Dramatism, what is it.

[contracycle]

I wanted to some of these good questions in detail:

Funny thing is, before I started on these boards, the only Gareth I knew was a knight from Lothian.

Apparently people kept asking my mother if I was named after a rugby player (which I'm not) but that might suggest theres a batch of us around the late 60's.  I encounter more as I age.

But I would add, from your descriptions, not solely to the GM.  The Dramatist player may well be willing to cede most of the story to the GM, but examples like you as a player choosing to have a character are authoring the story (the GM didn't tell you to do that, and the character didn't tell you to do that, the player decided to do it for story reasons, and thats the definition of Author).

It is in the GNS, yes, which only has one story slot (as does GDS).  I suggest, in essence, that there should be two slots for story, describing different methods and concerns.  At least, this is by why of explaining what I find wrong by contrast with the GNS current location of story only in Narrativism, and GDS only in Dramatism.

Question:  Are the players in a Dramatist game really making Story Decisions most of the time?  I've said that some times, like the bullet example they are, but what about the rest of the time?  It sounds to me that its more a matter of being AWARE that the GM is telling a story, and having an appreciation for that story, then it is about making story decisions themselves.

One might posit that a large number of actual behaviours and decisions are concerned (or can be concerned) primarily with portrayal as a goal, distinct from an accurate model of the character.  A player may choose or need to simulate some aspect of the character, but whether, and how, this is portrayed to the other participants will make a big difference to its actual incorporation in the game.  I think such behaviour has a value to players and GM's as a sort of "performance gratification" separate from te value of story or world consistency or challenge.  A well played character provokes responses from other player characters - better, if your portrayals are in sync you might get naturally fed suitable straight lines.  This provides further opportunities for demonstrative play, which provokes further responses etc.

I think this form of play can appear without any form of actual game story - it arises from our relentless bombardment with story through TV and movies and books.  We can often make fair guesses as to what would be appropriate in a given circumstance in terms of dramatic convention more or less by rote.  The player can still be there to see someone elses story unfold and their behaviour employed in a sort of supportive, or enabling role.

definition of the word.  It is an obvious Simulation of Character.  Even in old paper map wargames we had Simulation of Character any time a player tried to duplicate "what would Patton have done here".

Hypothetically, a motivation might have been that it is more interesting to have a heroic character than spear-carrier.  Regardless of the story value, or character consistency, the act has dramatic value.  It may even be innapropriate to either story or character and stil occur, within bounds, I feel.

But in the example as you gave it, it wasn't character concerns that caused the decision, it was the players desire to add a cool element to the story.  That decision was a Narrativist Decision.

I cans see the position, but for my me it just does not, well, ring true, shall we say.  Or at least I'm not sure how identifying it as Narrativist is useful - how would narrativist tools be applicable?

[Mike Holmes]

I would say that in most games at individual decision points, Gamist and Narrativist players both commonly and routinely make S decisions.  

Just as a point of clarification (which may, ironically, confuse the issue some), quite often the same decision can be made for different reasons. I know I point this out all the time, but it is important here. It is one of the reasons that it is hard to determine the nature of a decision by observation. Quite often through coincidence the same decision could have been motivated by more than one of the three motives. Not always, sometimes it's very obvious. But quite often.

In the case that Ralph mentions "Making decisions because that is what the character would do" while seeming Sim may have been made because they promote story. In that a coherent story is believable. So these are not Sim decisions, they are Narrativist decisions in this case. The motive is what counts. The only case that you could say for sure that such a decision was Sim is if the player did something consistent with the character that obviously damaged the story.

This is not to challenge Ralph's assertion that the "Narrativist" player shifts frequently. They do a lot, IMO. Just that at certain moments a "What the character would do" decision could be a Narrativist or Simulationist decision. The only way to know is to ask the player.

Other sorts of decisions suffer from the same problem.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

One small potential problem with inserting Dramatism in this case is that it seems to me to marginalize Simulationism. If Dramatism is that mixture of playing the character and wanting story in some quantity, then there are very few Simulatinists. The definition of Simulationism would be playing such that you can only want Simulation, and want no (little?) interference from story. I would say that this mode is fairly rare, getting rarer as you reduce the allowed story.

As we've been stating, these behaviors seem to be a combination of decisions, that few if any are totally pure. Well, that would make pure Simulationism pretty uncommon, and thoretically impossible. This may not be a problem as we may not be concerned with the "size" of the portion of gamers that play, but that sort of concern has been raised before.

