of CA actually is.  I pegged it as "how the player identifies, recognizes, and responds to in game conflict".  This thread isn't for discussing the accuracy or inaccuracy of this definition I offer it as an example of the first thing that is necessary.  Armed with a definition like this it becomes possible to identify whether any given element does or doesn't belong in the tier in question.  It is under this definition that one can decisively say "Illusionism is not a Creative Agenda"


Scale is the second thing that is important.  Say there are two CAs that you've identified (lets just call them A and B).  In A there are aspects that are commonly associated with A play.  We'll call them a1, a2, and a3.  We make a point to define a1, a2, and a3 as Techniques that are often used in conjunction with A but which are neither exclusive to A nor definitional to what A is.  

In B, however, we also have aspects commonly associated with B play.  We'll call them b1, b2, and b3.  However, with B we've not separated these out into techniques but include them as part of the defining features of B play.

This is wrong.  Either the elements 1, 2, and 3 need to be identified as Techniques across the board, or they need to be combined into the CA category across the board.  You cannot have 1 CA that is distilled down to an essential core, whose aspects have been split off elsewhere, and 1 CA that has not been distilled down to its essential core and is still combined with various other aspects.

Why?  Because if you do you have overlapping tiers.  There are parts of the CA tier that belong in the Techniques tier, and/or parts of the Techniques tier that belong in the CA tier.


Another goal of my recent essay was (having recognized that the above situation of overlapping tiers is going on) to strip down Simulationism to its distilled core and relegate the other parts that have been lumped in there to other tiers, thereby making it consistant in that it addresses the same core definition of what a CA is, without overlapping into Techniques or Social Contract issues.

One may certainly disagree with the definition of CA I chose or what the core distilled essence of Sim is that I chose.  But I unequivocably reject any notion that such a definition and such a distillation aren't necessary.


If they are part of the same tier of boxes, they must be addressing the same thing and they must be of a similiar enough scale that they don't overlap other tiers.  That to me is a fundamental fact of useable organization.

Quote from: M. J. Young
Caveat: the following history may be flawed, as I am relying on memory of events some of which were only known to me second-hand.

When System Does Matter appeared in 1998, it was presented in part as Ron's view of what GDS/Threefold was trying to do. He did not at any point in that article suggest that this was something new and different in competition with the earlier model, but rather that it was his understanding of that model.

Subsequently, he received a lot of criticism from some of those involved in rec.games.frp.advocacy. Narrativism, he was told, completely misrepresented Dramatism. Simulationism wasn't what he said at all. Only his original exposition of Gamism was not attacked as being different.

So he abandoned the notion that his GNS and the original Threefold were trying to do the same thing, and accepted the assertions that they were unrelated.

Well, since I wasn't there either, I too can only speculate.  My speculation is this:   Narr was the cornerstone of GNS, and it was -- and still is, IMO -- measuring a different thing than GDS was measuring.  Furthermore, the older definition of Gamism (from "GNS and other matters") also measured this same thing as Narr, separate from what GDS was measuring.   So it makes sense to me that anyone familiar with GDS would point out that GNS and GDS were talking about different phenomena.  Now that Gamism has been redefined in a GDS mode, I think that most of GNS is now measuring what GDS measured.  In other words, the original version of GNS was more different from GDS than the present version is.  

That's one reason.   Another is that, as Valamir notes, Techniques have been bundled with the Narr CA.  That would have stood out to any GDS veteran as a strong indication that Narr was not similar to the GDS categories.  

Quote
Perhaps, Lee, I'm not understanding your critique of GNS primarily because you're relating it to GDS, which I don't understand. If there's something here that is about inherent problems in GNS, can it be explained without reference to the other model?

I tried to do that in this essay.  My point was actually not to compare GDS and GNS; that comparison was simply what got me started.  My bigger point was that the GNS categories are incongruent in that they measure different things.  I used the terms 'GNS-why' and 'GDS-why' simply because the text became very cumbersome and unreadable when I had so many repetitions of 'Why do I sit down at the table to game?' and 'Why do I make the choices I do during game play?'   I think you'll find that if you make these text replacements, there are very few references to GDS in the text, and these are incidental to the thrust of the essay.  Obviously I could have chosen better names to make this clearer.

Quote from: Valamir
Because in any form of hierarchal organization where one is putting elements into tiers you need two things.  You need the defining thing that illustrates why a given element belongs in one level of the hierarchy and not another.  And you need a consistant scale for each tier so that elements in 1 tier are not overlapping elements of the other.  That's basic hierarchal organization.

Fine.  Why are we putting GNS in a heirarchical structure then?  As I recall, Ron has resisted such models to the extent of being hostile to diagramatic representation of GNS.  I see no particular reason to think that building a tiered structure is useful.  What purpose would you expect it to serve.

QuoteThis is wrong. Either the elements 1, 2, and 3 need to be identified as Techniques across the board, or they need to be combined into the CA category across the board. You cannot have 1 CA that is distilled down to an essential core, whose aspects have been split off elsewhere, and 1 CA that has not been distilled down to its essential core and is still combined with various other aspects.

[

Can you be more specific?  Where is it you see techniques and CA's being smudged?

Quote from: contracycleFine.  Why are we putting GNS in a heirarchical structure then?  As I recall, Ron has resisted such models to the extent of being hostile to diagramatic representation of GNS.  I see no particular reason to think that building a tiered structure is useful.  What purpose would you expect it to serve.  

I believe that Ralph is referring to the nested boxes or layers diagram which has been a part of Ron's model since at least last year.  In the introduction to The Provisional Glossary, Ron provides a Big Model picture (pdf).  As Ron defines the Big Model:

QuoteA description of role-playing procedures as embedded in the social interactions and creative priorities of the participants. Each internal "box," "layer," or "skin" of the model is considered to be an expression of the box(es) containing it.

Maybe you are thinking of a hierarchy as something different?

I'm asking if the specifics of that diagram require the same degree of heirarchical quality.  I don't recall the name of the diagrams that we used to use for designing programme logic flow, but while they did have criteria to identify which elements appeared where, there was not a requirement as I recall that all elements in a tier be similar.  They had to share a certain specific quality, not be inherently alike.  I don't see any problem for example saying that all CA's appear on a tier, and do not see any implication that becuase they all appear on this tier they must share the same properties.  They must only share one property - being a CA.

QuoteI don't see any problem for example saying that all CA's appear on a tier, and do not see any implication that becuase they all appear on this tier they must share the same properties. They must only share one property - being a CA.

Thats tautological.

What is that one property they must share?

I have pegged it as the player's response to ingame conflict.  If you agree with that then we are in accord on that property.  If not, then you need to provide what you think that property actually is, preferably in as clear and concise a manner as I have done.


Then you have the Techniques layer, which also must have a property they must share to be techniques.  I think the Provisional Glossary provides a serviceable definition of what this property is:  "Specific procedures of play which, when employed together, are sufficient to introduce fictional characters, places, or events into the Shared Imagined Space."


So where does that leave us? With a property that determines what a CAs and a property that determines what Techniques are.  Which is exactly what I said above.  So what exactly are you disagreeing with?

Quote from: Valamir
Then you have the Techniques layer, which also must have a property they must share to be techniques.  I think the Provisional Glossary provides a serviceable definition of what this property is:  "Specific procedures of play which, when employed together, are sufficient to introduce fictional characters, places, or events into the Shared Imagined Space."

Interesting...

If I'm reading this right, what the Glossary defines as techniques can be arguably placed under System as defined by the lumpey Principle.  Of course, I may be mistaken on this.

Cheers
Jonathan

Quote from: Valamir
What is that one property they must share?.. If not, then you need to provide what you think that property actually is, preferably in as clear and concise a manner as I have done.

Being a creative agenda.  Or droive or passion or inspirationj or any suitable term.  But there is no need for each CA to then contain conflict in a certain way, is what I was getting at above.  Certainly not one that necessareily arises from their location on a particular tier.

What you have given for techniqe is a suitable description of technique, but what you arer claiming for CA is that description of CA is not adequate: that by implication, all CA's must be expressions of conflict.  Thatr does not seem to follow.

Ralph,

Summarizing CA as "player response to in-game conflict" helps me understand your other thread a bit better - thanks.  My thought, though, is adding "in-game conflict" is a mistake.  CA's are about player response to . . . everything.  Playing the game.  Being in the social environment of the game.  In-game conflict is a key driver of the response, but it is not the sole or unique source of it.  At least, it doesn't look like it is to me.

Gordon

Jonathan:  The rest of the definition of Technique in the glossary pretty much concludes with the idea that the sum total of all Techniques in play is system.  So yeah, you're on the right wavelength.


