Hi, over in the GNS forum, I mentioned trying to take Simulationism and 'break it out' into more 'boxes.'
I am pressed for time so I am going to just sketch this out. It's a half-baked theory (unusual for me to submit an unfinished proposal, I know), any discussion would be greatly appreciated (perhaps we could 'finish baking it' together).
Two things to remember in this discussion, I may be starting with the GNS, I am not suggesting any changes to it;
it's done. What I am proposing it the sketchy beginning of a
different proposition. This is not to be taken as any statement on GNS, nor any call to 'defend' the GNS. Please leave the GNS,
as a unit, out of this thread. GNS examples are fine, in fact may empower discussion by giving a common framework to describe things as they are compared to this new proposition.
The second thing is I only conceived of this last night, so forgive (or polish) the rough edges.
Anyway here goes. In Scattershot (because of its genre¹ hybridization techniques), I had to determine what parts of a genre¹ were 'portable.' Here is the list of what I came up with:[list=1]
- Chara
- Background
- Circumstance
- Genre (Expectations)
- Mecahnics
- Props
- Relationships[/list:o]You'll notice the resemblance to Ron's 'Five Things to Explore in Simulationism' (Character, Setting, Situation, Color, and System) in the first five.
So if we break down Simulationism by what is explored (according to Scattershot), that gives:[list=a] - Chara play; alternatively Self-Discovery or Escapism
- Background play; alternatively Escapism or Tourism
- Genre (Expectation) play; ahhh...'Illusionism?' (More on this in another thread)[/list:o]Okay, so I haven't had time to work out the details, but you can see where I am going with this, right?
And while we're 'breaking them down,' how about other GNS boxes? I think there is enough diversity in Gamism, we might want to separate it into Mechanics-based play and (I dunno, how about) Context of the Game power play? (Separating creating and exploiting interesting mechanical constructs versus creating and exploiting interesting situations and alliances in the game world.)
Come to think of it, I think Narrativism is focused enough that it might be the only box that isn't ripe for 'breaking down.'
Please be patient, this is in pursuit of the idea that Dramatism is unique enough that it deserves a separate category, but then the G & S of GDS are too 'lumped together.' And I haven't had enough time to fully gestate the idea so I'm calling for help clarifying the unique and well-populated playing styles. These should have their own boxes only so that the relativity between these boxes creates information (as opposed to just giving anyone who wants a new box).
Likewise terminology is one of my foci, so we'll have to come up with some good ones for the new theory.
And remember, this is both a new idea (one I haven't had much time to think about) and I don't have much time to clarify my explanations here. Sorry.
Fang Langford
¹ This is not the idea of fully crystalized genres, but more the techniques for creating your own custom genre by explicitly choosing what to include and what to avoid.
Hi Fang,
As I've said before, I think both Narrativism and Gamism do slice up into many subsets based on various procedural or priority-based variables. So I don't see much problem in finding them and essentially producing a "multi-Kingdom" panoply of modes of play.
[A little note here: I don't think that Dramatism "sticks out" in any funny way over there in Simulationism, once it's understood that GNS is about the actual functional moments of role-playing, rather than "what is produced" by role-playing. But this was GNS-Man intruding himself into Fang's thread, when it was already established that GNS-Man had his own room to cavort about in. I shall now quell him.]
So ... I'm weighing in here for the main purpose of saying, it is perfectly all right to raise the possibility of a novel model in this forum. Please comment on the idea Fang presented as you see fit.
Best,
Ron
..
Quote from: LoganI think it doesn't really hurt to break out aspects of roleplaying into more boxes. I don't think GNS Simulationism is the only candidate for this. I do question the viability of calling GNS Simulationism to task and then saying "Leave GNS at the door." As a sort of advocate for more independent thinking on these topics, I think you have to step back and find your own goals and your own approach to achieving those goals. I suspect that you really do have something new to add, but you started by restating one aspect of GNS your own way. Personally, I'd like to see more of the former. In any case, I want to see more of your thinking on this fleshed out before expressing an opinion about it.
Actually, I delved only into the first (Simulationism) because of time issues.