OTOH, this does solve Ralph's (and others') problems with the connotation of the term Simulationism, making it much more intuitive.

Mike

[Gordon C. Landis]

Here's a few thoughts posts to this thread (and other recent ones) have inspired.  I'm not sure they're terribly coherent -  there's a lot of info here.  But where there's great stuff, it usually inspires me to have thoughts (of doubtless varying quality), so  . . .

a "What the character would do" decision could be a Narrativist or Simulationist decision. The only way to know is to ask the player.

This helps disprove what someone said earlier, that a Nar decision is defined by the fact that it's NOT "in character".  Or perhaps they meant by that only "the only *sure* way to tell a Nar decision is if it's not an otherwise appropriate ("in character") decision for that fictional construct."  Regardless, I think it's NOT true that the only way to know is to ask the player (and thus get into the whole "motivation" issue) - I think it's important to realize that while each decision can be "atomized", the context in which we can evaluate it is not.  So, we can often accurately observe a decision as being about Story instead of acting in character.  The simplest example of this might simply be the timing of a decision - the fact is, you could make thousands and thousands of decisions and statements about "what you character is going to do" in the environment provided by an RPG.  One a second, or as quick as you can (and the GM will let you) talk.  When do you choose to do so, and what are the circumstances when you do?  When do you just let things flow without specific statements?  I bet that info would be quite helpful in establishing whether a decision was about "what my guy would do" vs. "what's good for the Story".  Perhaps not conclusive (behavioral observations for an *individual* (as opposed to a group) rarely are - correlation vs. causation and all that), but usually sufficient.

Let's see, what else?  The 5 Elements . . . you cannot have any RPing without Exploration of the 5 elements.  The question is, is that *prioritized*?  You also can't have a story (under any definition) without (at least some of) those elements, so clearly Nar players will have attention on (e.g.) Color, but that is not the goal - it's a tool towards the goal (a Story, with a Premise).

Aside - All play has a premise, only Nar has a Premise.  All play can have a story (related series of events), and Sim play can even prioritize story (perhaps with a premise involving some appealing combination of the 5 elements), but only Nar is about Story with Premise.  This premise vs. Premise and story (events) vs. story (premise) vs. Story (Premise) is a linguistic mess - I think Ron's aware of that and so I'm reluctant to start one of those "let's pick better words" discussions until he puts up his next version, but . . . this seems like something we'll need to deal with.

Back to GNS/Dramatism . . . one thought I've had before about Dramatism is that it can be furthered by "Player Illusionism" - that is, the player "pretends" to have the character make a decision that is "in character", but actually he's doing something to further the story.  If the story being furthered is essentially the GM's story (i.e., the "furthering" is about established Color, Situation, and etc. aspects of the story, not a Premise that the player is interested in developing), it's Sim/Dramatism.  If it *is* Premise-based (note that it could ALSO further Color, Situation, and etc.), you're in Vanilla Narrativism country.

This way of thinking sets up Premise (capitol-P) as the key discriminator of Narrativism vs. "Dramatism" - does that seem right to folks?

And I guess that's all for now . . .

Gordon

[Mytholder]

Ok, this kinda confuses me. At what point does the Story get Authored. In the example, the player says "my guy tries to jump in front of the bullet". It's up to the GM and the resolution system to determine what actually happens. If the GM says "you leap, but a moment too late. The bullet hits Bob", who authored the story. Does the player's contribution count as Narrativism, even if it was rejected?

Well, I don't know that its ever been discussed in that way, but to my mind ABSOLUTELY.  

The player made a decision based on story.  The GM made another decision based on story.  The fact that the GM's decision in this case neutralized the player decision does not change the fact that the players decision was story based and hense Narrativist.

Now in a "Narrativist Game" (talking play style not decision level)

Screeech! go the brakes. Explain how "play style" relates to "decision level". I'd have said your play style is the same as the majority of your significant decisions - if, when the chips are down, you act in a Gamist way, you're playing in a Gamist style, right?

this neutralization would probably NOT be acceptable (at least not as a standard occurance) because Narrativists have a higher expectation of shared authorship.  For a Dramatist whose willingly ceded ultimate authorship to the GM this is not as great a concern.

So...it's a Narrativist decision (story oriented) which might not be compatible with Narrativist play style. This, to me, suggests something of a problem.