Gareth:  So your definition of a CA is "A CA is anything which is identified as a CA".  Right.  That's why I called it Tautological, and that's why I reject it.  If you have an actual definition that's useable and that provides a foundation for future analysis lets hear it.  

As a side note, please don't take this personally, but I'm getting rather irritated by your constant criticism of ideas presented by others without presenting any of your own.  Its all well and good for you to disagree with my definition of CA, or my take on the role of conflict, or Marco's take on Virtuality...but other than your disagreement, I've yet to see you contribute any ideas of your own.  What is your definition of a CA if mine doesn't suit you?  I've about reached my limit of jumping-through-hoops-to-satisfy Gareth in these threads.



Gordon, here's the thing.  Players certainly have responses to other things.  But those are all social level responses that they'd have in most any other social endeavor.  The guy talking on the cell phone, the guy reading a novel, the guy making bad jokes, the guy talking smack...the player's response to those things are all part of the usual circle of social responses that a player makes.  In fact, its when a player supresses their natural social response to those social issues or handles them "differently" while gaming that leads to social dysfunction among gamers.

It is Exploration that distinguishes roleplaying from other social activities.  So when one is attempting to define / categorize / discern a player's roleplaying priorities it must start with their response and behavior to actual play.  That's where I get the "in game" part.  The thesis I put forth in my essay is that just any old response and behavior in actual play is insufficient.  Only conflict (through the entire cycle of conflict) is sufficient to make this determination.  The players responses to things that he does not deem to be a conflict are not definitive because those are things far more likely to be congruent because they aren't important enough to prioritize strongly.  That's where i get the "conflict" part.

Therefor I believe it is the in-game conflicts that the player is responding to that defines their roleplaying agenda.  Those other things exist, but they aren't part of the agenda.  As I frame it they're part of the skewer.

Quote from: ValamirWhat is that one property they must share?

I have pegged it as the player's response to ingame conflict.  If you agree with that then we are in accord on that property.  If not, then you need to provide what you think that property actually is, preferably in as clear and concise a manner as I have done.

I think I would peg it as the nature of the reward sought from play. Gamists want the glory of the respect of their peers for their skills. Narrativists want the meaning of a revealing story. Simulationists want the increase in knowledge from discovery. Each of those is, I think, an innate want of humans, something from which we derive pleasure. The Creative Agendum then is an organizing principle of sorts by which we order all aspects of play to achieve the targeted reward. Techniques are selected according to what will facilitate reaching that reward.

I will again admit that this suggests "narrativism" has been too narrowly defined; Ralph is right that as it stands it incorporates at least some techniques within it. Narrativism might best be facilitated by broad distribution of credibility, but I think that narrow distribution of credibility doesn't prevent finding meaning of a revealing story--it just means one person told the story, and the others found the meaning in it.

This pushes my mind back to Scarlet Jester's original comments about exploration. Although it's all pretty far in the past, I seem to recall that he introduced it with the suggestion that his particular interests were not so much in the objectives as the means--he wanted to be able to contribute to what was happening, and so wanted what we would now call broad distribution of credibility.

This also strikes me as connecting to Mike's recent remodeling, which I think tries to match up the reward portion with the credibility portion to get six models. The main problem I have with that is that although I think there is a "primary reward" focus (which defines Creative Agendum), I don't think there's a fixed "broad/narrow" distinction on credibility distribution, which as techniques appear across a sliding scale.

Quote from: Jonathan EoKIf I'm reading this right, what the Glossary defines as techniques can be arguably placed under System as defined by the lumpey Principle. Of course, I may be mistaken on this.

Yes, that would be correct; but that's the nature of the structure.

System is one of the elements of exploration. That is, it's one of the things we explore and one of the things we use to explore. Creative Agendum is the organizing principle--why we explore, how we explore, what we're after when we explore. Notice that it's generally represented by an arrow in the diagrams. It connects the elements to the techniques. Thus all the elements are composed of and introduced through techniques; and the relationship between the techniques and the elements, and which techniques are used and how they are used, is determined through the Creative Agendum.

--M. J. Young

QuoteI think I would peg it as the nature of the reward sought from play.

I'm musing on that.  At first blush I don't think you're saying anything all that different from the way I pegged it.  My definition focuses more on 1) what the player does to get that reward ("the players response") and 2) the moments of play where that reward gets realized ("the in game conflict").

So if we combined these as:


"The player's response to in game conflict that will allow him to realize the reward sought from play"

or

"The nature of the reward sought from play as realized through the player's responses to in game conflict"

I don't think I'd disagree with that.

Quote from: ValamirBecause in any form of hierarchal organization where one is putting elements into tiers you need two things.  You need the defining thing that illustrates why a given element belongs in one level of the hierarchy and not another.  And you need a consistant scale for each tier so that elements in 1 tier are not overlapping elements of the other.  That's basic hierarchal organization.

Quote from: contracycleFine.  Why are we putting GNS in a heirarchical structure then?  As I recall, Ron has resisted such models to the extent of being hostile to diagramatic representation of GNS.  I see no particular reason to think that building a tiered structure is useful.  What purpose would you expect it to serve.

Quote from: John KimI believe that Ralph is referring to the nested boxes or layers diagram which has been a part of Ron's model since at least last year. In the introduction to The Provisional Glossary, Ron provides a Big Model picture.

Quote from: contracycleI'm asking if the specifics of that diagram require the same degree of heirarchical quality. I don't recall the name of the diagrams that we used to use for designing programme logic flow, but while they did have criteria to identify which elements appeared where, there was not a requirement as I recall that all elements in a tier be similar. They had to share a certain specific quality, not be inherently alike. I don't see any problem for example saying that all CA's appear on a tier, and do not see any implication that becuase they all appear on this tier they must share the same properties. They must only share one property - being a CA.

With John's important clarification in mind, I think there is actually no disagreement here.

1. Ralph (Valamir) says that a hierarchical classification structure, whether strictly taxonomic or nested-box, has a number of formal rules instrinsic to the structure.

2. Gareth (Contracycle) notes that there is no law of nature that says a hierarchical classification is necessary or inherently useful.

3. Gareth also notes that the only absolute rule of taxonomy is that objects placed within a category be defined according to that category.

4. Ralph correctly remarks that this last makes taxonomy potentially tautological.

But you're both completely correct, is the odd thing.

In order to classify two objects within a taxonomic structure, we must assert that the objects meet the criteria proposed (the definition) for the taxon.  So everything called a CA must fit the CA definition.

At the same time, CA itself does not exist: it is only a category constructed by us for reasons of classification.  Therefore, yes, all such classification is at some level logically tautological.

Suppose we consider walnuts and their close cousins pecans, both members of the Juglandaceae.  At the level of Juglandaceae, these are identical, but what that really means is that the categories "walnut" and "pecan" are indistinguishable at a higher level.  At a lower level, when we start looking at petals on calyxes, we have definitions that distinguish the two categories.

But thus far we haven't said anything about trees, and this is what's causing the problem here.  The whole purpose of having these categories "Juglandaceae", "Walnut", and "Pecan" is to be able to analyze the things put into those categories as groups, disregarding their differences.  For example, at this level of classification -- and usually in this kind of taxonomy in general -- there is no distinction between a big, healthy walnut tree and a twisted little sickly one.  Both are walnuts.

This kind of taxonomy works by emphasizing similarity.  And when it works very well indeed, what happens is that you find similarities within the category that you did not previously suspect.  Sometimes you also find consistent differences, and this leads to sub-categorization: two different varieties of walnut, for example.

But to repeat clearly: the point of classification is to enable other forms of analysis.

What has happened with GNS, which I think Lee's essay points to indirectly, is that we have begun to think that by classifying we have already analyzed.  This is nonsense.  If I look at a tree and announce, "It's a walnut!"  all I have demonstrated is that I either do or do not know the definition of a walnut.  I have not yet said anything about the tree, only given a context for what I could say in the future about it.

Just so, when we categorize something as Narrativist, we say nothing except that it may be useful in future to talk about this something in the context of previous discourse about Narrativism.  Apart from this we have done nothing at all.

The reason this isn't so apparent with GNS and GDS -- and for me this was one valuable implication of Lee's essay -- is that there aren't any trees there.  We don't have actual objects; we make them into objects.  And so we end up shifting grounds all the time: is it intent, or choice, or goal, or play-style, or what?  What Lee is asking, I think, is which of these is really the object of analysis upon which the taxonomy ought to be based.

My own take, as I've said several times, most recently in this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11891), is that since the objects are so fluid and indeterminate, and nobody can much agree on their basic differentiation, classification on a hierarchical structure is not helpful.  GNS was useful, as was GDS, but now these models are actually getting in the way by implying that they are, to use Lee's word, isomorphic with actual things.  More dangerous still, we constantly slip from claiming isomorphism into claiming homology.  Unless we can step back and recognize that the categorization comes entirely from theory and has no necessary correspondence to reality, we will never be able to advance toward working out why we want descriptive models of any kind.

