"What's produced" vs. "In play"

[Gordon C. Landis]

Boy, I hope I'm not poking at a hornet's nest here - if that's the feeling anyone gets, ignore this post.   Elsewhere, Ron posted this tidbit:

A little note here: I don't think that Dramatism "sticks out" in any funny way over there in Simulationism, once it's understood that GNS is about the actual functional moments of role-playing, rather than "what is produced" by role-playing. But this was GNS-Man intruding himself into Fang's thread, when it was already established that GNS-Man had his own room to cavort about in. I shall now quell him

Here, in the GNS Forum, I do not seek to qwell him, but rather Explore his statement.  In particular . . . is this actually a BETTER way of stating the difference between GDS and GNS?  GNS focuses on in-play activity (which OF COURSE includes system/design/mechanics, in both broad and detailed incarnations), and GDS is about characterising what is produced?

I'll keep it that simple, for now . . .

Gordon

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Gordon,

I've stated this construction as the "meaning" of GNS for as long as I can remember, and the more emphasis it gets, the better. I can't see reading the essay as saying anything else, although - given the recent discussion - I'll add this point explicitly as a feature of rewrite.

I'm not sure what phrase or idea has been used in the past to distinguish between GNS and the Threefold (aside from odd claims that the former "classifies" game design). I do state that the section you've quoted from me, regarding the goals or meaning of GNS, is precisely the case for this theory. I am, and have always been, discussing the act of role-playing per se.

Best,
Ron

[Logan]

..

[Gordon C. Landis]

Ron -

I agree that it's pretty clear in the essay (and from a number of threads, current and past) that GNS is about "the act of role-playing per se" - AND that it probably can't be stressed enough.  It just occured to me that that fact MIGHT be something that distinguishes GNS from other theories.

Even if not (as Logan seems to indicate) . . . it's VERY valuable to remember that, if you find yourself talking about something other than the actual act of roleplaying, you've moved outside the boundries of GNS.  Not to say there couldn't be some influence there, or use for the language, but it's not strictly the theory any more.

Gordon

[jburneko]

Hello All,

I agree that GNS is about actual moments of role-play and has nothing to do with hindsight results.  I've just been around the bush about this with my own group.  "If Character Exploration based play results in a thematic story isn't that Narrativism?" And so on.

I think where most of the debate comes into play is that there is no such thing as a solitary decision in role-playing.  For example, we all agree that to say someone is a Narrativist is only short hand for saying they tend to make decisions that accord with Narrativist goals.  But in all roleplaying decisions there is almost always two live people interacting, even in GMless games.

I would say the smallest unit of meaningful roleplaying consists of three parts.

Conflict Presentation
Reaction To Conflict
Conflict Resolution.

These basically map onto three acts of roleplaying that can be GNS motivated: Choice of Conflict, Choice of How To Deal With Conflict, Choice of Conflict Outcome.  Exactly who is responsible for each of these varies from game to game.  The classic set up being GM-Player-System(w/GM interpretation) or just GM.

Where things like Dramatism, Illusionism and so on comes into play is when one or more GNS mindsets meet at this tri-juncture.  A lot of combinations are probably disfunctional.  For example if you're playing with a classic distribution of power, a Gamist GM and Narrativisty Player, then the distribution might look like this.

GM - Choice of Conflict - Motivated by wanting to provide a competative challenge to test the 'game' skills of the player.

Player - Choice of How To Deal With Conflict - Motivated by thematic display of character regardless of risk/resource assesment.

GM/System - Choice of Conflict Outcome - Motivated by sense 'fairness' and/or 'balance'.

This combination is likely to be rather disasterous as the Player will most likely become frustrated as the GM/System constantly refuses to acknowledge the deliberate thematic display of character.  But some combinations DO work, at least for a time.  Consider an 'assumed' classic power distribution with Narrativist GM, and Character Simulationist Player.  The the result might look like this:

GM - Choice of Conflict - Motivated by sense of focused litterary Premise and drama.

Player - Choice of How To Deal With Conflict - Motivated by sense of character integrity and believability.

GM/System - Choice of Conflict Outcome - Motivated by sense of thematics and drama.

This probably works.  This is probably an Illusionist/Dramatist setup of some kind.

So my question is this: If GNS is about the mindsets behind individual role-playing choices, is there perhaps an unexplored corrolary to the model that defines these basic triumvant units of roleplaying that perhaps might clear up all these, "So what happens if I GM like this and my Players do that?" questions?

Jesse

[J B Bell]

No questions, I just think this is a really excellent breakdown--"whiff syndrome" in particular falls into it very neatly.  I'll have to toy with it mentally for a while, and bring it with me to my next gaming session next weekend.

--TQuid

[contracycle]

I like the structure, but I have some doubts about the GM's motivation section.  Apart from the appearance of the Competitive Fallacy, as I have come to think of it, I'm not sure that the dramatic structure concerns attributed to the narrativist GM are accurate, inasmuch as I think any GM can carry that out at the PRESENTATION stage; I think the GM's colours show much more at the resolution stage, when their narrativism allows a radically different range of solutions than that which Gmaist or Sim GM's are likely to accept.