Some Theory for Analysis...

[ErrathofKosh]

One of my motives for logging onto the Forge day after day is to learn how to better analyze actual roleplay and apply what I learn from those experiences to become a better player, GM, and game designer.  Thus, I enjoy delving the reams of theory presented by the posters here.  I also find Ron's Big Model to be very enlightening.  But, on the other hand, GNS has proven to be unsatisfactory for me.  Thus, I have developed a series of questions that apply on several levels within the Model. The answers to these questions form what I would dub an "exploratory preference," but the term itself is rather unimportant, at least in my view.  So, on to my questions...

Conflict
The first issue, that I feel necessary to address, is conflict.  Conflict appears in all of the games I've been a part of, and I would think it to be a necessary element of play.  However, there have been assertions to the contrary, so I will only go as far as stating that's usually important to roleplay.  The questions that I ask about conflict are generated by the idea that it generates two types of results: in-game and player. To clarify, in-game results are those effects that affect one of the five exploratory elements or their metagame components.  Thus, losing a conflict could mean a character loses points in an attribute or that he may lose points from his "hero pool."  Both are in-game results.  Player results are those things that a player gains or loses from the in-game results of conflict.  Thus, a player could watch his character lose attribute points and gain satisfaction knowing that now he'd play a character with a handicap. With that explanation out of the way, here are my Conflict Questions and Answers:

What do you hope to gain, in-game, from the conflict your character has entered?

Tactical/Strategic Success  
Employing various tactics or strategies your character achieves victory over the setting or other characters, or even themselves (in rare situations).  This usually results in a tactical/strategic advantage for the next conflict.

Philosophical Statement
While either winning or losing the character makes a statement that affects the setting, other characters, or themselves.  This usually affects the character by changing their relationship to the setting, other characters, or themselves.


What do you hope to gain, as a player, from the conflict your character has entered?

Emotional Engagement
Either you are slightly ecstatic about achieving tactical/strategic success or you enjoy connecting more with your character, the setting, or other characters.

Intellectual Stimulation
Either you enjoy inventing tactics and strategies that are successful or you want to know about your character, a particular setting, or other characters.

I note that these two player gains are often present at once.  Most people experience both emotional engagement and intellectual simulation simultaneously.  However, my question is about priority... which is more important to you?  

Tactical/Strategic Success, Emotional Engagement  - Competition    
Tactical/Strategic Success, Intellectual Stimulation -  Contest  
Philosophical Statement, Emotional Engagement - Connection
Philosophical Statement, Intellectual Stimulation - Examination
   
               
Here are some examples of each from outside of roleplaying:

Competition – Playing basketball with your buddies
Contest – A game of chess against a computer
Connection – A controversial discussion with your spouse
Examination – Debate between political opponents

Note, that again there is a lot of mixture and cross-over, and these examples aren't perfect.  But, once again I submit that this is a matter of priority.



Elements of Exploration

The elements of Exploration, from the Big Model are: Setting, Character, Situation, System, and Color.  My questions in this case arise from the idea that these elements are both explored and use to explore.  For example, it is pretty obvious that you can explore setting, but can you use setting to explore situation?  Sure, just go ask Ralph Mazza about how he plays Pendragon.  (Arthurian setting, old knights v. young knights situation) So, in this case the Questions and Answers are fairly straight forward:

What elements are you interested in exploring? (Note the plural....)
Setting, Character, Situation, System, or Color

What elements are you interested in using to explore?
Setting, Character, Situation, System, or Color

In this case, the answers to these questions are a list, prioritized by the player's interest.  All of these elements are present in any given instance of play, the questions are asking for the player to rate them in importance.  I also would like to point out that the prioritized element being used as the vehicle of exploration is detailed, while the prioritized element being explored is left with few details.



Control and Reactivity

These last issues have been raised separately in different threads recently, but I see them as possibly be two sides of the same coin.  The issue of control is a player issue; individual players have different preferences regarding how much control of the game they want to have.  When one player, usually the GM, but not always, has control the game is centralized, when many or all players share control, the game is decentralized.  (Control of the game should be defined as who has the most authority in lumpey terms.)  The issue of reactivity is a character issue; characters can be ranked on a sliding scale of which one side is proactivity and the other reactivity.  A proactive character will attempt to change the status quo, while a reactive character will only act when there is a change in the status quo.  So, here are the questions:

How much authority do you enjoy having in any given situation?

