GNS/Creative Agenda Essay [long]

[Marco]

Not at all. I think 'yes' too. But then I don't know what the objection is to an "outside" observer.

Unless I misread Ralph he says that outside = non-player which he then says the GNS model doesn't address.

-Marco

[Valamir]

Can they?  Sure.  Will they always be able to?  Probably not.  If they aren't able to is that evidence that the model doesn't work or is weakened?  Absolutely not.  If multiple seperate observers come to different ideas, perhaps different even from the players themselves, is that evidence that the model doesn't work or is weakened?  Again no.

How easily a non player observer can make such a determination will depend on a number of factors.

How meta the player's interactions are.  If the players are making concious efforts to remain "immersed" they may be actively surpressing the various signals that provide cue to their agenda.  Doesn't mean they don't have one, they're just intentionally camoflagueing it in order to sustain immersion.

How well the non player knows the players and can pick up on subtle social cues that a stranger might miss but a good friend immediately recognizes (i.e. familiarity with the player's "tells")

Whether the non player is still a participant in the social activity at the table vs. being a quiet "fly on the wall" off in the corner.

And of course how much experience the non playing observer has with watching for and interpreting the various cues.  And probably several more besides.


The point I was making about 1 place where the essay is completely wrong is when it says

the decision about what the premise is must be made by the analyst.

There is no expectation or obligation from the model that the analyst (player or non player) MUST be able to do anything of the kind.

May, yes.
Can often, yes.
More often with practice, yes.

Must, No.

Edited to respond to:

But then I don't know what the objection is to an "outside" observer

As the above should have made clear, the objection is not to the existance of an outside observer.  The objection is to the assertion that such an outside observer must be able to flawlessly identify the premise of a game.

As I reminder, this is the text I originally wrote:

How does this second statement follow? Why must an outside analyst be able to understand what the premise is? Who said that was necessary? The model sure didn't. I don't recall Ron ever suggesting it was. If someone wants to suggest that, to be valid, a premise must be identifiable and understandable by some outside observer they'd better come up with a heck of a reason to justify that. Trying to slip it in as a premise of the arguement simply so it can be shot down is pure straw man arguement.

You will note the objection is what the outside analyst is being expected to understand.  Not whether or not there is one or whether it was possible for him to understand.

[Marco]

Can they?  Sure.  Will they always be able to?  Probably not.  If they aren't able to is that evidence that the model doesn't work or is weakened?  Absolutely not.  If multiple seperate observers come to different ideas, perhaps different even from the players themselves, is that evidence that the model doesn't work or is weakened?  Again no.

How easily a non player observer can make such a determination will depend on a number of factors.

How meta the player's interactions are.  If the players are making concious efforts to remain "immersed" they may be actively surpressing the various signals that provide cue to their agenda.  Doesn't mean they don't have one, they're just intentionally camoflagueing it in order to sustain immersion.

How well the non player knows the players and can pick up on subtle social cues that a stranger might miss but a good friend immediately recognizes (i.e. familiarity with the player's "tells")

There's a fair number of assertions here:

1. This observer might be unfamiliar with the people playing (last paragraph quoted). Sure--or blind--but assuming that the non-player observer has all the data the players do (I see no stipulation that's not so) we go on.

2. Players might be camoflagueing their agenda (intent?) Sure. That can apply to anyone, player or not. As the GM, I find I often have a different perception of in-game events than my players. Nothing dramatic, really--but it's there--and part of the skill I've cultivated as a GM is looking for those disconnects so I can step in and iron them out. So, again, I don't see the difference between a player and a non-player. Anyone can make a mistake.

3. I don't see anywhere in the model where it specifies that you have to be a player to make the mode determination. Granted, I see the big difference as being one of intent (i.e. if I know I intend to explore character then, hey, I can tell when I'm doing it). And yeah, that could be hard for someone else to read correctly. I doubt you agree with that, though.