Yeah 'leave GNS at the door' did seem out of place, didn't it? Since I was so short on time that I did not put it as I meant. What I wanted to say was that the GNS is a delineated (and therefore static) set of nomenclature, and that while it might help talking about the finer points of 'new boxes,' but I specifically wanted to avoid arguing
about the GNS or its validity. This is the way of new theories; they must be at first described by old terminology (at least until new terms are drafted).
As for having my own 'goals and approach,' they're over
here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=457&highlight=emotional). I started this thread in an attempt to solicit ideas on 'worthy' forms that might be included in a new theory, one based on collective thoughts. I also intended to 'moderate' it, by providing terminology suggestions until good terms (even to the point of inventing words) were found. I had hoped someone would jump in with that newer sounding version of Dramatism that was being discussed at the time.
As far as
my theories go, after you read about
personal and game perspective, intrinsic and extrinsic value schemes (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=457&highlight=emotional), you can add
General, Specific, and Mechanical play foci (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1087), as well as things about handling
'the speaker' (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1087), and begin to get the idea of what
my nascent theory is about.
Do you have any 'forms' you would like to explore in relation to a collective theory of gaming 'in boxes?'
Fang Langford
What I think is happening here is the formation of another layer BELOW GNS in sort of an RPG Theory tree. Which looks something like this:
E
/|\
/ | \
/ | \
G N S
/ | | \ | \
/ | | \ | \
? ? ? ? ? ?
And what we're really taking about here is the '?' parts. I think this is a VERY valid exercise and something we have been trying to do for a long time. However, it is so often preposed as an ALTERNATIVE to GNS rather than an examination of the next level of refinement that we get wrapped up in the GNS 'Completness' argument and forget about what is really being examined.
So, far I like where Fang is going with this. In fact Fang has finally given a word to something I've been thinking about for a while. I understand what is characteristic of Character and Situation Exploration but I was having trouble figuring out what was Characteristic of Setting Exploration that was different from Situation Exploration. 'Tourism' provides the perfect image.
Jesse
Quote from: jburnekoWhat I think is happening here is the formation of another layer BELOW GNS in sort of an RPG Theory tree. Which looks something like this:
E
/|\
/ | \
/ | \
G N S
/ | / \ | \
/ | | | | \
? ? ? ? ? ?
And what we're really taking about here is the '?' parts. I think this is a VERY valid exercise and something we have been trying to do for a long time. However, it is so often preposed as an ALTERNATIVE to GNS rather than an examination of the next level of refinement that we get wrapped up in the GNS 'Completness' argument and forget about what is really being examined.
Actually, it
must be proposed as an
alternative to the GNS because the GNS is done. It's not ours, we cannot change or refine it. I too tend to think in terms of working out this 'new layer,' but I do so knowing that it will not become a part of the current GNS.
I don't see the GNS as a public theory to be changed as whim strikes. I see it as a huge effort by one person to create a basic framework to discuss the subtle issues of the practice of gaming (and how these can be facilitated in design). It is the property of one person, not mine to change.
That does not mean it is a bad starting point. I just see a few 'holes.' Worse, the practice of using it obscures those holes. This is why, while I appreciate what it can add to the process of theorization, I do not think I want to 'start' with it (or have it as the umbrella over this work).
If you feel like naming some of the nodes
within the GNS and linking common terms to 'a new layer,' I invite you to start a new thread (probably in the GNS forum). I believe that will draw quite a bit of fire over what attempted changes (or refinements) say about the 'completeness' of the original. None of which I'd like to see here.
My thought is to 'examine the creatures' anew, going 'into the field' and comparing boxes
to each other as opposed to the static nomenclature of the GNS. Certainly there is much terminology in the GNS that
can be used, but to legitimize the GNS in this thread is to imply that they
must be the terms of choice.
In the same way that GNS clearly has foundations in the GDS threefold model, this new theory can be built upon the GNS, but to consider it 'another layer' would mean this thread belongs in the GNS forum. I like the freedom to
add terms as I see fit (and even toss them out again). Submitting to the GNS goes against that.