Absolute
What you say happens.  Not usually very fun for anyone else, unless you are telling them a story.  

Near Absolute
Usually the GM exerts this type of control, constrained by only the dice and time.

Majority
Again, usually the GM exerts this type of control, but in this case, he is constrained by not only dice and time, but the players have control over their characters.

Shared
Most players in the group have about the same amount of authority.

Minority
You have authority over your character, but not much else.

None


What cause your character to act?

Internal Desire
Your character wishes to attain a goal, something that usually changes the status quo within the setting, and will strive to reach that goal until it is attained or is unattainable.

External Prod
The status quo is changed in such a way that it brings discomfort to the character in some way (to their way of life, morals, etc.) and they are pushed in to action.




Summary
So, now I have some possible combinations of answers that I think are helpful in analyzing a particular player's preferences.  Some of these preferences will be compatible, so that a group of players may all have slightly different ones, while some are incompatible and will lead to group conflicts and dysfunctional play.  Here's an example of some players in my group:

Brian
Prioritizes Tactical/Strategic Success and Intellectual Stimulation (Contests)
Enjoys Exploring Character and Situation via Setting
He likes to have a least Shared Authority
His characters tend to have Internal Desires

Dave
Prioritizes Philosophical Statements and Emotional Engagement (Connections)
Enjoys Exploring Character and Situation via Setting
He likes to have at most Shared Authority
His characters tend to have Internal Desires

Matt
Prioritizes Tactical/Strategic Success and Emotional Engagement (Competitions)
Enjoys Exploring Character via Situation
He likes to have at least Shared Authority
His characters tend to have External Prods

Me (though self-diagnosis isn't recommended I'm told....)
Prioritizes Philosophical Statements and Intellectual Stimulation (Examinations)
Enjoys Exploring Character via Situation and Setting
Likes to have at least Minority Authority
My characters tend to have internal Desires

Some Observations
Brian and I get along the best, while Dave usually plays along with us.  Matt tends to be the annoying one.  I'm too tired to draw any conclusions based on this, however...

So, any thoughts?  Holes?  Criticism?

Let fly...

Cheers
Jonathan

Code Select Expand

[M. J. Young]

You've covered a lot of ground; but I feel like there are a lot of valid forms of play that don't fit in your schema. Tourism play almost certainly gives you trouble, and experimenter play is difficult at best.

I think that it's because your treatment of "conflict" seems to homogenize all types of conflict into one. I could almost replace "conflict" with "combat" in your statements and not alter the apparent meaning. The problem is that for some approaches to play, what constitutes "conflict" is not necessarily an adversarial relationship between a character and something else, nor even between the character and himself. It can easily be a conflict between two principles or concepts which the character is in a position to resolve. This in fact is much more the sort of "conflict" envisioned in narrativist play, even when it appears to be between the character and something. The conflict is between our loyalty to our feuding families and the love that draws us together--that's the real conflict in Romeo and Juliet, not the fight between the Capulets and Montagues, but whether we will ignore that feud for the sake of our love. In Othello, it is the clash between trust and jealousy. The conflict is in the situation, but it's not in the situation the same way as it is challenge-based conflict.

What I read from you is, "When you encounter conflict, what do you do with it?" What the reality is is "What is it that actually constitutes conflict from the perspective of the player?"

That might help you significantly with your efforts.

--M. J. Young

[ErrathofKosh]

Damn fine question....  I need some time to think about the ramifications, but I like the direction of that question.  Thanks MJ.

Cheers
Jonathan

[Marco]

Having a post on this myself, the first thing I would ask is: what if I prize emotional and intellectual stimulation equally--surely I can, can't I? I mean, it's hard to rate them on a factor of 1-10, but can't I say so long as one of the two is cranked up, I'm good--and if both are, so much the better?

-Marco