NLS model of characterising players by preferences...

[MK Snyder]

I've been browsing the back posts at rec.games.frp.advocacy, and Kim's FAQ, and Ron's essay here... I see the "Threefold Model" has changed over the years. In 1997, it was applied to GM choices in adjudication, not player choices.

The GNS model is applied to observed player behavior (and inferred player motivations)

I have been using the "three categories" loosely defined in interviewing my fellow players on their expressed preferences. This frees me from being concerned about the relationship between observation and motivation, bothering with imaginary triangles or trying to explain models to people who aren't really interested.

So, here I plunge into categorizing players by their preferences! Real people, of course, do not fall so neatly into three discrete categories in what they enjoy, but using these categories to generate questions for interviewing players about what they like and dislike should be useful in forming gaming groups that play well together.

narraphile: enjoys sessions featuring the techniques of narrative fiction, such as plot, pacing, character development through time, climax,tone, conflict, heros, anti-heros, themes, etc.

ludophile: enjoys sessions featuring clear cut victory and loss conditions, competition between players as players or as characters, intellectual challenges and puzzles, character growth in competitive fitness

simuphile: enjoys sessions that provide a subjective experience of imagined environment, including faithful recreations of favorite genres, shows, or stories; fidelity and complexity of data; consistency of cause and effect; psychologically plausible character development

[greyorm]

pacing; character development through time; climax; conflict; heros; anti-heros; featuring clear cut victory and loss conditions; faithful recreations of favorite genres, shows, or stories; fidelity of data; consistency of cause and effect; plausible character development

MK,

Nearly all the elements you describe are required for any role-playing session (I list those above that simply cannot be done without, which are an integral part of role-playing of any category); if any of these are not available, the session tends to be very poor for all involved.

Frex, please describe to me a role-playing game without conflict? Or find for me a player who does not enjoy conflict ("no, no, I'll just stay here, where nothing is happening...and if something happens, I'll be upset!").

Or find a game or player who will be just fine with fuzzy victory/loss conditions that cannot be understood or even charted...in fact, how would one write such a game?  Players of any stripe will become dissatisfied if the cannot understand the way the system works, nor understand if they have succeeded or failed (or at least the likelihood thereof).

Or, one of the big ones, consistency of cause and effect: "The tree is chopped down."  "No, it isn't."  "I used my axe."  "Yeah, but that was last time, your axe doesn't work on trees anymore."

I think the definitions can easily be described as a misunderstanding of the whole issue of what GNS does, or what good definitions achieve.  Currently, if we were to compare your terms with those of GNS, the claim from the above terms is that by paying any attention to character plausibility, one must be engaged in Simulationism somehow (a 'simuphile').

And following from that (quoting the GNS essay) "Mistaking any of the listed elements for one of the modes, e.g., such that attention to character must be Narrativist, or attention to setting must be Simulationist, or attention to system must be Gamist."

Further, the definition you provide for ludophile is...well, if it is an attempt to cross-breed a definition for Gamism, it fails because it simply fails to take into account many diverse styles of those who prefer tactical choice and use of player-skill.

[MK Snyder]

Correct that:

a. The majority of sessions will feature nearly all of the above features of play

b.and players will use different priority sets at different points of play--there are few "pure ludophiles" or "pure narraphiles". As you point out, those would be different activities. (casino gaming or novel writing)

But, if you *ask* players, giving them opposing choices as to what they prefer in terms of what they prioritize, you'll find that they fall into a majority class and a minority class with clusters around these groupings. Like points on a chart. So, what one finds is more of a major/minor sort of thing: the narraphile/simuphile or the ludophile/simuphile.

They are also very clear about what they dislike.

"Conflict" for example is important for both the ludophile and the narraphile. But, for different reasons, with different shadings: the narraphile wants conflict in the game for much the same reasons they want it in a novel. If their character should lose the match, for example, the narraphile will be be satisfied if the character lost in a way that reveals a moral flaw, or satisfies a curse, or sets up a plot development...the ludophile, on the other hand, will want the satisfaction of having made a good tactical choice in character construction versus the GM's minion' point values taking into account also the distribution of dice rolls.