Quote from: jburnekoSo, far I like where Fang is going with this. In fact Fang has finally given a word to something I've been thinking about for a while. I understand what is characteristic of Character and Situation Exploration but I was having trouble figuring out what was Characteristic of Setting Exploration that was different from Situation Exploration. 'Tourism' provides the perfect image.
Actually, I took Tourist Mode off the newsgroups from long ago. I bring it up here because I
think it underscores something I don't think gets enough attention in the GNS.
The GNS is all about 'Exploration,' I don't think that captures the idea I see in a lot of gaming; the idea of escapism or simple gratification. 'Exploration' sounds too aggressive to me. I appreciate people who sky-dive or rock climb, but I don't go to Barnes & Nobles to 'Explore' their lemon bars. I know exactly what I'm getting, and I like it. I know recently people have discussed the negative side of 'always playing the same character,' but that is not all there is to it. If it were then 'always playing the same game system' would be as problematic. That's why I don't care to found a model on the concept of 'Exploration.'
What I do think is of interest is getting deeper into the concept of 'playing for fun.' (Honestly, if someone has fun 'Exploring,' more power to them.) This relic phrase still commands a lot of respect around the role-playing game design community, and I think for good reason. As a philosopher, I believe it can be clarified at least a little bit.
Basically, what is fun? Not what gives fun, but what fun is
itself? As far as my ratiocination goes, fun is the gratification of
emotions. Now according to me, emotions are unpredictable critters that I could never hope to classify, clarify, or stake down. However, I believe that all the 'hard times' I have seen and heard of regarding gaming have all come from a clash with emotions. 'Getting too attached to a character' is one example of too much emotional identification, I could go on, but I think you get my point.
So I start with emotional gratification as the purpose of gaming. The
includes 'Exploration,' but it goes farther. Since I include civil war re-enactment and our northern tradition of 'Rendezvous' as a forms of role-playing games, I see a much broader field of emotional gratification. Pride in one's presentation, I think,
is a valid reason for playing (trust me, they have a lot of fun). But then this goes over a lot of the ground I originally covered
back here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=457&highlight=emotional).
Ahem, let me get back on topic.
'Giving words' to different types of play is what this is thread all about, but I want to take it a step farther, to compare those types
to each other and look for different patterns than what the GNS has to offer. Maybe we can come up with something new.
Fang Langford
Quote from: Le Joueur
The GNS is all about 'Exploration,' I don't think that captures the idea I see in a lot of gaming; the idea of escapism or simple gratification. 'Exploration' sounds too aggressive to me. I appreciate people who sky-dive or rock
Nah, I think Exploration is perfect.
As for Tourism, IIRC it was coined in relation to the debate about immersive play.
Hello Fang,
I *think* I can see where you're coming from. The problem is that I'm personally really good at the GNS remapping game. For example, when you say 'Pride In One's Presentation' is a perfectly valid source of fun, I would completely agree. I would also call it a form of Gamism and probably the source of conflict in many LARPS between the Character Simulationists and the Presentation based Gamists.
However, I would like to see more of your thoughts, particularly if you can develop more of a concrete terminology and model. I'd be really impressed if I couldn't then remap everything to GNS but that's beside the point. I suspect that the area's of role-playing psychology might go along way to explaining that role-playing phenomenon I can only call the GNS apathetic.
The GNS apathetic is a constant thorn in my side because they really don't seem to be 'involved' in the act of role-playing but are still having a fun. I just don't understand them. How to better describe this phenomenon? They seem to be non-dysfunctional version of the 'Just show up' or 'The GM will sort it out' mentality. I say they're non-dysfunctional because I've seen whole groups of them get along just fine and when thrown into more active and 'focused' groups they aren't disruptive.
They seem to be content with the game REGARDLESS of how anything actually happens.
I have one or two of these in my group and they frustrate me only from a psychological point of view because I can't figure out why they keep showing up. They're not gamists because they obviously show no desire to compete with anything. They're not Simulationists because they show no initiative in exploring anything. In terms of character they basically play themselves and in terms of Situation they generally just follow a stronger more motivated character around. They're certainly not Narrativists in that they don't actively participate in story creation.