Lee, if I'm derailing or misunderstanding, say so -- it's not intentional.

I'm not sure the objects really are fluid to the point of making classfication pointless.  I think rather that the categories started by observing a given play phenomenon and then correctly identified key features of that phenomenon that distinguished it from from other correctly identified phenomenon.

But I think at the time this was done we lacked a microscope powerful enough to allow us to zero in and see the various parts that make up that overall phenomenon.  Therefor lots of different pieces and parts all got lumped together in a big broad category.

Now, advances in our conceptualization allow us to better recognize the pieces and parts but the definitions of the categories haven't caught up to that.  I think we now have the capability to look at things like CAs that before we knew enough to know there was something crucial going on in there, but not enough to put our finger on exactly what the different components of it were.  Now we can put our finger on the next layer down of pieces and parts and start to identify the categories based on something more firm than our previous common features taxonomy.

This is a pretty normal evolution to theory.  A theory proves to be correct enough to be completely useful and functional for nearly every purpose its put to, and then as knowledge accumulates its rewritten in a way that opens the door to new uses and functions.

Quote from: Valamir
As a side note, please don't take this personally, but I'm getting rather irritated by your constant criticism of ideas presented by others without presenting any of your own.  Its all well and good for you to disagree with my definition of CA, or my take on the role of conflict, or Marco's take on Virtuality...but other than your disagreement, I've yet to see you contribute any ideas of your own.  What is your definition of a CA if mine doesn't suit you?  I've about reached my limit of jumping-through-hoops-to-satisfy Gareth in these threads.

That pisses me right the fuck off.  If you are going to propose a modification to an existing model, or a new model, then it is incumbent on you to show why your model should supercede the existing one.  To date the sum total of dissatisfaction that you can articulate is that the CA's don't all appear to be alike, even though there is no particular reason for them to necessarily be alike.

Secondly, I have proposed a number of things both recentlyu and in the past.  IMO, phenomenon like Dramatism are better addressed as what I previously referred to as a minimum degree of dramatic construction to keep an audience engaged.  You don't seem much impressed by that idea, neither do any others so I've let the matter go.  But what I have not done is kept banmging on about a pet theory in the face of opposition and demanding that some problem I claim to see must be universally acknowledged.  IMO, all this intereste in "definitions" is preventing us from discussing actual, exhibited play behaviour in favour of abstract logivc that may, or may not, apply to the real world.

I have already told you what I see wrong with your definition of CA: I do not see a universality of conflict, especially seeing as this conflict is described in the same terms as gamist or narr conflict.  There is no reason at all that you have given to think this applies to Sim.  In my opinion, this idea is rubbish.


But, I too am sick of this back and forth, so I will step aside and leave the field to you.  What I hope you will do with this opportunity is present a discussion of your model that is as comprehensive and detailed as the work that Ron put in to articulating his.

(Quoted because I am only dealing with this bit of the thread, not any of the other issues)

Quote from: ValamirGordon, here's the thing. Players certainly have responses to other things. But those are all social level responses that they'd have in most any other social endeavor. The guy talking on the cell phone, the guy reading a novel, the guy making bad jokes, the guy talking smack...the player's response to those things are all part of the usual circle of social responses that a player makes. In fact, its when a player supresses their natural social response to those social issues or handles them "differently" while gaming that leads to social dysfunction among gamers.

It is Exploration that distinguishes roleplaying from other social activities. So when one is attempting to define / categorize / discern a player's roleplaying priorities it must start with their response and behavior to actual play. That's where I get the "in game" part. The thesis I put forth in my essay is that just any old response and behavior in actual play is insufficient. Only conflict (through the entire cycle of conflict) is sufficient to make this determination. The players responses to things that he does not deem to be a conflict are not definitive because those are things far more likely to be congruent because they aren't important enough to prioritize strongly. That's where i get the "conflict" part.

Therefor I believe it is the in-game conflicts that the player is responding to that defines their roleplaying agenda. Those other things exist, but they aren't part of the agenda. As I frame it they're part of the skewer.

I don't think I'm too far off of that, but I do have a few caveats.  First of all, the "social level responses" frequently have, IMO, direct and important influence on the Exploration itself, and thus can at least potentially be key to CA.  I'm talking here about interactions between the players as human beings, first and foremost, not as folks portraying a character or even as game players - except in so far as it is the game that is provoking the response.  So true, the phone-using/novel-reading/smack-talking don't really matter, but the anticipatory stare, the disgusted grimace, and the supposedly-casual rules inquiry do.

Secondly, I'm suspicious of the emphasis on conflict in the SIS.  Aside from the fact that it might leave us looking at the imaginary space instead of the live humans as a focal point, I'm not sure conflict is always the key to CA.  But I will agree that it is often useful.

So . . . here's where I'm left: wanting to make sure the emphasis for CA is on the real people, and a little worried about upping the importance of conflict within the SIS.  So maybe I'd phrase it as "CA is demonstrated by the response of the players as human beings (not as imaginary characters, nor specifically only as people who are playing a game together) to what is occuring or being proposed to occur within the SIS."  I'd have no problem adding some commentary about how conflict within the SIS often reveals that response quite strongly, but I can think of too many situations where the key to me "clicking" on what CA (GNS-mode) was really being prioritized in a particular group/game was an OOC comment and/or other person-to-person communication to be comfortable making in-SIS conflict the determiner.

Gordon

I'd like to make one mopre comment in the light of Gordon's post.  While I do not see an inherenty quiality of sim that makes conflict important, I am not specifically hostile to the idea.  But I would need sopme reason arising out of sim itself to see that this is the case.  Similarity with other elements if the model is not in itself adequate in my opinion.  The argument has to made from sim itself, not from the structure of the model.

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisSo maybe I'd phrase it as "CA is demonstrated by the response of the players as human beings (not as imaginary characters, nor specifically only as people who are playing a game together) to what is occuring or being proposed to occur within the SIS."  I'd have no problem adding some commentary about how conflict within the SIS often reveals that response quite strongly, but I can think of too many situations where the key to me "clicking" on what CA (GNS-mode) was really being prioritized in a particular group/game was an OOC comment and/or other person-to-person communication to be comfortable making in-SIS conflict the determiner.

Gordon

I don't disagree with that at all.

In fact in my essay I was just as careful as you to ascribe the response to the player.

Quote from: in my essay IThe Creative Agenda is the player's approach to dealing with in-game conflict as measured over a complete Instance of Play.

Some explanations are in order. First it should be stressed that it is the player's approach not the character's. That makes Creative Agenda an inherently meta-level concern. Second, "approach" can manifest in a variety of ways including how the player has the character act towards the conflict, how the player perceives or frames the conflict and what aspects he finds important, or how the player uses or is unwilling to use character resources to resolve the conflict. Most importantly it includes the set of circumstances surrounding the resolution of the conflict that the player will consider favorable or successful (again the player, not the character).

I didn't explicitly list OOC concerns in the second point, but given that I did explicitly note the player's response occuring at the meta game level, they aren't excluded.

Quote from: contracycleBut I would need sopme reason arising out of sim itself to see that this is the case.  Similarity with other elements if the model is not in itself adequate in my opinion.  The argument has to made from sim itself, not from the structure of the model.

And that's the part I fundamentally disagree with.  You can't base the arguement on what arises out of Sim, because we cannot agree on what sim is.  Your recent go 'round with Marco over Virtuality should amply demonstrate that.  Since there is no clear singular acceptance about what sim is, it is impossible to argue from sim.

It is possible, however, to design a functional and useful structure that is easy to understand, easy to explain, and leads to beneficial future analytical directions while accomplishing all of the same things as the current structure does.  From that structure we can derive the definition of what "sim" must be to fit within that structure.  That allows us to surgically remove every thing else from the current definition of sim.  Not because those things aren't valid and deserve inclusion.  But because they don't belong in the same bucket with each other.  Then we can use the structure to determine where those things actually belong within the structure.

THEN once a singular understandable and easy to articulate definition for each of these elements has been established, and thier position in the structure used to illustrate their relationship to the Big Model as a whole we can begin to argue from the elements themselves as you desire to do so.  

But currently it is impossible to argue anything from the first principles of sim because there is no agreement on what sim even is.  There are only numerous people who have their own view of what sim is and therefor insist that the definition of Sim include the first principles of thier view.  This method of arguement is what has caused sim to be such a morass of conflicting ideologies from the beginning.

So no, I don't agree at all that your suggestion above is the correct way to proceed.  We've been using that method from day one and its left us in a very messy situation.

Quote from: M. J. Young

Quote from: ValamirWhat is that one property they must share?

