a Radical Notion

[Supplanter]

Raven wrote:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2) Who would feel betrayed, alienated, hurt, disillusioned or otherwise unpleasant if Ron and Logan kept the name "simulationism" but dropped the claim that drama-based decisions were compatible with it, another common suggestion?


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


Alientated? Come on...

Are you saying you think it's an overwrought word to introduce into the discussion? I'd dearly love to know.

I'd be bothered in-as-much as I see no particularly compelling reason to change the name (note: I do not consider that 'some people find the term to be too heavily connotated' to be compelling, since there are apparently an equal number who do not consider it so).

Bothered, got it. Is that, as it sounds, this side of "pissed off" or "alienated?"

Gordon wrote:

I took that to be about NOT leting emotional upset make the decision

The question was never that you did take it that way.

Different interpretations of a word here - for me, alienating was the key - it's not about emotion, it's about avoiding unproductive disruption.

"Alienating?" Where did that word come from...? :wink:

OK, it's very hard to judge emotion in postings, but I in general see more "charge" on the issue from the . . . critics? than from the proponents. Maybe that's just 'cause this IS the GNS "home", after all, and proponents have the ease of "home field advantage".

Actually, I didn't say that only the proponents/authors felt strongly. Feeling strongly about ideas is just how intellectuals are. I said that the appeals to emotion were coming almost entirely, if not entirely, from the proponents: only they have argued that the model should be judged on the basis of feelings. John Morrow may feel that GNS's usage of the term "simulationism" is insulting to the work he and others did on the original threefold model. But John hasn't said that the GNS model is deficient because of the way it makes John feel. He has said it is deficient because the categories obscure more than they clarify. Logan and Ron write about how the revised faq will continue to "piss off" the people who are "pissed off." Ron writes on the Sorcerer forum that there is surely no "love" in the 101 forum. Logan says that the model must change "slowly" so as not to make people "unhappy." He says, with a palpably wounded tone, that "people" have been working two years on this, as if it mattered for the subject at hand, which is, is the model sound? He says that the model is valuable because "it brought people back to gaming" - himself at least - as if that had anything to do with whether the model is sound.

Now it's entirely understandable why Ron and Logan would feel angry and defensive in the face of criticism - they have, indeed, worked hard on this for a long time and with a lot of enthusiasm. One is inclined to let it slide for that reason when Logan pathologizes dissent as people "ranting in the middle of the night" - anyone who has ever had their poem slagged in a German textbook, and haven't we all, can relate. But Ron and Logan's feelings have nothing whatsoever to do with the soundness of their theories. Ron himself said, on this very board in another thread, that he did not believe in shying away from issues just because they might make someone feel bad.

Now as it happens, Logan presented an appeal to emotions that has actual empirical valence. On more than one occasion he has asserted that there exist people who would be pissed off, made unhappy and (here's that word again) alienated if the substantive changes proposed to the model were made in other than a gradual manner. So I'm checking. Running tally so far: one person would be "bothered."

Best,


Jim

[Logan]

We're dealing with people. Whenever you deal with people, you have an emotional dynamic. There has been emotional response about the model in both directions. I don't know how other people look at all this, but I see it as a community. I think it's good if the community grows, but I don't want to chase out the original residents in order to make it grow.

As far as making changes, it doesn't take any special act to propose a change. Just post what specific changes you think should be made and why. People will discuss them. If they work well, make the model better, and enough people approve, they'll probably become part of the model. The faq will be updated to reflect the changes.

Ideally, the faq provides a baseline for discussion. That's what we're doing now. Once the baseline is established, the faq should follow the discussion, not the other way around.

In discussing things like the Dramatist/Simulationist issue, I try to offer alternatives and let people choose what they like. I think something good came out of that. I think there was a level of agreement. The updated faq will reflect that. It's exactly the sort of evolutionary change that I've been talking about.

It really does no good to simply say, "Let's throw out that term." without proposing some alternate term. It does no good to say, "This doesn't work. You should change it." without suggesting what you think will work.