I'd ALMOST call these players audience members but they DO occasionally do something. Generally it's just the raw application of skills or the occassional commentary on in game actions. For example, if someone is wounded they are quick to lend their 'medical' skills to help. Or if they are confused about something they'll ask an NPC a question. But in general they are 100% passive/reactive players. What is the source of fun for these people? Why do they keep showing up?
By the way if you flat out ask them the most common answer is, 'I like the cool stories.' And they seem to mean 'story' in that hard to use non-specific way.
If your model could somehow explain these people, I'd be very grateful indeed.
Jesse
Quote from: jburnekoI *think* I can see where you're coming from. The problem is that I'm personally really good at the GNS remapping game.
That's because it is a great terminology toolkit.
But that is a thread for the GNS forum. I'm not trying to map things onto the GNS, I am looking for a
new frame of reference. Let me steal an idea from elsewhere (I think RobMuadib), GNS is about people's goals; SGR is about division of power. What I'm looking at would be 'what is fun.' (And that's not 'what do you do for fun,' but more 'how do you avoid stepping on fun's toes.')
Quote from: jburnekoFor example, when you say 'Pride In One's Presentation' is a perfectly valid source of fun, I would completely agree.
But that's not 'Exploration,' any more than returning to B & N for lemon bars is.
Quote from: jburnekoHowever, I would like to see more of your thoughts, particularly if you can develop more of a concrete terminology and model. I'd be really impressed if I couldn't then remap everything to GNS but that's beside the point.
Yes, it is.
Why do you keep bringing it up again? You've made your point, if you'd like to continue on that vein, feel free to start a thread about 'More Boxes' over in GNS theory and discuss anything we come up with here in GNS terms. Coming back to this repeatedly will now be considered
off topic for this thread, okay?
Quote from: jburnekoI suspect that the area's of role-playing psychology might go along way to explaining that role-playing phenomenon I can only call the GNS apathetic.
The GNS apathetic is a constant thorn in my side because they really don't seem to be 'involved' in the act of role-playing but are still having a fun. I just don't understand them.
That's what I was after when I said that GNS was too aggressive. It doesn't suit those who aren't 'after something.'
Quote from: jburnekoHow to better describe this phenomenon? They seem to be non-dysfunctional version of the 'Just show up' or 'The GM will sort it out' mentality. I say they're non-dysfunctional because I've seen whole groups of them get along just fine and when thrown into more active and 'focused' groups they aren't disruptive.
They seem to be content with the game REGARDLESS of how anything actually happens.
Ah, but then the GNS is exactly
not for them. At Ron's words, the GNS
is for people who are unsatisfied with their games. The above situation sounds like an aggressive 'Explorationist' in a group escapists. Short of finding something that inspires them (not a good idea, trying to change others), you probably need to either find another group or learn to deal with the differences.
Quote from: jburnekoI have one or two of these in my group and they frustrate me only from a psychological point of view because I can't figure out why they keep showing up. They're not gamists because they obviously show no desire to compete with anything. They're not Simulationists because they show no initiative in exploring anything. In terms of character they basically play themselves and in terms of Situation they generally just follow a stronger more motivated character around. They're certainly not Narrativists in that they don't actively participate in story creation.
Well, if you're going to be obsessed with the GNS, then you're going to have to extend to the more subtle definitions of Narrativism. I often find these are people who (strictly in the terms you have described) prefer vanilla Narrativism.
Quote from: jburnekoI'd ALMOST call these players audience members but they DO occasionally do something. Generally it's just the raw application of skills or the occassional commentary on in game actions. For example, if someone is wounded they are quick to lend their 'medical' skills to help. Or if they are confused about something they'll ask an NPC a question. But in general they are 100% passive/reactive players. What is the source of fun for these people? Why do they keep showing up?