I have pegged it as the player's response to ingame conflict.  If you agree with that then we are in accord on that property.  If not, then you need to provide what you think that property actually is, preferably in as clear and concise a manner as I have done.

I think I would peg it as the nature of the reward sought from play. Gamists want the glory of the respect of their peers for their skills.

I've got a thought experiment that reflects on this issue.  

Imagine a hypothetical gamer named John.  John loves to "work the system" when he plays games.  He does it in CRPGs, RPGs, boardgames, you name it.  When John sits down to play an RPG, he does it because he loves to work the system.  

Now I've got a couple of questions:
 --  Is John's play Gamist, Narr, or Sim?
 --  How sure are you?

---------

I think that the power of GNS is that the three categories do in fact resonate with so many experienced gamers.  They hear G,N,S and they say to themselves, "hey, I think I've got some idea what they're talking about."  

I also think that these same GNS neophytes are going to unequivocally label John's play as Gamist.  I think there's a very good chance that, you, dear reader, did as well.  But we haven't said a darn thing about what reward John expects from RPGs -- ie, why he enjoys Playing The System.  I think that just the fact that he games because he enjoys Playing The System makes his play Gamist.  

If you disagree, how would you categorize John's play if he Played The System solely because he enjoys games as problems in game theory and not at all for kudos?  As an aside, I think that any Gamist who enjoys crunchy systems has a healthy dose of this motivation.    

If you agree, then the nature of the reward sought from play is not what you actually use to determine CA.  

To get back to the bigger point of the thread -- in any event, I think it's very important to have a clear idea of what it is that you actually use to determine CA.   I don't think that there is a clear consensus on this issue, and I think some people are talking past each other precisely because they are operating from different assumptions in this regard.

Quote from: clehrich
What Lee is asking, I think, is which of these is really the object of analysis upon which the taxonomy ought to be based.

My own take, as I've said several times, most recently in this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11891), is that since the objects are so fluid and indeterminate, and nobody can much agree on their basic differentiation, classification on a hierarchical structure is not helpful.  GNS was useful, as was GDS, but now these models are actually getting in the way by implying that they are, to use Lee's word, isomorphic with actual things.  More dangerous still, we constantly slip from claiming isomorphism into claiming homology.  Unless we can step back and recognize that the categorization comes entirely from theory and has no necessary correspondence to reality, we will never be able to advance toward working out why we want descriptive models of any kind.

Lee, if I'm derailing or misunderstanding, say so -- it's not intentional.

No, no, no.  You're completely dead on (emphasis added).  

I didn't outright state this in my essay, but I completely agree that things like Techniques should be viewed as a separate and orthogonal model.  Since I don't have a really solid grasp of how GNS relates to these other parts of the Big Model, that's largely a first-impression sort of opinion that probably shouldn't be given much weight.

Actually Lee, I think any experienced GNS "analyst" would answer your question with "don't know, you haven't given us enough information to tell".

I'm not sure what impact that has on your point, but while such snap judgements occur, they are pretty strongly discouraged.

Quote from: ValamirActually Lee, I think any experienced GNS "analyst" would answer your question with "don't know, you haven't given us enough information to tell".

I'm not sure what impact that has on your point, but while such snap judgements occur, they are pretty strongly discouraged.

I agree with this--although, as I've said recently, I'm not sure if the guy who runs off to kill the orcs because he likes the thrill of victory, the challenge of the combat, etc.--and has his comarads rolling their eyes--is Gamist or not.

The social kudos thing seems, to me, to be only one dimensional.

-Marco

This is exactly why I've come to the conclusions that I have in various other threads. I now see three important questions that are related to CA's in some places, techniques in others:

What do I hope to gain from each conflict my player enters?
  Answer: Tactical Success, Philosophical Statement, Discovery  (This is, in my understanding, kind of how Ralph is thinking about CA's)

What am I exploring?
  Answer: One of the five elements.  (This is what MJ espoused about Sim in a recent thread, but applies to all Exploration IMO)

What is my vehicle of Exploration?
  Answer: Again, one of the five elements. (This is a given in the current theory as I understand it.)

Therefore, from my POV, I see the POSSIBILITY of 75 main skewers, with hundreds of variants (caused by differing techniques, etc.)  And I'm not sure that grouping skewers, for example, in groups of 25 to form "three main ways of roleplaying" is at all necessary.  In fact, a lot of disagreements are about which skewer goes in which skewer category and/or defining what each category is about.  I theorize that each CA is such a grouping, and when a skewer that hasn't yet been categorized is recognized, there is a lot of effort put into discovering "where it goes."

BTW, I'm not saying GNS isn't useful, it most certainly is, but it's limited to what Ron has defined under the three categories.  I'm fairly certain that it doesn't have the ability to apply to every case that can be postulated.

So, can these new ideas cover every conceivable type of roleplaying?  Probably not.  In fact, MJ's Travelogue play is outside it's scope, because there is no conflict that he hopes to gain from.  (But he still seeks to gain Discovery.)  What Ralph has proposed in the last few weeks is not intended to replace GNS, (in fact he is working within it's framework, as I understand) just to clarify it.  I'm not looking to replace it either, my goal is to just present an alternative that changes the perspective of our analysis of roleplay.  And it all still fits under the Big Model...

Cheers
Jonathan

Edited to note that I cross-posted with the last three posts and that I am responding to Lee's post preceding those....

Quote from: ValamirActually Lee, I think any experienced GNS "analyst" would answer your question with "don't know, you haven't given us enough information to tell".

I'm not sure what impact that has on your point, but while such snap judgements occur, they are pretty strongly discouraged.

OK.  

Then I'd like your answer to

QuoteIf you disagree, how would you categorize John's play if he Played The System solely because he enjoys games as problems in game theory and not at all for kudos?

I suspect I know the answer, but I'd really rather not go around putting words in people's mouths.

Quote from: Marco

Quote from: ValamirActually Lee, I think any experienced GNS "analyst" would answer your question with "don't know, you haven't given us enough information to tell".

I'm not sure what impact that has on your point, but while such snap judgements occur, they are pretty strongly discouraged.

I agree with this--although, as I've said recently, I'm not sure if the guy who runs off to kill the orcs because he likes the thrill of victory, the challenge of the combat, etc.--and has his comarads rolling their eyes--is Gamist or not.

The social kudos thing seems, to me, to be only one dimensional.

-Marco

I think you're right Marco...

That's why I refer to "Tactical Success" as a motive for engaging in conflict.  Very often, the person engaging in this activity doesn't care about the social "kudos."  They are driven by their self-perception, i.e., "I 'm a better military strategist than Napoleon!"  It's about personal satisfaction.  When their activities begin to infringe upon other players priorities too often, they are often referred to as "munchkins," and play becomes dysfunctional.

And there are other motives as well...

Well, the case where someone is rolling their eyes is just the extreme one. A more realistic case is one where everyone gets along but Fred just really digs the combat.

Sue and Jeff don't give him kudos for his mad tactical skillz but, you know, they're okay with him--they like him, he finds their dramatics okay--but he's not really into that. The social feedback is "I like your company and I like a lot of your input--but not especially one specific piece of it."

In these cases there may be some social reinforcement going around--but is it necessary? Is it the defining part of the activity--the majority of the drive? Would the players engage in the activity if it was only them and neutral GM (yes, I'd think so)--so what is the key element?

I think it's internal appreciation (for some--social approval for others).

-Marco

Quote from: Lee Short

Quote from: ValamirActually Lee, I think any experienced GNS "analyst" would answer your question with "don't know, you haven't given us enough information to tell".

I'm not sure what impact that has on your point, but while such snap judgements occur, they are pretty strongly discouraged.

OK.  

Then I'd like your answer to

QuoteIf you disagree, how would you categorize John's play if he Played The System solely because he enjoys games as problems in game theory and not at all for kudos?

I suspect I know the answer, but I'd really rather not go around putting words in people's mouths.

Lee,

Your example answers two of my questions...

The player engages in conflict to gain Discovery.  What is he exploring?  System.  Therefore, he is engaged in conflict for Discovery of System.  You haven't answered which elements are important to how he does it, but you could.  


Now, if your player was not interested in game theory, but in overcoming conflict through tactically using system for his personal glory or self-satisfaction....  Then he'd be seeking Tactical Success in System terms.  And he may be using character as the vehicle of his exploration.

In GNS terms, obviously if the character is interested in exploring game theory via actual roleplay, he is probably playing Sim.

Cheers
Jonathan

Quote from: Lee Short
Then I'd like your answer to

QuoteIf you disagree, how would you categorize John's play if he Played The System solely because he enjoys games as problems in game theory and not at all for kudos?

I suspect I know the answer, but I'd really rather not go around putting words in people's mouths.

I'm not sure where you're starting from here.

Are you starting from the idea that kudos and high fives from your peers are the only manifestation of a Step on Up agenda?