Logan

[Paul Czege]

Hey Jim,

He says that the model is valuable because "it brought people back to gaming" - himself at least - as if that had anything to do with whether the model is sound.

But it has everything to do with whether the model is practical.

In my mind, G/N/S is an eminently practical model. It's certainly way more practical than Scarlet Jester's GENder, which says that any techniques can be used for any goals. Well, that's the same bullshit I've been hearing for ten years. In general practice it isn't true. I've played more than a few story games that were anything but story in practice. You may in fact be able to do it, but those games aren't optimized for story.

I'll allow that perhaps the model is currently more practical for nascent Narrativists, but I think it'll shape up to be just as practical for all three. I think "RPG Theory 201" discussions of things like character Currency and metagame that become part of the model will round it out and make it nicely practical for Gamism and Simulationism as well.

Paul


[ This Message was edited by: Paul Czege on 2001-06-28 23:20 ]

[Logan]

One is inclined to let it slide for that reason when Logan pathologizes dissent as people "ranting in the middle of the night"

Jim,

At one point, Gareth left a rant which he clearly noted was written at 4 in the morning. The post was a rant and it was written in the middle of the night. There's no pathology about it.

Fact: Some of the people most bothered by the direction of the current discussion are the quietest.

Personally, I don't give a shit what changes people propose, as long as they add substance to the debate. I like the model, but if people have other ideas, I'm listening. So, if you have ideas, don't waste time beating around the bush or playing "Mommy May I." That's bullshit. Just post your ideas and let's see what happens. If they're accepted, they'll go into the faq. If not, at least they've been discussed.

That said, I'm also pretty bored with this ridiculous analysis of every fuckin' syllable I type. None of this means as much as you think it means.

Logan

[JohnMorrow]

It really does no good to simply say, "Let's throw out that term." without proposing some alternate term. It does no good to say, "This doesn't work. You should change it." without suggesting what you think will work.

OK.  Here goes:

From the FAQ draft:

Actor
In Actor Stance, the player is actually playing his character in a method-actor sense, making decisions based strictly on what the character knows, perceives, and feels. In this stance, the character can't change anything or have any impact except through the character's own world-view and actions.

Many people prefer the word "immersive" for this stance, which is perfectly acceptable from our point of view. Paul Czege refers to this stance as the "My Guy" stance, meaning that the player may justify any stated action by referring to what "my guy would do."

When Bob is in Actor (immersive) stance, he plays Bartholemew from deep in Bartholemew's imaginary head – when confronted with goblins, Bob refers to Bartholemew's emotions and concerns about goblins and conforms with the results
when announcing the character's actions.

The Immersive stance in John Kim's FAQ is a subset of, but non synonymous with, the IC (or In Character) stance and neither of these are synonymous with the Actor stance in that FAQ.  By pushing all three of those stances into the same category, some important distinctions are lost and some wrong associations are created.

First, the "Actor" stance in John Kim's FAQ could be be described as playing to the other players and GM.  Speaking in accents, acting out physical action, and behaving in a generally entertaining way is the core of the Actor stance.  Since this was pre-Threefold, I'm not sure it really fits anymore.  I'm simply offering this as background that "Actor" was originally meant to be something quite a bit different.

Second, there is a substantial difference between what you might call "Third Person IC" and "First Person IC".  First person IC is Immersion in the John Kim FAQ sense.  This isn't what the FAQ currently describes.  Specifically, it says:

'Many people prefer the word "immersive" for this stance, which is perfectly acceptable from our point of view. Paul Czege refers to this stance as the "My Guy" stance, meaning that the player may justify any stated action by referring to what "my guy would do."'

I'd call immersion the "Me" stance, meaning that the player will do what the character would do.  There is no detachment or distancing that would make the player think of their character as something external.  There is no third-person consideration.  Only a first-person consideration.  Read Mary Kuhner's posts on r.g.f.a concerning channelling and immersion if you can't understand how this differs from avatarism.  It is closer to having a split personality disorder.

The FAQ further says:

'When Bob is in Actor (immersive) stance, he plays Bartholemew from deep in Bartholemew's imaginary head – when confronted with goblins, Bob refers to Bartholemew's emotions and concerns about goblins and conforms with the results
when announcing the character's actions.'