Personally, I use terms like avatar (meaning their character is vessel for their godlike personage) or vicarious or brand it a small section immersive (populated by people who frequently say things prior to character generation like, "If I where so-and-so....") My perscription for play with them is looking for what they 'in-chara' value. Motivating them becomes a matter of spinning narrative out of the strengths and pitfalls of their relationship with what they value. (It's tricky, but I've had some luck.) Try giving the player characters 'an item of power' and watch what happens when non-player characters, who think they are stronger then the player characters, come to take it away.
Quote from: jburnekoBy the way if you flat out ask them the most common answer is, 'I like the cool stories.' And they seem to mean 'story' in that hard to use non-specific way.
If your model could somehow explain these people, I'd be very grateful indeed.
They sound like a type of vicarious escapists. How do you appeal to them? I haven't seen the movie, but how about casting them in a role similar to Samwise [sp]? They follow the 'larger' character around in a supportive role. Possibly 'story'
is what they value. To play on
that, I suggest once the relationship (with 'the hero') is formed, split the party (making sure 'the hero' is
not with this player group); now go to a lot of effort to make it look like
they're missing the action. (Frequently, the 'arriving too late' technique is used.)
If they
are this kind of player, they will put in the effort to 'catch up.' As long as the spotlight is on them, expect them to stay idle, but if they think 'stories are cool,' watch them chase it when they think they're missing something. (Heck, I've found the "you're missing it" technique good for
normal players, when the pacing gets too slow, or when they 'get side-tracked.')
Aside from the GNS references, this article
has dredged up a number of potential 'boxes.' Escapism, vicarious participation, and immersion as a full mode of play (not Simulationism's offspring). Does anyone else have any thoughts on these or other potential 'boxes?'
Fang Langford
Quote from: jburneko
By the way if you flat out ask them the most common answer is, 'I like the cool stories.' And they seem to mean 'story' in that hard to use non-specific way.
If your model could somehow explain these people, I'd be very grateful indeed.
Jesse
Jesse,
They're garden variety dramatists--I think the reason you're having problems mapping them is because GNS places them in the Sim/Exploration box while they're story-oriented (whatever that means).
Standard Dramatist play is: GM-as-a-story-teller, player as a participant in the GM's story. It's a fairly immersive play with possible breaks to actor stance if the participant thinks the story would be better in one direction. Primarily, the focus is on enjoying and participating in the story.
The reason I say that GNS isn't a great fit is, as I've said before, if you read what Ron has to say about Deadlands, VtM, 7th Sea, etc.--all Dramatist games--he finds them either in need of drift or, most problably, result in argument inducing contradictions.
If you want to appeal to them, try making them the subject (in a non-threatening way) of some of the stories--which will give them something to do. Conversely, if you want them to go away, tell stories they're not interested in the least in.
-Marco
Note: story-oriented is (as Ron says) pretty much open to interpertation. So, I submit, is story-creation. Ron's gone and defined it--but I can do the same with story-oriented and it gets us to the same place (either you meet Ron's defintion of story-creation or you aren't having the same conversation).
Note 2: I see further evidence that GNS doesn't really acknowledge dramatist play in that some people (not Ron, as far as I know) have described things like Relationship maps, Fortune In The Midde, and other story-oriented mechanics as Narrativist. They're not--there's nothing inherently story creating about a Relationship map or FitM. Standard dramatists enjoy those--and yet they're seen as Narrativist.
Note 3: As Ron says, non-Narrativist Dramatist play is covered under GNS Simulationism. Its just a completely different meaning from GDS's Simulationism (which is *also* in the same GNS 'S' bucket).
[Edited to change the way I said a few things ... ]
OK, so GNS claims that not only are its states roughly orthogonal, but that they are quantized, ie, there do not exist mixed states. So, if we accept that theory as reasonable, the only acceptable new type of theory to posit is one which covers entirely different territory, rather than one which attempts to map the same space on different axes.
Next point: I suspect that these people who seem to fit poorly are pretty much just showing up because they enjoy social interaction, irrespective of what's happening. They would be perfectly content if you were to play cards or MST3K movies, instead. So attempting to produce a role-playing theory which covers them tends towards needing a general theory of recreative motivations, instead.