If so, that would be incorrect.  The player doesn't need to actually get congratulatory slaps on the back from his fellow players to obtain the esteem boost that comes from successful gamist play.  


At which point my answer becomes the same as my previous answer:
Not enough information.

It could be pure Exploration with emphasis on System.  It could be Gamism.  If its not desired by the rest of the group it could be an example of GNS dysfunction in action.  It could be alot of things.

I'm obviously not communicating my question very well, so I'll skip it and make some assumptions to get on with my argument.  

Back to our theoretical gamer John.  John loves to "work the system" when he plays games. He does it in CRPGs, RPGs, boardgames, you name it. When John sits down to play an RPG, he does it because he loves to work the system as an exercise in game theory. He finds the game-theoric problems so interesting he'll buy a new game and play it by himself, just because he likes to -- even if he never expects to play that game with another person.  John is largely an individual who values his own self-generated esteem over the esteem he gains from having the respect of others.  Most of the esteem value he gains from Working The System is his esteem in his own eyes; ie, not socially related at all.  But, like anybody, John likes to be respected by his peers.  So he also gains significant esteem value from gaining the respect of his fellow players.  The reason why he sits down at the gaming table has more to do with intellectual curiosity and internally generated self-respect than the respect he gets from his peers, but all three of these are factors.  He's not at all competitive.  

Now, I think that John's play will be categorized as Sim (heightened Exploration of System) or pure Exploration.  But I really don't have a firm grasp of how I would go about determining which of these it is.  

Now lets posit John's brother Tom.  Tom also loves to "work the system" when he plays games. He does it in CRPGs, RPGs, boardgames, you name it. When Tom sits down to play an RPG, he does it because he loves to work the system as show the other players how clever he is. He finds the game-theoric problems interesting, but he'd never buy a new game and play it by himself, unless he expected to play the game with his friends and impress them with his mastery of the game.  Tom's self-esteem is heavily based on others' expressed opinions of him.  Most of the esteem value he gains from Working The System is in the respect the other players give him.  The reason why he sits down at the gaming table has more to do with the respect he gets from his peers, but intellectual curiosity and internally generated self-respect are factors too.  Tom also is not at all competitive.  

I think that Tom's play is Gamist.  

I think GNS would be better served by categorizing these two players as the same type.  

First of all, it's far from given that even the player involved can separate out whether they value more the internal rewards of problem-solving, or the social esteem -- making the categorization problematic.  But that's a topic for a different thread.  

More importantly, the key thing here is that both Tom and John are going to love the same style of game designs, and are going to enjoy playing in the same kinds of games*.  Which, as I understand the intended purposes of GNS, ought to put them in the same category.  

-------------

Now you may or may not agree with this particular analysis.  Even so, I think that this sort of analysis is useful in determining if GNS has gotten where it wants to go.  

*Assuming no social friction.  As games, they will like the same games.

You've described two Gamists, Lee. Here's how:

QuoteBut, like anybody, John likes to be respected by his peers. So he also gains significant esteem value from gaining the respect of his fellow players. The reason why he sits down at the gaming table has more to do with intellectual curiosity and internally generated self-respect than the respect he gets from his peers, but all three of these are factors. He's not at all competitive.

If John is getting this respect from the others by demonstrating personal strategy and guts, then he is playing Gamist. All your qualifiers ("more to do with intellectual curiosity" e.g.) are irrelevant.

I reject your "like anybody" when the crucial issue of strategy and guts is included. John could get that respect in some other way, e.g. in a way which enhances the imaginative space to a degree that everyone likes to do for its own sake, or in a way which addresses a problematic generalizable issue. But if he's doing it by demonstrating strategy and guts, as a person (not his character's), then it's Gamist play.

Your description of John is muddy and problematic because you're not specifying that crucial issue. That's the only reason you can make any claim to John playing in a Simulationist fashion.

I've said it a hundred times: the respect/esteem is necessary but not sufficient. These specific scrutinized qualities are the sufficient and necessary issue.

Best,
Ron

Ralph--my sticking point is that I think sometimes you can get the reward without the conflict. I've been in games in which "conflict", if it existed, was nothing more than "how can I learn what I want to know next?" Even then, it was sometimes as low as "what would happen if I did this, and what do I learn from that?" I would say that those games were simulationist play; I would also say that as examples they force us to the choice between declaring there is nothing driving the exploration in such cases (which leaves us wondering why anyone is exploring anything) versus reducing "conflict" to the point that it has no meaning.

I will agree that response to conflict is a great indicator of creative agendum in most cases; I just don't think it's the only one.

If you could come as far as:

"The nature of the reward sought from play as realized through the player's choices and particularly in response to in game conflict"

I could meet you there.

-----

The case has been raised of the seeming gamist who is playing in the non-gamist group, and so is not getting kudos from his fellow players. I suspect that part of what is happening in the mind of this player is something like, "That was so cool that these people really ought to think so, too, and since they don't they must be real dorks; I'm sure that anyone to whom I described that would think it was wicked cool, so I don't know what's wrong with these guys."

I also think that a lot of gamist solo play has this "self as audience" phenomenon--the glory comes in part from impressing yourself with how well you did it. Sometimes the imaginative aside that appears with this includes the imaginary audience cheering. I'm reminded that the old Intellivision Skiing game had canned applause when you reached the bottom of the slalom course; and if you successfully figured out the code in Bomb Squad the voice that had been guiding you would shout, "You did it! You did it! You're a hero!", and there would be celebratory music and imitation fireworks. These are playing on the drive in gamist play with a sort of "canned glory".

I also know that a lot of people who play gamist video games tell each other how they managed to overcome this or that within them, and are impressed with just how quickly someone managed to beat the game; so even though they're playing by themselves, they're still doing it to impress people.

Even when they don't have anyone to impress, the success itself gives them a sort of satisfaction of glory. They know they did it; it bolsters their image of who they are.

So maybe it's not as much the glory, but that the glory is a prime means to the real objective, which might be the validation of ability and self-worth. Dang, that's a deep psychological drive. It's best when others validate it for us, but we validate it for ourselves by being impressed with our own successes. Further, I'll note that when we succeed at something and don't think it was difficult, our self-validation fails. (I know--I had the highest SAT scores in my high school graduating class, and wrote it off to skill at standardized tests, because I couldn't imagine that I was actually smart.)

As to Lee's question concerning that player who likes to monkey with the system, he might indeed be gamist, if he's looking to prove his ability against the system. On the other hand, he might be simulationist (in my estimation) if what he's after is understanding how the system works.

I've had this window open so long, I'm sure I've cross-posted with someone; but let me post and see what's been added since Ron.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: Ron EdwardsYou've described two Gamists, Lee. Here's how:

QuoteBut, like anybody, John likes to be respected by his peers. So he also gains significant esteem value from gaining the respect of his fellow players. The reason why he sits down at the gaming table has more to do with intellectual curiosity and internally generated self-respect than the respect he gets from his peers, but all three of these are factors. He's not at all competitive.

If John is getting this respect from the others by demonstrating personal strategy and guts, then he is playing Gamist. All your qualifiers ("more to do with intellectual curiosity" e.g.) are irrelevant.

I completely concur that John is getting this respect by demonstrating personal strategy and guts, as a person.  No issue there.  

The reason I said, 'like anybody' is because I think that anybody who sits down to play a crunchy game will receive some measure of positive motivation by having their personal strategy and guts recognized by the gaming group.  This applies to non-Gamists playing crunchy games, too.  The question to me is:  how much of 'why they game' does this comprise?  It seems to me that this question is crucial to determining if they are a Gamist.  

Quote
Your description of John is muddy and problematic because you're not specifying that crucial issue. That's the only reason you can make any claim to John playing in a Simulationist fashion.

That's not clear to me  If John's primary motivation to sit down at the table to game is 'to better understand the system', and demonstrating strategy and guts to his peers is just a small part, why is he Gamist?

Ignore the part about his internal self-respect.  MJ explained that -- thanks, MJ.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsYou've described two Gamists, Lee. Here's how:

QuoteBut, like anybody, John likes to be respected by his peers. So he also gains significant esteem value from gaining the respect of his fellow players. The reason why he sits down at the gaming table has more to do with intellectual curiosity and internally generated self-respect than the respect he gets from his peers, but all three of these are factors. He's not at all competitive.

If John is getting this respect from the others by demonstrating personal strategy and guts, then he is playing Gamist. All your qualifiers ("more to do with intellectual curiosity" e.g.) are irrelevant.

I completely concur that John is getting this respect by demonstrating personal strategy and guts, as a person.  No issue there.  

