Getting Beyond GNS

[Marco]

I'm down with that--as I said, I think taking very small sections and looking at the decisions made by the players and their in-game consequences is about as far as I think I can reliably get using the classifications in GNS.

I have a sticking point: I'm not convinced that intra-CA incompatibility is different than inter-CA incoherence in any way other than the way the theory describes it. I see no reason it's more fundamental, amenable to different solutions, or otherwise distinguished (other than that the taxonomy says it is).

I think this makes diagnosisng dysfunction difficult since it could be either the given CA or the given implementation of the CA and how can you tell.

I think a look at this would be very helpful--maybe key--to looking at X-Decisions since those are, IMO, very tightly mated to the implementation level.

But where I really agree with you is your analysis of TRoS combat--not *so much* the specifics--but the fact that you're looking at it piece-meal and in context and I think that's the proper way to use the tools since the over-all or holisitc view doesn't really work for me.

-Marco

[M. J. Young]

I'm not convinced that intra-CA incompatibility is different than inter-CA incoherence in any way other than the way the theory describes it. I see no reason it's more fundamental, amenable to different solutions, or otherwise distinguished (other than that the taxonomy says it is).

I can see that as a sticking point, but I think that intra-CA problems are usually easier to address. I've got a really weak analogy in mind, but I hope it can shed some light on the subject.

I'm a musician. I play a score of instruments, some of them pretty well, and I've a few credits to my name as a singer and a composer. I'm not at all good in the visual arts--I don't even really "know what I like" in the traditional sense. I can't paint or draw worth a tinker's cuss. I can't critique artwork in any meaningful way.

Now, I know musicians who will only play rock, or only play classical (broadly defined), or jazz. But I don't know many who so limit themselves. What matters more is not whether I'm playing rock or jazz or classical as whether I know which we're going to do and what is expected of me in that context. I don't do rap at all. (I tend to think it rather lacking in musical attributes, but I realize that's largely a personal judgment.) I don't do rap not so much because I couldn't but because I don't know what would be expected of me in that context, and I don't really care to invest the time to find out because the form doesn't interest me much.

I know gamists who primarily play players-vs.-referee or players-vs.-scenario when they roleplay. They'll play head-on-head video games, competitive board games, and other gamist types of games, but their expectations of role playing games is that the players work together as a team against the referee or the scenario, and that's what they mean to do when they sit down to such a game. For such players, if you clarify the expectations up front, that this is a player-vs.-player gamist game, and they should plan to work against their fellow players and expect the same in return, most of them will try it, probably enjoy it. Some will say they're not interested, because that's not why they roleplay. What is dysfunctional in such play is when one expects one thing and gets another; but usually as long as it's gamist one has the skills to play either way, and just has to know what is expected.

On the other hand, if you asked the band to paint a mural on the wall at the new bandshell downtown, that's not within their skills set. They probably could all do jazz or classical or rock on request (if they're good musicians), with some facility; but whether or not they can paint is a separate question. So, too, your gamists can easily play in any type of gamist game, because they have the skills and understand the expectations, but they can't always shift to playing narrativist even if it's explained to them.

As I say, it's not a very good analogy, but I think it helps bring across the idea. Inter-CA conflict is more fundamental than intra-CA conflict. People within the same agendum are more able to communicate with each other and come to an understanding of what they are each expecting than people from different agenda. A gamist understands what other, different style, gamists are after even if he doesn't particularly want to do that a lot better than he understands what a narrativist is after, which seems to him entirely wrong, not at all "a game".

Maybe I should just close this and forget it? No, maybe it's helpful.

--M. J. Young

[Rob Carriere]

M.J.,
I don't think the analogy is weak at all, certainly not the way you use it. The only point I would add is that intra-CA conflict has, I think, a better chance of happening at a level where everybody is aware of and can articulate the problem. ``No, I don't want to play against the other players.'' is a plausible objection.

On the other hand inter-CA stuff seems much more likely to lead to a situation where everybody knows something is wrong, but nobody can quite put their finger on it. Stealing a recent example from RPG.net,
``Would you want to play Bilbo Frickin' Baggins in a party of Balrogs?''
``Yes, I would.''
Getting from there to actual communication is hard, very hard.

SR
--

[Marco]

On the other hand, if you asked the band to paint a mural on the wall at the new bandshell downtown, that's not within their skills set. They probably could all do jazz or classical or rock on request (if they're good musicians), with some facility; but whether or not they can paint is a separate question. So, too, your gamists can easily play in any type of gamist game, because they have the skills and understand the expectations, but they can't always shift to playing narrativist even if it's explained to them.

--M. J. Young

MJ,

I do like the analogy--but I have a problem with it. The theory (as I understand it) holds that most games and players include a range of each CA. Is that no longer held true?

It would be like if a jam-session had some painting aspects in there too as a standard practice (plus, maybe, like, throwing a pitch over the plate within the strike-zone or something).

So I'm not sure the "outside my experience" thing works for me on that level. But, as I said, I may be misunderstanding the theory.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

Well, technically CA is determined by the overall play. So there's only one for one instance by definition. But if you mean to say that each player may have their own view of what the CA is, or have his own predilections (motives as I put it above), then, yeah, certainly each player is independent.

To continue with the band analogy, what you're saying is that of the musicians who get together, the leader of the band asks for rock, and the players all agree to do rock, but one might bring in something from blues, another from country, another from jazz, and another from rock per se. Making it a fusion (if you will) of all of those styles to an extent.

The reason for the mutual exclusivity of CAs is that this is generally the point at which you can't have co-operation. That is, there are all sorts of Gamism that can work together well. That's not to say that they always will, but like the band analogy, it's much easier to see the band working together to make any kind of music, rather than any sort of art. Once the line between CAs is crossed by one member, it becomes three guys trying to make music while one guy contributes by painting. An interesting proposition, but most bands get together to play music, not to do any painting.

Where the analogy falls apart is that the primary activity of sim is still present in gam and nar, which is not true of painting and music. So the analogy doesn't explore the potential of how these things might in small chunks mix.

Mike

[ErrathofKosh]

The analogy would be better if we were comparing a play, a baseball game, and the circus...