Interesting Threefold Model Essay

[Mike Holmes]

I'm tired of quoting.

Deconstructionist, eh? I shoulda known. Deridas (sp?) himself said something to the effect that the essence of deconstruction is to invalaidate everything, even itself. Yes, our entire discussion is formed around the fact that we are products of Western Society and as such our dialect is biased by that (which is where deconstruction usually leads to in the end). So what?

As an example of the futility I see in this, I could further deconstuct the model that you'd begun and find that there were honest immersionists and dishonest immersionists. Not that there would be any good reason to do this that I can think of. Yes, Fang, I'm a construcionist if you will. I am looking for models that we can use to have dialogs in which we can understand each other, and have no interest in trying to find new definitions for things such that we can no longer discuss them clearly. Yes, I have sucumbed to the Culture of Ron Edwards in accepting his definitions. Why? Because it's been fantastically useful to me, and I cannot see a downside to doing so. I haven't been enlightened by your deconstruction so far, and it's not for lack of debate, obviously.

Now, I'm not saying that we can't delve deeper, or that the terminology is absolutely inviolate. But until I see some utility in the move I cannot in good conscience support you. Again, I think that we have a very similar perspective on many things and we seem to be getting hung up because it rankles with you to say things like Simulationism supports becoming Immersed.

You point out that several things are just my opinion. Well, in addition to opinion I have the support of the establishment here, for wahtever that's worth. What have you to support your opinions? Yes, if you attack my assumtions and say that they are incorrect, then all I have left is that those assumptions are just that. You have me trapped, sir, where can I go? On the other hand, you have no firmer ground to stand on yourself, and therefore, yes, we will have to simply agree to disagree if we cannot agree on any assumptions.

You have pointed out that your deconstructionist attitude is not aimed at creating generalizations, or other synthetic analysis, may I ask what it is you seek? You mention understanding, but I believe that will be difficult if you refuse to accept definitions that are assumptions. Again, from where do we go logically without some assumptions?

My apollogies in going on about this so, but I have had to deal with some people that claimed deconstruction as the reason that they couldn't get into arguments before, and when this happens I often find myself lamenting the fact that I haven't had the chance to create any meaning with these people. Obviously anyone who can understand deconstruction is someone of a mental acuity that I'd like to deal with. Yes, I'm flattering you. Not to win this argument, but because I would hate for something as silly as this debate to get in the way of us (and others here like us) from coming up with neat stuff.

FWIW, I would like to clarify something about gamemasterless play. In a way this is a misnomer. To be precise, the games I speak of SOAP, my game, etc. are actually gamemasterfull. Or rather every player is a gamemaster. Or even more precisely every player is fully and completely empowered to employ any stance  that they would like (subject to the game's particular rules). In my game (played again on Thursday night) players rarely come down out of director mode.

 I have to do one quote:

yet my usual brief tone has lead to what appears to be another attack on the GNS model.

If I am understated, you are now a comedian. Brief tone? I understand what you mean, but under the circumstances it is an ironic statement to say the least. Was it meant as a play on words?

Don't apologise for anything. Would I still be sitting here typing if this wasn't engaging. OK, maybe I am demented, who knows?

I am reminded that in the past that I have been wont to say that we may find that discussions of paricular motivations to be more important in the end than the overall GNS model. And if you feel so inclined I would love to move on to doing so.

Oh, yeah, what about the game? Something to cater to the Immersionists, perhaps?  :wink:


Mike

[contracycle]

Some Clarifications

re: the "behaviour equivalent to a psychological disorder" stuff; although hard, this should NOT be read as a perjorative.  I am NOT suggesting that Immersive players are psychologically disturbed; I am suggesting that they are accessing a "deeper" layer of mental function than merely "in-character thinking".  I think humans do this under other circumstances too, such as channeling, being the "horse" of a spirit, that sort of thing.  This is an altered consciousness, not insanity.  I just want to make that plain.

Fang Wrote:
> While in Contracycle's extreme example the line dividing > player and character is extinguished completely, I know
> of several occasions where the line becomes only a little > blurred. In this kind of immersion, the player performs a > sophisticated adoption of the character's identity. While > not believing one is their character, nor letting things > like die rolls spoil suspension of disbelief, the player > practices first-person thinking.

Not so much in my view as how I have learned the term employed.  In the context in which I ran into it, Immersion was proposed as an alternative to an existing schema featuring In Character mode and Deep In Character mode, which was re-termed Immersion.  From this perspective (tip of the propellor beanie to Ron) old In Character mode seems much like Actor.  This is the "thinking as the character" stance, IMO.

However, I do think that what Fang is describing as Immersion is not how I understand it; I think the concept of Immersion Lite is valid, but strikes me as reverting to ground well trodden by the In Character and DIC modes discussed above.  Personally, I don't feel a need to distinguish IC/Immersion Lite from Actor stance.