The reason I said, 'like anybody' is because I think that anybody who sits down to play a crunchy game will receive some measure of positive motivation by having their personal strategy and guts recognized by the gaming group.  This applies to non-Gamists playing crunchy games, too.  The question to me is:  how much of 'why they game' does this comprise?  It seems to me that this question is crucial to determining if they are a Gamist.  

Quote
Your description of John is muddy and problematic because you're not specifying that crucial issue. That's the only reason you can make any claim to John playing in a Simulationist fashion.

That's not clear to me.  If John's primary motivation to sit down at the table to game is 'to better understand the system', and demonstrating strategy and guts to his peers is just a small part, why is he Gamist?

Ignore the part about his internal self-respect.  MJ explained that -- thanks, MJ.

Quote from: Lee Short
I completely concur that John is getting this respect by demonstrating personal strategy and guts, as a person.  No issue there.  

The reason I said, 'like anybody' is because I think that anybody who sits down to play a crunchy game will receive some measure of positive motivation by having their personal strategy and guts recognized by the gaming group.  This applies to non-Gamists playing crunchy games, too.  The question to me is:  how much of 'why they game' does this comprise?  It seems to me that this question is crucial to determining if they are a Gamist.  

The GNS classifications are not really as much about why he games as what he does while gaming that gives him enjoyment.  He can be there primarily for some thought experiment that the gamist crunch allows him to accomplish, if that is getting fulfilled by stepping on up than he is into gamism.  He may be gamist because that form of play allows the most interaction with the system, with combat rolls taking place almost non stop, whereas a more simulationist game may have less interaction with the rules system and not provide the insight he is looking for.

Quote from: M. J. Young
The case has been raised of the seeming gamist who is playing in the non-gamist group, and so is not getting kudos from his fellow players. I suspect that part of what is happening in the mind of this player is something like, "That was so cool that these people really ought to think so, too, and since they don't they must be real dorks; I'm sure that anyone to whom I described that would think it was wicked cool, so I don't know what's wrong with these guys."

--M. J. Young

I have two comments on this:

1. It is saying that all sense of accomplishment, all pride-of-craftsmanship, all self improvement is based on impressing other people--even imaginary other people--and even if, given the chance to talk about it, you don't.

I think a case can be made (the expert craftsman is psychologically working to impress his now-dead father who trained him)--but it is one I would be leery of taking on faith or applying in all circumstances.

2. If we allow a ghost audience then we've removed the need for observation of reinforcing behavior from CA description or analysis. The Narrativist need not have any feedback from the group ... or even negative feedback--so long as, in his head, the right guys are impressed.

I don't mind that--but I see that as a major change.

Additionally: I don't see the negative-feedback case as dysfunctional. I think the far more common case is the other players are pretty neutral on the behavior and the player's ghost audience is the one doing most of the cheering.

-Marco

Quote from: Caldis

Quote from: Lee Short
I completely concur that John is getting this respect by demonstrating personal strategy and guts, as a person.  No issue there.  

The reason I said, 'like anybody' is because I think that anybody who sits down to play a crunchy game will receive some measure of positive motivation by having their personal strategy and guts recognized by the gaming group.  This applies to non-Gamists playing crunchy games, too.  The question to me is:  how much of 'why they game' does this comprise?  It seems to me that this question is crucial to determining if they are a Gamist.  

The GNS classifications are not really as much about why he games as what he does while gaming that gives him enjoyment.  He can be there primarily for some thought experiment that the gamist crunch allows him to accomplish, if that is getting fulfilled by stepping on up than he is into gamism.  

Well, that is precisely what I was trying to determine.  Because I see some people here using the term that way, but I don't see that it is consistently being used that way...but many times, it is unclear to me which of them is being used.  At least in part, this is because both 'why do they game?' and 'what they do while gaming that they enjoy?' can be, at some levels, answered the same way.  But that doesn't explain all the ambiguity -- and when I asked a question that distinguished between the two usages, both Valamir and Ron seemed to unequivocally state that 'why they game' was the real question.  

This all related back to contracycle's question about what the similarities and differences are between GDS-G and GNS-G, which I'm still thinking about.

O.K., I do understand the difference between "Why they game" and "What they do while gaming that they enjoy", but I don't think the difference can apply here, really. The two are truncated into one in GNS, I think.

Obviously, the answer to "Why do you game" in almost every case (and I'd wager in every case we would consider functional) is "to have fun". Then "What do you do while gaming that you enjoy" really is "What is it about play that you find fun, and how do you get that to happen". Thus GNS becomes what it is that you do to get enjoyment from the game so it will be fun--and since "fun" is why you play, whatever it is you do to have fun is the reason you're playing, or at least tells us what that reason is. That, then, is gamism, or narrativism, or simulationism--you're doing things to get the kind of reward from play that you enjoy, and so play so that you can get that reward.

Thus the difficulty in answering the question. I swim ultimately because I enjoy it. Do I enjoy swimming laps, and the feeling of accomplishment and of doing something healthy for my body? Do I enjoy playing games with others in the pool? Do I enjoy impressing friends with the sorts of dives I can do off the board? Whatever it is that I enjoy about swimming, that's really why I swim. Whatever it is that I enjoy about role playing games, that's why I play.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: M. J. Young
Obviously, the answer to "Why do you game" in almost every case (and I'd wager in every case we would consider functional) is "to have fun". Then "What do you do while gaming that you enjoy" really is "What is it about play that you find fun, and how do you get that to happen". Thus GNS becomes what it is that you do to get enjoyment from the game so it will be fun--and since "fun" is why you play, whatever it is you do to have fun is the reason you're playing, or at least tells us what that reason is. That, then, is gamism, or narrativism, or simulationism--you're doing things to get the kind of reward from play that you enjoy, and so play so that you can get that reward.

Right but the important distinction to make is that the player is doing this in the game.  If the player values creating theme then he does not care if the game is creating theme, he cares whether he is able to create theme in the game.  It's like baseball when your 6 years old and you get stuck in right field, nobody hits the ball there so the game isnt all that exciting at least until you get to bat and you can actually play.  That's why I disagree with the idea that a game with theme is a creative agenda.  The agenda is to create theme not to partake in a game that has theme.

Quote from: Lee ShortAt least in part, this is because both 'why do they game?' and 'what they do while gaming that they enjoy?' can be, at some levels, answered the same way.  But that doesn't explain all the ambiguity -- and when I asked a question that distinguished between the two usages, both Valamir and Ron seemed to unequivocally state that 'why they game' was the real question.

This all related back to contracycle's question about what the similarities and differences are between GDS-G and GNS-G, which I'm still thinking about.

Well, I think that "why they game" is a very important and interesting question -- which the rgfa Threefold never delved very far into (IMO).  I also think that it is a big question which any three (or even six) labels aren't going to get very far in answering.  Still, you have to start somewhere.  

The question of rgfa Threefold Gamism vs GNS Gamism is an interesting one.  In theory, rgfa Gamism is defined in terms of making decisions which will test player skill, while GNS Gamism is more about seeking social esteem through risk (i.e. "Step on Up").  In practice, rgfa Gamism was used to denote many mysteries, puzzles, and problem-solving adventures; while GNS Gamism usually refers to more game-mechanical tactical games.  I think it's the divergent cases which are interesting here:  i.e. testing skill without social approval, or conversely seeking social approval without objective test of skill or in-game challenge.  

Quote from: CaldisRight but the important distinction to make is that the player is doing this in the game.  If the player values creating theme then he does not care if the game is creating theme, he cares whether he is able to create theme in the game.  It's like baseball when your 6 years old and you get stuck in right field, nobody hits the ball there so the game isnt all that exciting at least until you get to bat and you can actually play.  That's why I disagree with the idea that a game with theme is a creative agenda.  The agenda is to create theme not to partake in a game that has theme.  

I think you're preaching to the choir here.  As far as I can tell, everyone agrees that player empowerment/involvement is important.  That's why it is explicitly treated as an axis in the 3D model, and why it is essential to having a Creative Agenda at all in Ralph's model.

This is kind of an interesting thread. Just catching the last page here.

I'm reminded of two kinds of impressions when playing games: (1) how much it matters to have an impact on what's going on and (2) how much it matters that what the rules cover be present and relevant. I think the gamers Lee is describing are chasing these ends. When the path to impact competes with the game rules, one of the two is going to go right out the window. And people will do just the craziest things.

I remember agreeing to learn Civilization by playing it. We made a night of reading those damn, confusing rules. I mean, the learning process was the game. The play was irrelevant, really. My turns went quickly because I chose from a list of options to learn how that option made impact. My pace drew some curious looks, as if to accuse me of flippancy; but then, I knew where the game was.

This reminds me of how a game is the understanding between players and nothing more (IMO). That's why disenfranchising a player by moving his marker or rattling off the round procedure without providing time for your opponent's understanding will so wound one; it suggests that a fellow's part holds no esteem with another.