Instead, I'd say:

When Bob is in immersive stance, he is Bartholemew and thinks and feels like Bartholemew.  Bob doesn't refer to Bartholemew's emotions and concerns about goblins or even think abstractly about the situation.  He feels what Bartholemew feels about goblins and acts like Bartholemew would act if confronted with Goblins.  There is no "My character sees goblins and hate them so he would..." train of thought.  There is "Goblins!  I attack!"

By the way, I think that "Director" is a fine addition but that the term "Author" doesn't capture the feel of the stance described.  Sometime like "Player" would be better for what is described but that's probably not a great term, either.

---

The FAQ says:

Players have all the power. There is no GM because all the players have power to act as GM. In practice, the players may take turns acting as GM, the players in Audience stance may make traditional GM decisions by a popular vote, or perhaps the rules are written so that no GM is required. A recent and well-regarded example of GM-less roleplaying, or, more accurately, everyone's-the-GM roleplaying, can be found in SOAP, an indie rpg by Ferry Bazelmans (aka Crayne).

There is actually an alternative way to look at this.  There is a GM but the GM is there simply to act as an interpreter and referee, not to make decisions.  The GM serves the players.  I often GM very much this way using random rolls to make decisions and simply doing what the setting would do without guiding the game anywhere.

---

The FAQ says:

One thing is for sure: Simulationist play and design as defined here is inarguably the most common, widespread, and well-established form of roleplaying. The variety within this category is far more well-developed and diverse than in the other two GNS goals.

Actually, I'd argue this point.  According to WotC marketing data released by Ryan Dancy on Pyramid and elsewhere, I would say that Gamism is the most common, widespread, and well-established form of role-playing.  Unless you have done surveys or have data to prove the assertion, I would scratch it because regardless of who is right, it is simply opinion stated as fact.

---

The FAQ says:

Simulationist players have many approaches to this goal open to them. On one end of the spectrum, Simulationist players
treat their characters as pawns. They wonder, "Hmmm... I wonder what will happen to my character if I do this..." On the other end of the spectrum, Simulationist players immerse themselves completely in their character so they can experience the game as their characters. Most Simulationist players choose a position somewhere in-between. They may visit both extremes from time to time, but that's just a matter of circumstances, the wants and needs of the moment.

This reflects a much better understanding of Immersion.  I'd suggest harmonizing it the earlier definitions (see my suggestions).  I think you should avoid statements about what "most", "all", or "few" of the people who adopt any style do without objective evidence that the assertion is correct.  Anecdotal evidence isn't support.  A large number of the Simulationists on r.g.f.a were Immersives, for example.

---

The FAQ says:

Other Simulationist GMs are story-providers, with a grand scheme or over-arching plot that the players are discovering
through play. This style demands that the players trust the GM implicitly. The more the players tend toward the Immersive
end of the scale, the more this is true.

Hmmmm.  This could potentially work for me if you remove the term "story".  If you were to say:

"Other Simulationist GMs provide complex schemes and/or over-arching "plots" that the players can discover through play."  

That could work a little better.  The reason that "story" clashes badly with Simulation and, especially, Immersion is that it doesn't make sense inside of the game setting.  It is a metagame concern.  As it says earlier in the description of players, "The point of playing is not to win, overcome challenges, or even to create a good story. It's to experience something new."  This can't really be harmonized with GMs who are providing stories.  Why is the GM doing that for a Simulationist if the story isn't the point?

The fact that this section of the FAQ drops into "The first type.../The second type..." in several places strongly suggests that two types of games are artificially being treated as one here.  It should be possible to generalize in a way that is accurate to both if they really belong together.

---

The FAQ says:

GNS is used to classify player behaviors.

This could be better states as "GNS is used to classify player preferences."  I'm not sure that it really describes behavior so much as what kind of game a player would prefer to be in.

That's it for now.  As I've said before, there is some good stuff in this FAQ.

[Logan]

Thanks, John.

Those are good suggestions. I'm adding them to my revision reference files.

Logan