[contracycle]

Some Clarifications

re: the "behaviour equivalent to a psychological disorder" stuff; although hard, this should NOT be read as a perjorative.  I am NOT suggesting that Immersive players are psychologically disturbed; I am suggesting that they are accessing a "deeper" layer of mental function than merely "in-character thinking".  I think humans do this under other circumstances too, such as channeling, being the "horse" of a spirit, that sort of thing.  This is an altered consciousness, not insanity.  I just want to make that plain.

Fang Wrote:
> While in Contracycle's extreme example the line dividing > player and character is extinguished completely, I know
> of several occasions where the line becomes only a little > blurred. In this kind of immersion, the player performs a > sophisticated adoption of the character's identity. While > not believing one is their character, nor letting things > like die rolls spoil suspension of disbelief, the player > practices first-person thinking.

Not so much in my view as how I have learned the term employed.  In the context in which I ran into it, Immersion was proposed as an alternative to an existing schema featuring In Character mode and Deep In Character mode, which was re-termed Immersion.  From this perspective (tip of the propellor beanie to Ron) old In Character mode seems much like Actor.  This is the "thinking as the character" stance, IMO.

However, I do think that what Fang is describing as Immersion is not how I understand it; I think the concept of Immersion Lite is valid, but strikes me as reverting to ground well trodden by the In Character and DIC modes discussed above.  Personally, I don't feel a need to distinguish IC/Immersion Lite from Actor stance.

[Le Joueur]

Mike Holmes wrote:

Deconstructionist, eh? I shoulda known. Deridas (sp?) himself said something to the effect that the essence of deconstruction is to invalidate everything, even itself.

Sad, isn't it?  But that only occurs at infinite recursion.

So what?

So, when I was three, I learned how to take things apart to see how they worked.  By the time I was five, I was beginning to get them back together (with all the parts).  Around ten or so, I was consistent enough that some of the things I had 'deconstructed' when broken, worked again after being 'rebuilt.'  All of this led to the philosophical habits I have.

I like the neat things I find when I take things apart (though not in biology, yuck); that's just a part of my charm.  In fact, I can be easily overwhelmed by the 'neatness' of an idea regardless of the soundness or rationality (or utility).

As an example of the futility I see in this, I could further deconstruct the model that you'd begun and find that there were honest immersionists and dishonest immersionists. Not that there would be any good reason to do this that I can think of.

I can think of some.  These are the sorts of things I keep in a list where I track 'what I need to cover' in my writings.  Few people have followed that, while I keep an explicit list of such, I do not write explicitly about these things.

I would also point out that while going in this direction may seem 'ad infinitum' per the recursive comment above, it actually reaches the point of 'atomic philosophy' (smallest indissoluble parts).  Here you have gotten into the honest/dishonest separation which all 'particles' can be divided into.  (One further note; honesty/dishonesty must also be colored by the conscious or unconscious motivation of it.)

I'm a constructionist if you will.

Actually, I think you would be more a generalist; a constructionist would be one who builds 'big' theories based on commonly available parts (like using GNS to build a grand theory including role-playing games and all other games).  A generalist works towards a working general theory, quite the opposite of a deconstructionist who wants to particularize everything.

I am looking for models that we can use to have dialogs in which we can understand each other, and have no interest in trying to find new definitions for things such that we can no longer discuss them clearly. Yes, I have succumbed to the Culture of Ron Edwards in accepting his definitions. Why? Because it's been fantastically useful to me, and I cannot see a downside to doing so. I haven't been enlightened by your deconstruction so far, and it's not for lack of debate, obviously.

And you probably won't be.  Fundamentally, I am talking about things that are meaningless scrutiny to you (if I read you correctly).

As for being in the Cult of Ron Edwards, you can imagine, being a deconstructionist, I don't get along well with the terminology of it.  Likewise, as a 'top-down' theory, being a deconstructionist, I probably don't see it being any more than generally true.  This does not mean it is of poor use to me!  Quite the contrary, it really opened my eyes (and obviously a whole new can of worms).

Now, I'm not saying that we can't delve deeper, or that the terminology is absolutely inviolate. But until I see some utility in the move I cannot in good conscience support you. Again, I think that we have a very similar perspective on many things and we seem to be getting hung up because it rankles with you to say things like Simulationism supports becoming Immersed.

Actually, I completely agree with the explicit idea, "Simulationism supports becoming Immersed."  It's the implicit "Simulationism equals immersion" (or "Simulationism obviously contains all that is immersion") that rankles my deconstructionist hide.

You point out that several things are just my opinion. Well, in addition to opinion I have the support of the establishment here, for whatever that's worth. What have you to support your opinions?