A D&D game can have both narraphile and ludophile players in the same session, in the same combat round. They will be doing the same sequence of acts dictated by the GM and rules system. But, the ludophile may comment upon the die rolls as numbers versus numbers, and be enjoying that aspect--annoying the heck out of the narraphile who is "in the mood"--and the narraphile will recite a beautiful near death scene monologue, avowing a secret love--annoying the ludophile, who just wants to "get on with it".

I think I'll add "random effects" to the "simuphile" cluster.  Simuphiles do not like all events to be human determined, because that removes the unexpected factor of actual life; thus making gaming too contrived as an experience.  They do like their random effects to be appropriately modeled in the balance between randomness and predictability of outcome as it is in real life. This includes the resolution of all conflicts.

This isn't the GNS model. Nor is it The Threefold Model. It's new.

[greyorm]

Alright, then given that, what does your model attempt to accomplish?  What do you see a gamer or game designer like myself actually using it for?

This isn't the GNS model. Nor is it The Threefold Model. It's new.

Hate to burst your bubble, but it isn't new.

I've seen the exact same model presented by various individuals on a variety of boards nearly a half-dozen times, usually developed as direct exposure to GNS and the problems they see with it.

There is also a good reason why that particular model is almost always quickly abandoned, but I'll save explanation of that until after you explain to me your intent with it, as per the question above (perhaps your development of this particular model will be different).

[MK Snyder]

Users:

Players and GM's

Purpose:

To make it easier for them to discuss their play preferences and form a social contract.
......................................................................................................
Not intended for designers. The GNS model is not intended for designers either.

[Le Joueur]

Users:

Players and GM's[/list:u]Purpose:
To make it easier for them to discuss their play preferences and form a social contract.[/list:u]

That sounds great to me.  I did the same, but I shucked off the whole 'based on three' mentality completely.

I look forward to seeing how yours works out in detail.

Fang Langford

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Maryanne,

Just checking one thing: by "players," are you using it in the traditional sense of "not GMs," or in the Forge-ish sense that everyone at the table is a player, with the GM (or GM-activities in some fashion) as a subset?

Best,
Ron

[MK Snyder]

Good question, Ron;

yes, I would like to use the Forge definition.

The functions of "GM" and "player" vary between game systems, so, a cross-system diagnostic tool needs to take that into account.

historical note:

I've seen early Threefold discussions in which the model was being developed as advisory for GM's--that they should create/conduct game sessions in which all decisions could be satisfactorily resolved in all three styles!

I think that's one heck of a challenge to throw at somebody.

[greyorm]

To make it easier for them to discuss their play preferences and form a social contract.

Check out Nathan's (Pag's) note in this thread.

This is the very problem I was referring to with the model you propose, and why it usually remains undeveloped: two players may very well agree that they are dedicated to one of the above items in your list, only to find that their styles of play are utterly in compatible!

For example, two players creating a social contract decide they want "conflicts between players as players" in their game (ludophile)...at some point a conflict between the players arises because one player is using his game knowledge to compete against the other player while that player thinks the conflict created between the two characters completely ruins the idea of player competition and the mood of the session.

And so on and so forth.
The GNS essay also makes note of this problem a number of times.  Players often know what they want, but fail to realize their methods and ideas are incompatible.

[MK Snyder]

That occured to me also, and I think it might work better to be used to generate questions on what players *don't* like.

In fact, to ask about specific examples of what they actively dislike and avoid abstract questions altogether.

Then assume that the other two modes are preferred and that players with similar dislikes will be more compatible partners.

This tool assumes a user interviewing less reflexive or experienced players. As you point out, players very often don't have an understanding of their own play goals and styles in terms of these descriptors, and to rely on self-reporting is not going to always work.

Using abstract language in interviewing players is too value loaded.