And that awareness is key. The intent of all the players is to participate (as audience, as actors, as authors, etc) in a STORY. That's not the intent of a Simulationist player. They're there to - yes, explore and experience something. Story is not a prime concern.

See its clear to me that you haven't (as I hadn't for most of my Forge career) grasped that GNS is about decisions.  You are here equating making sim decisions as being a sim player.  You are saying that a sim player is not interested in story, a dramatist is interested in story, therefor a dramatist doesn't make sim decisions.

I'm well aware decisions are key here. I know a dramatist can make Sim decisions. I just don't think the majority of a players' decisions are "significant" in terms of GNS. It really doesn't matter if I chose to eat in that inn to ensure I don't suffer from fatigue-related penalities, or because it's a logical thing to do in terms of the simulation, or because I'm deliberately providing a plot opening for the GM. All three play styles are fully compatible with the action. It's only when the play styles are IN CONFLICT that GNS comes into it.

A dramatist can make decisions which might be catagorised as Sim decisions. However, if the choice is clearly between Drama and Acting As Part Of The Sim, the dramatist will choose Drama and the Simulationist will choose The Correct Thing To Do As Part Of The Sim.

A sim player who has absolutely 0 interest in ever making a story based decision will have a decision map devoid of N decisions.

I'd say they'll have a decision map devoid of SIGNIFICANT N decisions. If they're ever given a meaningful choice between S and N, they'll go for S.

A dramatist player who does have interest in making story based decisions will have a decision map which includes some number of N decisions.

In a dramatist game where players have ceded most story based decisions to the GM, the GM will have a decision map which includes a greater number of N decisions than the players.

Making a sim decision does not equal a player with no interest in story.  Making a sim decision equals that at that point in time the player's motivation was not story based.

I agree with all that.

Even a die hard narrativist will have many sim decisions in their decision map.  Sim decisions are what maintain internal consistancy and verisimilitude.  They maintain the "suspension of disbelief" factor.  

Once again, identifying a single decision as Sim cannot be extrapolated into a player who plays "Simulationist".

My problem with your decision map is that you categorise any action which isn't G or N as S. This suggests that G and N are precise, focussed, identifiable ways of playing, but S is this blobby, unfocussed, "default" way of playing.

That's simply not true, in my opinion. Simulationism has its own identity. Decisions categorised as S should be as rare as G or N decisions.

Simulationism is not just "suspension of disbelief". It's suspension of disbelief even when maintaining that suspension of disbelief detracts from the story or the challenge.

This again highlights the difficulty in the chosen terminology.  A "Simulationist" Player, is more than a player who makes mostly Sim decisions.  A "Simulationist" play style also includes certain stance preferences and emphasis of Exploration.

Calling the "S" decision Simulationist confounds things greatly because people (like you have here) equate "S" decisions with Simulationist playstyle and they're not the same thing.

Right. Which says, to me, that the Simulationist definition used by GNS is flawed, and is much too wide. One of the reasons it's much too wide is that it includes a lot of dramatism.

Not every decision can - or should - be classified under GNS. The original "dividing point" discussed in rgfa was "how do you decide when one or more branches are in conflict?". If the logical integrity of the world pulls one way (bullets are dangerous, it's very unlikely your action will save anyone, you'll just end up a meaningless casualty) and the story goes another way (heroic sacrifices are always worth it, it's a dramatic act), which way do you jump?

I'm not sure I follow you.  That example is the very core of GNS.  It is precisely your decision as to which way you jump that determines your GNS position.

Ok. Cool. I agree - the way you jump determines your GNS decision...but in your own decision map, our Dramatist is going
SSSSNSSGSSSSSSNSSSGSSSSSSNSSNSSNSSSSSSSSSS

He's jumping towards Simulationism almost all the time!
So...either
1) Dramatisism is part of simulationism
2) You're calling every decision a critical one, one where you "jump"
3) You're calling every decision which isn't clearly G or N a S decision.

I think 2 and 3 are both true.

I think that's well, ludicrous. 95% of the decisions made by a player or a GM aren't going to be clearly classifiable, and won't provide any real insight. Me taking a shotgun as my character's weapon might be cool, logical for the setting, a good tactical choice AND pose the question "is gun control a good thing". It's only when we reach a significant decision relating to the shotgun that pulls one way or another that the shotgun becomes relevant to GNS.