- James
OK, so GNS claims that not only are its states roughly orthogonal, but that they are quantized, ie, there do not exist mixed states. So, if we accept that theory as reasonable, the only acceptable new type of theory to posit is one which covers entirely different territory, rather than one which attempts to map the same space on different axes.
Next point: I suspect that these people who seem to fit poorly are pretty much just showing up because they enjoy social interaction, irrespective of what's happening. They would be perfectly content if you were to play cards or MST3K movies, instead. So attempting to produce a role-playing theory which covers them tends towards needing a general theory of recreative motivations, instead.
- James
Quote from: Marco
They're garden variety dramatists--I think the reason you're having problems mapping them is because GNS places them in the Sim/Exploration box while they're story-oriented (whatever that means).
Eh. I think that I agree with James in this particular case. These people aren't really playing in any sort of active way. Certainly not enough to categorize them effectively in terms of goals. A vague "I like the stories" is more of an excuse to be there than a goal. I have players like this. I call them joiners.
Quote
Note 2: I see further evidence that GNS doesn't really acknowledge dramatist play in that some people (not Ron, as far as I know) have described things like Relationship maps, Fortune In The Midde, and other story-oriented mechanics as Narrativist. They're not--there's nothing inherently story creating about a Relationship map or FitM. Standard dramatists enjoy those--and yet they're seen as Narrativist.
I may have been guilty of this. If I've ever said that these things were good for Narrative play, I wouldn't have been excluding them for other sorts of play. That is, by saying that FitM is good for Narrativist games, I don't mean to imply that it's not for others. There may be certain applications of these things that are better for one mode than another, however. For example, giving the player the power to decide the result of a FitM resolution would be more Narrativist, while the GM describing FitM resolutions would be more Simulationist.
Note that rarely can you say with any truth that a particular mechanic is only good for one mode and never for another. Usually it's the particular application in the game as a whole that makes it supportive of a particular style of play, and even then many mechanics in their final form can support more than one mode well.
If you want a set of boxes that describe the desire for story more intuitively than GNS does for you, Marco, then you should get on with the thread which is an attempt to create such boxes. I would stay away from the term Dramatist though because it is now, obviously loaded. We could use Rob's term, Storyist.
Mike
Hi Mike,
I thought this was a thread about more boxes? Storyist works fine for all intents and purposes--in fact changing Gamist (the other GDS term) might be clearer too.
As for the joiners ... well, we don't know much about them except they're fairly passive (as you'd expect from people whose primary enjoyment comes from the unfolding of a story) and say they 'like the story.' Since most people role-play with friends there's a social aspect to almost all groups. If asked why they're showing up and they say "I like the stories," in GDS terms they're Dramatist, no? If they said: "I came for the company" then Joiners or Tourists or whatever would be more descriptive (IMO).
As for putting FitM in the Narrativist box--I was corrected pretty quicky when I got Narrativism wrong (I took it as generic "story-oriented" play--this was before Ron's second essay). Mostly the board will very quickly let the poster know if they've misconstrued a tenant of GNS play. I haven't seen that correction for FitM or Relationship Maps or other story-enhancing techniques when ascribed to Narrativist play.
FWIW I wasn't refering to someone saying "this is good for Narrativist play" but more like "I'm using narrativist techniques like ..."
-Marco
[Edited for clarity]
On the (admitedly off topic) "narrativist tools" issue:
QuoteFWIW I wasn't refering to someone saying "this is good for Narrativist play" but more like "I'm using narrativist techniques like ..."
Regardless of whether this has been "corrected" in the past or not . . . IMO, the latter is ONLY acceptable as shorthand for the former.
On boxes (I've thought about this some, but I'm typing fast and loose here):
Here's my thought (which hopefully aligns well with what Fang intended). Ditch G, N and S. We've got Character, Setting, Situation (could be Story? But I agree with Ron that that's a muddy term), Color, and System - add Challenge and Authorship. Define them with some depth - e.g., Authorship is the during-play act of building a meaningful story involving the elements currently of interest to the participants.
We've now got seven elements of RPGs whoose importance can be prioritized to varying degrees in actual play, and can be observed in actual play.
