Motivations in GNS

[Valamir]

Hey Ralph,

I'm a liiiiittle uncomfortable with your phraseology, although I do agree that we're aiming at the same thing.

I don't think we are dealing with intangibles like motivation, though - GNS really is about observable behaviors, like those that I list in the Simulationism discussion in the essay. So when Marco states "in order to make a great story," I take that as short-hand for a wide variety of tangible context and actions that accompanied the player's stated decision to "take a bullet."

So as not to hijack CC's thread I started a new thread.


Surely I agree that you need to have concrete actual actions being performed, that is after all what decisions produce.

But if all one considers is what the action is, without the context of why the action is, I submit that it becomes vitually impossible to categorize many of the decisions that are made.

For example:  A character is a very prudent, well trained professional, operative.  Before embarking on a mission he makes sure that the ammo he takes with him is consistant with the type of opposition he's likely to face, his gear is consistant with the the type of terrain he's going into, and his supplies are consistant with the duration of his mission.

Because he's using the right ammo against the right target the game system provides bonuses to weapon damage.  Because he has gear appropriate to the terrain he gets bonuses to camoflague, survival whatever, etc.

Now we have a situation where this decision exactly matches both a simulationist need and a gamist one.  Did the player make the decision to choose the equipment he did because thats what a well trained professional operative would have done, or did he choose the equipment he did because those were the choices that gave him the best modifiers and thus the best expectations of success?

In this instance both goals are perfectly mirrored, because the character is also in a position to 1) know what choices will give him the best chance for success and 2) motivated to go after that success.  One could say the player is simulating his character's gamist decision making.

At any rate we don't KNOW if this player is making a G decision or an S decision unless we know WHY he made these decisions.  By happy coincidence (and one of numerous examples where Gamists and Simulationists could play happily side by side) both MOTIVATIONS lead to the same ACTION.

Now if the character was an untrained elementary school teacher who was going on this "mission", the situation would be different.  Intentionally choosing the wrong gear because the character wouldn't know any better would clearly be a Simulationist choice, while choosing exactly the right gear would clearly be a Gamist choice designed to maximize odds of success without regard to whether it is "in character" or not (and one of numberous examples where Gamists and Simulationists would get pissed at each other).

In other words.  Some actions simply by their context are defineable in terms of GNS but other actions are not.  Not unless you know the underlying motivation that led to the action.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ralph,

I understand your points. I'm certainly not saying there is "no" motivation at hand, or anything like that. What I am saying is that we need to discuss GNS without referencing the motivations as cause or evidence, because they can't be observed.

This is where that "instances of play" thing becomes even more important, because an "instance," whatever it is, must necessarily be long enough or contain enough information in order to judge what this person is "playing for."

Your example simply doesn't give me enough information or observations about that person's play to judge - but that doesn't mean that the information you gave me is "GNS-free," just that more information needs to be gathered. It's like showing me an enzyme and asking what bodily process is involved; I need some anatomy and interactions to be able to say that.

I claim that given a little more play, and given exactly the further information such as you describe (e.g. the character is a kindergarten teacher), then we can stay concrete about GNS without having to rely on intangibles.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

Let me see if I can summarize you correctly.

1) GNS refers to the motivation behind a specific decision.

2) Because motivations can not be accurately determined except by observing concrete results, the actual determination of GNS occurs not at the specific instance of decision but over a flexible period of time called the "Instance of play".

3) "Instance of play" is defined as that length of time necessary to develop a context around the specific decision from which motivation can be concretely observed.


So in my above example with the professional operative

1) That decision is either a G or an S decision depending on the player motivation at that moment of decision.

2) Because we can only speculate on the player motivation we can not yet pin down for certain which it is.  The "Instance of Play" has not been long enough to establish a context.

3) Later on, if the same player is involved with the kindergarten teacher also and outfits her with the "best" gear, we do have sufficient context to observe a concrete example of a Gamist decision, from which we can (at best) infer that that motivation was probably behind the first decision also.


Assuming I've summarized you correctly, I don't have any issue with that.  What you've explained is nothing more than the difference between practical engineering and theoretical science.  

The THEORY is about motivations behind individual decisions as I said.  In PRACTICE, you correctly point out, that because motivations are not a directly measurable phenomenon we have to rely on indirect observation which requires more context to determine than may be provided by a single decision point.

So really (to be somewhat pedantic about it), I'd say that "Instance of Play" is not actually part of GNS theory.  Rather it is part of the practical application of GNS theory.

In order to make the distinction clear, the theory (when you do your final rewrite) should (IMO) state that it is the motivation behind individual decisions that are the determining factor.  But that since this is impossible to measure, in PRACTICE we rely on "Instances of Play" to identify motivations through the broader context of the decision making.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey Ralph,

I think that breakdown suits me fine. I planned on avoiding all mention of "motivation" due to their extremely problematic implications, but perhaps the carefully-worded version you've provided might change my mind.

How about "value system," instead of motivation? That seems to work better for me. Or rather, if this is moving into the realm of words-preference without much substance, I'll split the difference and agree with very minor reservations.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

Well, my gut is telling me that Value System is one of those vague jargony terms that just make things sound much more complicated than they really are