To me, the idea of an opinion is a view of the facts that needs no support.  Looking to "the support of the establishment here" is a meaningless augmentation to a view of structure.  These kinds of appeals to authority don't add anything of value to an opinion.  On the very basis of being an opinion, it has value.  Likewise opinions cannot be wrong or right, they are not factual.

What supports my opinion?  Some of the logic of a deconstructionist (break it down into the smallest particles before looking for higher level structures) does.  But why do I need to say that?  When I say that something is an opinion, I take it for granted that my words will be seen in similar light.  What can I say that is not my opinion?

Yes, if you attack my assumptions and say that they are incorrect,

To be accurate, I never said anything was "incorrect" (in fact I have never used that word here, and if anything I have said you are correct in some things), nor have I spoken about any assumptions at all.  Despite your request for no apologies, I feel I must apologize for giving you the impression that I was 'attacking' anything you said.  This was never my intention.  (If you missed it, I even requested your opinion is places.)

Any attack you seem to feel was meant more as a request for clarification over your opinions over what seems to have become a matter of minutiae to you (fundamental particles to me).

we will have to simply agree to disagree if we cannot agree on any assumptions.

We agree on many of them.  There is, however, one in particular that continually trips up any progress on what I am 'delving into.'

You have pointed out that your deconstructionist attitude is not aimed at creating generalizations, or other synthetic analysis; may I ask what it is you seek? You mention understanding, but I believe that will be difficult if you refuse to accept definitions that are assumptions. Again, from where do we go logically without some assumptions?

'We' only go somewhere logically when we coincide with our assumptions.  Primarily at work is a difference of opinion in that on one side, the Edwards Model covers everything, on the other, that the truth of this must be first explored before it is collectively assumed.

We will have to agree to disagree on this point.  Whereas I believe I have deconstructed it enough to find at least one example of something it does not cover, you believe (I think) that it is flexible enough to be 'stretched' to accommodate.  In this there will be no collective opinion.

Now I realize Ron is quite famous for saying that his model is not meant to, nor does, cover everything; we are not talking about Ron's opinion.  We are talking about ours.  (It does not matter if he thinks his model covers everything, it only matters that you seem to.)

The sequence practiced by this deconstructionist is to take it apart, look for parallel within, look for parallels without, rebuild (in the hope of coming up with something that is functionally equivalent to the original).  A classic example of how this can be done is how Einstein's theories relating to Newton's happened; first Einstein noted small problems with the numbers produced by Newton's laws of motion and followed something like the above sequence.  Superficially the final theory works very similarly to the original, only with improved modeling.

I cannot synthesize from parts based on a previous model without expecting the model to possibly skew the results, thus the appearance that I refute the original.  If I find that there are no points where the original model varies from the field observations, then I too resort to the original model.

Too much deconstructionism is pointless, but so too is too much generalism.  Remember, Newton tried fruitlessly to fit the solar system to his model of 'the crystal spheres.'

My apologies in going on about this so, but I have had to deal with some people that claimed deconstruction as the reason that they couldn't get into arguments before, and when this happens, I often find myself lamenting the fact that I haven't had the chance to create any meaning with these people.

Unlike many deconstructionists you may have debated, I have no problem continuing past this point.  I hope I have (used deconstruction that) made clear what problem we are addressing.

FWIW, I would like to clarify something about gamemasterless play. In a way this is a misnomer. To be precise, the games I speak of SOAP, my game, etc. are actually gamemasterfull. Or rather every player is a gamemaster. Or even more precisely every player is fully and completely empowered to employ any stance that they would like (subject to the game's particular rules).

I appreciate this type of clarity and take your point very well.  I like it; separating gamemaster-absent and gamemaster-filled role-playing gaming.  You will understand my confusion over the lack of clarity; for the record, I really was talking about games that do not have gamemasters (or much authorial stance or any directorial stance).  The idea I was striking at was that I don't see gamemastering and immersion occurring at the same time in one individual.

I have to do one quote:

yet my usual brief tone has lead to what appears to be another attack on the GNS model.

If I am understated, you are now a comedian. Brief tone? I understand what you mean, but under the circumstances it is an ironic statement to say the least. Was it meant as a play on words?

Not exactly.  Right away, I simply took it as read that you understood some of the underpinnings of my deconstructive analysis style and what would have been six or seven postings shorter had me backtracking to explain what I had glossed over early on (for the sake of brevity then).

I am reminded that in the past that I have been wont to say that we may find that discussions of particular motivations to be more important in the end than the overall GNS model. And if you feel so inclined I would love to move on to doing so.

Certainly (if you can handle the particularization inherent in my mode of expression), I can.  Can you list what types of motivations you see for players and gamemasters?  (There I go again, looking for the particles first....)

And would that go under another title?

Fang Langford