I'm reminded of how I became obsessed with thawing out ice planets in Starfarers of Catan or learning to use spider mines in Starcraft: Broodwars. Those have got to be some of the weakest paths to impact the games support. Everyone knows you build two colonies, upgrade to a starport and establish two trading outposts; or for Stacraft, that you bunker in and build 12 battle cruisers. There's your impact, baby.

But it seems like, once you get locked onto (1), the rules go out the window; and for (2), you may go down in flames, but your charred skull will still somehow seem to be smiling.

I feel this so strongly, I almost think you can't go wrong (assuming that the game design offers no competition between rules and impact) by designing a campaign to tour . .  or you could even say, exhaust . . the system. Imagine a concession vendor approaches you at a baseball game. On her shirt is written "SYSTEM." "What'll it be?" she asks. "One of everything," you answer. "And do you want relish and mustard on your hot dog?" she asks. "Oh, yes. I want to try it all," you reply. There you go: the perfect campaign.

Quote from: John KimI think you're preaching to the choir here.  As far as I can tell, everyone agrees that player empowerment/involvement is important.  That's why it is explicitly treated as an axis in the 3D model, and why it is essential to having a Creative Agenda at all in Ralph's model.

I'm not just saying that player empowerment is important, I'm saying that player empowerment is what creative agenda under GNS is all about.  I'm saying that GNS has the empowerment issue covered and that is what it was designed to cover.  I'm saying that creative agenda is a personal goal for player involvement in the game and that other concerns like GDS and whether a recognizable story come from the game should be considered as something seperate.  They are a different layer of the big model.

Ralph's model is defined by how players approach conflict.  In it's latest version he seems to have disavowed narrativism as a creative agenda and reverted to theme as the agenda and narrativism as only a technique.  The problem with this is that when the player approaches conflict with the goal of creating theme but has no power to do so then he does not create theme and his goal remains unmet.  If he is content to let the gm create theme then he is simply experiencing the situation which is what simulationism is all about.  (Note: I disagree with Ralph's definition of simulationism as 'what if' as well, but that's a side issue.)

Mike's 3d model has a similar problem.  A theme game with high GM control can not have a player freely creating theme.  Therefore theme can not be said to be his creative agenda, it's not what he's trying to create.  

These models both work to a certain extent to categorize different types of games but they've left behind what GNS was about and that is what the player is empowered to do in the game.

Quote from: Caldis
Mike's 3d model has a similar problem.  A theme game with high GM control can not have a player freely creating theme.  Therefore theme can not be said to be his creative agenda, it's not what he's trying to create.

These models both work to a certain extent to categorize different types of games but they've left behind what GNS was about and that is what the player is empowered to do in the game.

(Emphasis added)

Creation of theme (Player Input: Theme) isn't all or nothing. There are degrees. Only in a hypothetical game of absolute GM power does the player create "zero theme" in the sense you mean it--and you might find that players who enjoy those games don't agree with your analysis:

Player: "You know that kid out playing baseball at 6 AM? Yeah--notice how if that kid is the GM there ain't a game going on either. Oh, and if the rest of the team is in the bleachers (just being an audience)? There still isn't a game happening."

Now, I happen to agree with you--I don't find the players 0, GM 100 particularly functional as an RPG set up.

But I don't think that once that's out in the open very many other people do either. If my enjoyment all based on the illusion that I can create theme (or step-on-up, or whatever) then the dynamic is about some sort of denial and not a standard getting-your-needs-met interaction.

-Marco

Hello,

Oh my God. Marco, that hit me right in the "got it" button. I'm gonna quote that in an essay. Don't know in what yet, but I will.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsHello,

Oh my God. Marco, that hit me right in the "got it" button. I'm gonna quote that in an essay. Don't know in what yet, but I will.

Best,
Ron

:-D

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoOnly in a hypothetical game of absolute GM power does the player create "zero theme" in the sense you mean it....

Actually, I was in that hypothetical game for quite a while. It took a while to realize it. Before I realized it, it felt tremendously exciting. After I realized it, I felt more manipulated than anything else.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: Marco
Creation of theme (Player Input: Theme) isn't all or nothing. There are degrees. Only in a hypothetical game of absolute GM power does the player create "zero theme" in the sense you mean it--and you might find that players who enjoy those games don't agree with your analysis:

I'll agree with this entirely, which might seem a little illogical but I'll try and clarify.  I do not view creative agenda as a set point but as a sliding scale, much like where the discussion of the 3d model turned when considering centralized vs decentralized.   People's preferences are not for one agenda to the exclusion of the other two but for one over the other two.  Sometimes play will be driven by one agenda and at other times by another whichever one takes precedence and drives the game forward is where I would label the game on the scale of GNS.  

If the players are creating theme often in the game and that is what the game is based around then it's narrativist, if most of the time they are watching the gm create theme while they are allowed to experience the dream then it's simulationist.  

The important point is that it's what the players are doing that determines whether a creative agenda is being realized or not.  If their input into theme is limited then creating theme cant really be their priority if they are happy with the play.

The problem I have here is that the referee is a player. We drive that point home in every other context; we seem to ignore it here. Obviously, even in illusionism and participationism, someone is contributing to the shared imagined space, and if creation of theme through address of premise is the goal of that contribution, the fact that everyone else is boxed out of making any contribution they wish to make doesn't make it not narrativist; it makes it not functional.

--M. J. Young

I believe Ron calls that sort of GM Typhoid Mary as an example of just that...dysfunctional Narrativist play.

Quote from: M. J. YoungThe problem I have here is that the referee is a player. We drive that point home in every other context; we seem to ignore it here. Obviously, even in illusionism and participationism, someone is contributing to the shared imagined space, and if creation of theme through address of premise is the goal of that contribution, the fact that everyone else is boxed out of making any contribution they wish to make doesn't make it not narrativist; it makes it not functional.

--M. J. Young

Right it's not functional if the players goal is to create theme.  If they are unable to create theme and are ok with it then it is functional simulationism and thus no disfunction.  The gm may have a different goal than the players he may be a narrativist trying to create theme but the game will be primarily simulationist because the majority of the play has the players living out the dream.

Quote from: CaldisRight it's not functional if the players goal is to create theme.  If they are unable to create theme and are ok with it then it is functional simulationism and thus no disfunction.  The gm may have a different goal than the players he may be a narrativist trying to create theme but the game will be primarily simulationist because the majority of the play has the players living out the dream.

I think we're talking about three different things here.[list=1]

• The referee is trying to address theme, but he's shutting out the efforts of the players to do so as well, vacating their input so as to make the statement he wants to make.
• The referee is trying to address theme, and the players have consented to go along for the ride because they are interested in the theme he is creating and thus are audience for his story.
• The referee is trying to address theme, but the players don't care, as long as they can experience the world in which his story is told.[/list:o]
  These are all problematic.
  
  In the first case, everyone is narrativist, and everyone is trying to address theme, but one player (the referee) is abusing his credibility to shut out the inputs of all the others. This would be the Typhoid Mary dysfunctional narrativist case.
  
  The third case may also be dysfunctional, because one player (the referee) is addressing theme, but the others aren't involved in that at all, being interested in exploring the world and discovering what happens within it. At some level, the referee is wasting their time with his story. Although it might "work" with minimal group tension, it falls into the category of dysfunctional play precisely because two agenda are being pursued simultaneously by different participants, and that means they must conflict.
  
  The second case is the most problematic, though. I think we all agree that every creative agendum involves both active and passive modes; I think we can safely say that all participants must be "audience" or passive mode at least part of the time, while the others take center stage. It has been suggested that it's entirely possible for a participant to be in passive mode for the entire game--the gamist example of the player whose efforts are always to make his girlfriend's character look good, instead of taking the glory for himself. If that's so, and what we really have is one player (the referee) creating theme and all the other players in passive mode, don't we really have a form of tightly centralized narrativist play? It's all about the theme being created; the problem traditionally is that only one person is creating it--but the others don't want to create anything here, so they aren't having their input vacated, they just aren't offering any input!
  
  I think that if the referee is trying to create theme, he is playing narrativist. If the players are playing simulationist, you've got dysfunction. If you don't have dysfunction, it's because the game is narrativist and the players want to be in the passive mode throughout, supporting the one player who is addressing theme.
  
  Maybe it's like a baseball game. Everything depends on the pitcher, really. He wants to pitch a no hitter. If someone manages to hit one of his pitches, the fielders and basemen will attempt to get that man out before he gets to base, but they're still all focused on the pitcher's efforts to get a no-hitter.
  
  Maybe that's a weak example; but I think trying to push "referee addresses premise and no one else contributes to it" into "always simulationist" is a mistake relative to both narrativism and simulationism. At least, it's not so simple as that.
  