The "boxes" become holders for functional combinations of prioritization of these elements (and possibly details about how they are prioritized - e.g., an "instance" of prioritized Challenge can be about Player vs. Player, or Players vs. GM, or Players vs. Module, or Player Skill in the face of puzzles, or Player Skill in a tactical challenge, and etc.). You could build a Narrativism "box" that says "Primary Priority - Authorship for all. System of interest only insofar that it enhances Authorship. Challenge an entirely personal issue (i.e., some people may get a Challenge fix from doing "well" in their Authorship, but it's entirely up to them). Other elements important as determined by the details of the particular game."
A "Munchausen" box might indicate that Challenge is a shared priority with Setting (or should that be Color?), with a decent bit of Authorship included.
And etc. As many boxes as you want, really. G, N and S just become ways of grouping boxes, if you want to keep 'em at all.
Gordon[/quote]
Hi Gordon,
That's pretty lucid: I like Authorship and Challenge broken out. I might consolidtate the others as Story (with sub-sets). The real idea is that any game has to be rated in all areas rather than one--GNS does that too--but in practice games tend to get described in terms of only one box.
-Marco
Quote from: Marco
I thought this was a thread about more boxes? Storyist works fine for all intents and purposes--in fact changing Gamist (the other GDS term) might be clearer too.
If you look back, you'll see that Fang has specifically said that these classifications should have nothing to do with adding or subtracting from actual GNS theory per se.
Quote
As for the joiners ... well, we don't know much about them except they're fairly passive (as you'd expect from people whose primary enjoyment comes from the unfolding of a story) and say they 'like the story.' Since most people role-play with friends there's a social aspect to almost all groups. If asked why they're showing up and they say "I like the stories," in GDS terms they're Dramatist, no? If they said: "I came for the company" then Joiners or Tourists or whatever would be more descriptive (IMO).
Well, I'm just guessing, but from a careful reading of Jesse's description, and having people like this myself, my assumption is that when asked why the play RPGs that people give an expected response about the game. It's obvious that they come for the companionship, and they don't think (correctly, actually) that they are being asked about that. Instead they fumble around and come up with "story, I guess?" Not really an answer, because when it comes down to it, there is nothing that you can do one way or another to make the story better for these people, really, or damage their enjoyment by playing Gamist or Sim or any non-story oriented fashion. They just don't have a goal in play.
Of course, I could be characterizing Jesse's players wrongly, and there are certainly people who
do have the goal of passively recieving a story from the GM (call em Dramatists or story-oriented simulationists, whatever), I don't claim that such do not exist. I just think that in this particular case they are Joiners.
Quote
FWIW I wasn't refering to someone saying "this is good for Narrativist play" but more like "I'm using narrativist techniques like ..."
Possibly an oversite that illuminates the bias here. Doesn't change the fact, however. Also, look at the context. Many times a FitM mechanic, forex, will be described such that the player describes the outcome of the result in a fairly empowered fashion. Most people think of FitM in this context, and in this case it is supportive of Narrativism more than anything else.
But you make a good point that FitM can be used successfully in Sim and Gamism as well.
Mike
Sorry for being out of contact for so long folks, Scattershot (just the mechanix) is up now, so back to business....
Let's take stock of what we have for boxes so far.
Back in January, Marco brought up the Story-as-Result (we might call that SaR) and Story-as-Creation (this could be SaC) issues. He also made it plain that the terms 'Simulation,' 'Simulationism,' and 'Simulationist' have way to much baggage; me? I think its time for them to rest now.
James West (without the 'V'), points out a new theory needs a new set of axes. This is very true, I might go so far as to suggest that it ought to have a different 'point.' Ron has clearly stated that the GNS is for people who aren't happy with their games; it exists to give them a 'compass' to find their way to a coherent style of play. Therefore it's about play-style goal alignment. As I have heard it, the GDS is about how decisions are made during play and styles where those decision-types find the best homes. (A bit of an over-simplification, but discussing other theories, especially in their complexity, isn't the point here.)