If the big difference *is* the fact that the player has access to his internal state, then we do agree--and the essay is wrong. But when the definitional metric of a GNS mode is observed behavior, I can't see how a claim to any kind of objectivity (Matt says yes, it's objective) would reject the view of an outside observer.

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I've made this point in the past, on several occasions.

A human is capable of assessing his or her own behavior, either during or after that behavior. Hence "observations of play" can be about oneself, about one's fellow players, or about a few people over there who are role-playing.

Every discussion of "internal state" seems to rely on some misunderstanding of that point.

Marco, I really don't see any substance in your posts about this issue, for the reason above. Perceptions that the model, or anything I've ever presented, somehow dismisses or fails to account for all three forms of observation, are mistaken.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

Marco, at this point I am at a complete loss as to what you are even talking about.

You seem to be questioning the validity of some assertion that I made.  
You seem to be implying that I said an outside analyst couldn't perform the analysis.

Again I've said no such thing.  I don't know where this disconnect is between us on this, but I don't know how I possibly could make this any clearer.

I am asserting nothing.  
The essay is asserting something.
I am pointing out that the essay's assertion is wrong.

Period.  That's it.

I have not said anything else.

I never ever ever ever ever ever said that a non player analyst couldn't perform the analysis.  EVER.

The essay, on the other hand does not simply suggest that an outside analyst could perform it.  It REQUIRES that they MUST be able to do so and to do so flawlessly.

I am pointing out that the essay is wrong.  Criminy this is getting beyond frustrating.

[Ron Edwards]

Time to stop.

The key issue is that the essay's author is not participating in the discussion. The secondary, resultant issue is that the discussion seems to be about what-I-said-you-said-that-I-said.

Both issues, but especially the second, are why this thread is now closed.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

Hello,

I've made this point in the past, on several occasions.

A human is capable of assessing his or her own behavior, either during or after that behavior. Hence "observations of play" can be about oneself, about one's fellow players, or about a few people over there who are role-playing.

Every discussion of "internal state" seems to rely on some misunderstanding of that point.

Marco, I really don't see any substance in your posts about this issue, for the reason above. Perceptions that the model, or anything I've ever presented, somehow dismisses or fails to account for all three forms of observation, are mistaken.

Best,
Ron

Ron,
I don't think I do disagree with you.  Looking carefully, and with a surprising amount of clarification from MJ's post on the other thread, I think the disconnect is this:

1. The use of the word intent to me means inferred rationale for a behavior (an assault with a deadly weapon shows intent to kill). To Gareth and Raven, I'm guessing it's some internal rationalization that takes place *before* the behavior (I sit down at the computer intending to work and wind up posting on The Forge)--therefore my intent was out of line with my behavior.

When I say "I know my intent when I take an action" I'm saying "when the action is taken, I have an internal metric for how successful it was" (that is, I can tell if the results were satisfactory to me--which means there was a rationale behind the action). Not "I always do everything I tell myself I'm going to do" or "I'm never engaged in any kind of denial or self-deception."

That's misunderstanding A.

2. What constitutes observeable/observed behavior seems to be dependant on who is doing the observing. When I choose a weapon for my character, I can observe what I did and, knowing what my perspective is, I can inferr a rationale.

If I choose the mechanically inferior long-bow for my elf, that's probably Sim--definitely if, in doing so, I did it because of the gener-convetion that elves have long-bows. If I choose the mechanically superior cross-bow, I can observe my behavior and say it's Gamist because I know that for me, a cross-bow is *way* out of gener for an elf.

But it's not clear anyone else could determine that from watching me.

So the observable behavior standard simply means that there must be some action of some sort to accompany the intent for the play to be meaningful in the GNS sense.

Now, that's not what I got from Raven and Gareth (and a few others) in their discussions of intent or in their reactions to that example (yourself included, when I asked you about it in PM's you weren't interested in it).

But if that's so, then I don't disagree--and I may not disagree with Gareth or Raven--but the way thats was communicated was not, no-way clear to me.

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Good. I'm glad the "intent" bugaboo has been killed.

Closed means closed. This thread is finished.

Best,
Ron