  --M. J. Young

Quote from: M. J. Young
I think that if the referee is trying to create theme, he is playing narrativist. If the players are playing simulationist, you've got dysfunction. If you don't have dysfunction, it's because the game is narrativist and the players want to be in the passive mode throughout, supporting the one player who is addressing theme.

--M. J. Young

I want to check you (and Ron) on this to make sure I understand it.

In this case, these "Sim players" are, for example, complete genre-fiends who will never step outside of genre no matter what happens in the game--and that genre always dictates the choices of their characters--it isn't a genre where a character can make a surprising choice, for example (or have counter-genre pieces wrapped up in it like Unforgiven in the Western tradition).

The GM, in this case, is functional Narrativist--and therefore isn't shutting down people's input--so the gating factor must be coming from the other players (or internally), right?

What I'm having a hard time imagining is what happens when the GM says "This is a Modern-day magic game using the Hero System" and it's his own made-up world and there's no defined genre or conventions.

How do these guys stick to Sim?

What's that look like if they can't appeal to genre?

-Marco

Hi Marco,

That's a good question. In my experience, anyway, play either acquires references to genre through various players' insisting on it in some way, or the group finds some gimmick to focus on, for System to hang its hook on.

Such a gimmick is sometimes the in-game justification of how powers work, with attendant system reinforcement - in fact, the Godlike text presents an excellent example of turning to focus on such a thing in the absence of a comic to go by.

Yeah, I know I just used a game text when we should be talking about play. Tricky stuff, this game-talk. Anyway, also, I should point out that Godlike could have focused on war-story genre, but it didn't and went with its emphasis on power-metaphysics and alternate-history due to power-metaphysics instead.

Anyway, those are merely two observations of groups I was in or saw back in my Champions days, in which they got together to play "superheroes" but didn't manage to reference particular comics or trope-groups within that category. A third possibility, the depressing one, is that the Wolverine character just kills everything and everybody and the group (the real people) stop playing ...

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsHi Marco,

That's a good question. In my experience, anyway, play either acquires references to genre through various players' insisting on it in some way, or the group finds some gimmick to focus on, for System to hang its hook on.

Such a gimmick is sometimes the in-game justification of how powers work, with attendant system reinforcement - in fact, the Godlike text presents an excellent example of turning to focus on such a thing in the absence of a comic to go by.

I'm still lagging here--how does "how powers work" (even a focus there) interfere with premise ("You can't date the princess--you have Quantum Flight!" ??)

I'm not sayin' it doesn't--I'm just not gettin' it (maybe because I don't have Godlike).

Quote
A third possibility, the depressing one, is that the Wolverine character just kills everything and everybody and the group (the real people) stop playing ...

Best,
Ron

Yeah, well ... that always happens sooner or later with Wolverine.

-Marco (who knows from experience)

Um. I think what I'm talking about is that play can turn to a fascination with how the powers work, and a kind of "what would that do" priority that becomes almost an exercise in alternate-history construction. That construction occurs both during play itself and in the possibly-feverish game-world history that one or more people start writing.

In the real-life examples of this approach that I'm thinking of, there was no Premise because no one even looked in that direction, much less put any in-or-out-of character effort toward it.

So not really interference, but rather a "well, we're going this way" and that way just didn't have Premise involved.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron Edwards
So not really interference, but rather a "well, we're going this way" and that way just didn't have Premise involved.

Best,
Ron

I'm following along--but the example we'd started with assumed a functional Narrativist GM (which, I assume, means the GM is interested in presenting premise-laden situations).

Was that the case in your history? Were, say, you as the GM throwing out premise laden adventures but the PC's were so interested in building the alternate history that they fled them to do history building stuff?

What happened when the practical consequences of un-addressed situation came crashing down?

Note: I'm thinking of my most recent Holes-in-the-world game write-up. There was some discussion of alternate-physics and, actually, some exploration of the technologies involved (this had to be the case since the scientist character did solve the problem with an application of her physics skills once she understood it).

However, due to what could be described as Narrativist proclivities on the part of the GM (me), there were elements of situation that were pretty difficult to ignore and, in fact, would've been catastrophic if they had been ignored (although, clearly, some were--and that was okay).

I'm wondering how these Sim players fail to engage with the situation--I mean, can't the GM just minorly amp the consequences of letting a given presented situation run it's course (this seems especially easy to do in what I understand of Godlike where there's a world war going on)?

-Marco

Ah - the groups I'm thinking of did not have a Narrativist-inclined GM.

So if we do have such a GM, then my point moves more toward my suggestion that Premise can then evolve over time, conceivably, as the players buy into making it by accepting and developoing the out-of-game personal charge that arises from the imaginary situation.

But I'm no longer sure what this thread is about ...

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Marco
I'm wondering how these Sim players fail to engage with the situation--I mean, can't the GM just minorly amp the consequences of letting a given presented situation run it's course (this seems especially easy to do in what I understand of Godlike where there's a world war going on)?

Yes but I can't make them care about it.  So what if the situation runs its course?  Then they will get to see what happens next, which is fine.  If they are really uninterested in premise, I cannot compel them to address or explore it if they are not so inclined.  They can, if they wish, simply observe.  After all, even if the sim situation is catastophic, and the character gets killed, its only a game.

Quote from: contracycle
Yes but I can't make them care about it.  So what if the situation runs its course?  Then they will get to see what happens next, which is fine.  If they are really uninterested in premise, I cannot compel them to address or explore it if they are not so inclined.  They can, if they wish, simply observe.  After all, even if the sim situation is catastophic, and the character gets killed, its only a game.

This would give some credence to my observation that Simulationist play is noted observably for a lack of emotional engagement rather than an actual "gating factor" or systemically-enforced point.

The actual (hypothetical) case of a Nar-GM and Sim-Players that Ron suggests looks that way to me as well.

-Marco

Quote from: Ron Edwards
But I'm no longer sure what this thread is about ...

All right, I'll cop to a certain amount of floundering to find a point and possibly thread hijacking as well, so I'll try and regroup and clarify with a new thread likely not until tonight.

MJ, your last post had some good points but suffice it to say I disagree. Specifically that a seperate agenda for the players and the gm has to result in disfunction and that players watching the gm create theme are narrativists, by my understanding of creative agenda that's not true.  I hope the new thread will address some of these issues.  If you want to persue it with me directly feel free to pm me, though again I likely wont respond until tonight at the earliest.

I say this last part with a chuckle in my voice, Marco and Ron you two really have to sit down and hammer out this simulationist thing.  I feel like there's a lot being said between you but it's getting hard to follow with a couple posts in one thread and then a half dozen in another.  Maybe even start a thread and let it lie dormant for awhile if you've ran out of things to say then come back to it if something in another thread prompts you to it.

If that was out of line go ahead tell me to fuck off, I probably wont cry. ;)

Quote from: Marco
This would give some credence to my observation that Simulationist play is noted observably for a lack of emotional engagement rather than an actual "gating factor" or systemically-enforced point.

Hmm, I don't buy it I'm afraid.  The question was, can a Narr GM not compel players to care by amping the situational tension.  Answering no to that does not imply that sim play is emotionless and unengaged; it only means that it is not engaged with the addressing of premise and doesn't bite on the same bait you'd offer to Narr players.

Quote from: contracycle
Hmm, I don't buy it I'm afraid.  The question was, can a Narr GM not compel players to care by amping the situational tension.  Answering no to that does not imply that sim play is emotionless and unengaged; it only means that it is not engaged with the addressing of premise and doesn't bite on the same bait you'd offer to Narr players.

This is the situation I'm imagining: the PC's in a Godlike game (and I'm guessing here) are sent to rescue a turn-coat Nazi scientist. Along the way they see evidence of the atrocities he has committed.

The premise-ful situation is that their orders are to take him in (and maybe the war effort's success holds this important)--but he is a monster who will escape judgment.

In the case I imagine, the players go throught the adventure and then dutifuly rescue him (since that was their orders) and return with him.

Now: if a player hates the idea of rescuing the scientist and the other players shut him down, that's a (presumably) Nar player.

But here we have a bunch of Sim players--and they do not reject any input.

They do, in effect, answer the premise question: one's orders are more important than justice.
This fits the description of Nar play in all ways but one: they aren't emotionally involved.

As for consequences: the GM has induced the players to interact with the scenario by giving them orders. If they don't go on the mission they'll be thrown in the brig.

Thus, due to consequences, they engage (readily) with the premise-ful scenario, their play answering the premise question.

-Marco

Guys!

This thread needs to end now. Let's pick up new topics in new threads.

Marco, you're engaging in about four fronts right now. Just pick one to be the main one to resolve just once, OK? Let the others sit.

This is a big deal; right now it's like playing badminton with Doc Ock.

To be clear: this one's closed.

Best,
Ron