When I gamemaster (or play for that matter), my main focus is on delivering value to the players. I look for what they value, and how to help them feel valuable to the game. (And I know I don't like it when my characters are irrelevant.) I usually do this through a number of techniques that engage them, to play on their emotions, and make use of whatever they bring to the game (which they value right?). I am the facilitator, I 'work all the parts.' I am the person who is expected to bring it all together when no one else will; I am the gamemaster (or at least that's what I expect from one). So that's what I am looking for in a new theory. (Boxes are then a way of finding patterns of desires.)
Back to our inventory....
Mike offers Joiners as a category, and I think we can say that if 'I like the stories' is an excuse, then these people must be way on the 'receptive end' of things. (Which would mean that people who want lots of 'player power' are on the 'active end' of things.) And I think Mike's right, both Dramatist (and probably Storyist) is a loaded term. (Let's break them down and rename them later?)
Marco points out Gamist is a problem too. I have been thinking about this for awhile and I'm convinced that basing new model terminology on loaded words is always problematic. So I have a bold suggestion; remember SaR and SaC? These nonsense words might be the key to terminology that wouldn't be misunderstood. Let's make up words!
Gordon has taken the familiar elements of play (Story, Situation, Character, System, and Color) and added two more (Challenge and Authorship). I offered my list earlier which was also two elements more than the original (Chara, Background, Circumstance, Genre Expectations, Mecahnics, Props, and Relationships). The problem with both new schemes is how they are being interpreted in terms of the old. Ron's five were 'things that Simulationists explore.' I'm not sure you can explore Authorship or Challenge (or Color for that matter), I mean you can experience them, you can use them, but I don't think you can 'go to them' and explore.
My seven elements are meant as a list of things you can 'take to another game.' Gordon's suggestions don't look like 'portable elements' either; they look like the 'terms of the game' (like Authorship is the terms of a game where 'active' players working on SaC, or like Challenge is the terms under which everything is looked at like competition). Are there any other terms of play?
Bringing it all together? Well, so far James has suggested we work out new axes of comparison; I think 'terms of play' (would that be ToP?) is a good start. I suggested a new 'point,' structures that enhance value and involvment.
Mike and Marco suggest that old, 'loaded' terms should be jettisoned. My suggestion is using words that have no meanings at all, new words. Gordon indirectly suggested a couple of new axes (but according to my terminology suggestion, we need words other than Authorship and Challenge). Taken with my idea of valuation a initial structure seems to be emerging, but we need 'more boxes' if we're going to see what emerges.
Especially boxed that don't seem to fit.
Fang Langford
Let me here offer:
Immersionist instead of story-oriented simulationist.
The Immersionist wants a premise "what is it like to be confronted with a choice of Love over Power" (or other N-sounding Premise). This is different from the Narrativist who wants to address that premise from an authorship perspecitve.
The Immersionist is interested in exploring story with out breaking SOD. They may want to explore--or participate in a story--but on the story-oriented end of things, they want the story-quality of the Narrativist without breaking SOD.
(note: this would still be covered under the Dramatist box)
-Marco
Quote from: Marco
Let me here offer:
Immersionist instead of story-oriented simulationist.
The Immersionist wants a premise "what is it like to be confronted with a choice of Love over Power" (or other N-sounding Premise). This is different from the Narrativist who wants to address that premise from an authorship perspecitve.
The Immersionist is interested in exploring story with out breaking SOD. They may want to explore--or participate in a story--but on the story-oriented end of things, they want the story-quality of the Narrativist without breaking SOD.
In my experience you are limiting Immersionists more than usual. I understand the difference you're making, but what you're talking about Immersionists who show interest especially in SaR. Just because an Immersionist is not interested in SaC, that does not keep them away from things like 'Tourist mode' (an exploration of Setting over Story).
In fact it
sounds like you are renaming what you have described Dramatists as. I think what you have, with a minor edit, is gold; "The Immersionist is interested in exploring...without breaking SoD." I think putting 'in-character' and SoD (Suspension of Disbelief) ahead of everything is the only way to describe Immersionists; if think otherwise that becomes an argument to keep the idea, but lose the terminology.
So we have a 'my-guy' box?
Fang Langford