Ahh, see now you're hitting upon what Ron and I discussed in another thread GNS Motivations I think.  The difference between the theory and the practical observation of the theory.  

The theory leads to a decision map as I listed it.  Each decision has a GNS position.

And, again, in my opinion, that's ludicrous. It extends the theory into the absurd. Play style cannot be determined from trivial decisions. It's like trying to work out where someone is driving too by watching them turn around one corner.

The limits of practical observation leads to a map as you listed it where only those decisions that can be clearly observed and extrapolated can be defined.  This is why Ron defines the observation of GNS positions as occuring per "Instance of Play" meaning a sufficient period of time to observe an identifyable decision.

So...why have you tagged all the "unidentifiable" decisions as Sim ones?

Your "Decision Map" makes Sim the default. Sim lacks its own identity if you present it like that. Sim is NOT a passive style of play.

I'd draw the map as
--------------S-------NN--------GS----------N------------------------------

I have to take you to task about this logical leap you just made.

Most frequent is not the same thing as default and default is not the same thing as passive.

I would say that in most games at individual decision points, Gamist and Narrativist players both commonly and routinely make S decisions.  

Any time you make a decision because thats what a character would do is a "Sim" decision.  Any time you make a decision because that is the sort of thing that would happen in the "real world" its a sim decision.

No. Not true. Any time you make a decision because that's what the character would do WHEN THAT DECISION OVERRIDES STORY AND CHALLENGE, that decision is an S decision. Most choices happen in the middle of the triangle, they're composed of aspects of all three extremes.

Making sim decisions does not require you to be some rabid "Simulation above all" type player.  Again you are confounding making a Sim decision with being a Simulationist player.

I think you're confounding GNS-neutral, trivial decisions with Sim decisions, because Sim lacks a strong identity in GNS.

Is every single decision a Narrativist player makes going to be an N decision.  NO.  A good many are going to be G decisions and a good many are going to be S decisions.  The mere presence of N decisions doesn't make one a Narrativist player, and the mere presence of G and S decisions doesn't make one NOT a Narrativist player.

What sort of player a player is is not defined at the GNS level.  Its defined at the next level up (what we've been calling the Decision Map) where a pattern of GNS level decisions over time can be observed, and it is this pattern (likely combined with Stance and Exploration preferences) that determines what sort of player one is.

Valamir - is there a centre of the triangle? Is every decision wholely and completely one of G, N or S? Can every choice be clearly categorised?

[Mytholder]

One small potential problem with inserting Dramatism in this case is that it seems to me to marginalize Simulationism. If Dramatism is that mixture of playing the character and wanting story in some quantity, then there are very few Simulatinists.

There are very few hard-core Simulationists, yes, just as there are very few extreme Gamists and few extreme Narrativists. The vast vast vast majority of players play with a mix of styles, they're not strongly typed. They drift from one to the other, or have adopted some compromise method which keeps them happy.

My objection to GNS is that the definitions for G and N describe their "extreme polls", the S definition is unfocussed. It describes a catch-all "everything else" as opposed to the third pole.

The definition of Simulationism would be playing such that you can only want Simulation, and want no (little?) interference from story. I would say that this mode is fairly rare, getting rarer as you reduce the allowed story.

As we've been stating, these behaviors seem to be a combination of decisions, that few if any are totally pure. Well, that would make pure Simulationism pretty uncommon, and thoretically impossible. This may not be a problem as we may not be concerned with the "size" of the portion of gamers that play, but that sort of concern has been raised before.

Pure Narrativism is pretty uncommon too, I'd say. Pure anything is rare.

[contracycle]

Just a thought.  We have RPG analogs of most forms of linear media and their conventions - what is the RPG analog of the song and dance sequence in a musical?

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Just a thought.  We have RPG analogs of most forms of linear media and their conventions - what is the RPG analog of the song and dance sequence in a musical?

Fight scenes.

Some serve as entertainment. Some serve the plot. Some actually tell a story (ie: Gene Kelly's dancing, Crouching Tiger's fight scenes). In a bad game, fight scenes are about as noteworthy as they are in a bad film.

Personally, I think there isn't enough singing and dancing in RPGs.

[Paul Czege]

...I think there isn't enough singing and dancing in RPGs.

Because, as we all know, it's possible to defeat nazis, parents, and religious fundamentalists with the power of dance.

[Valamir]

Wow this is pretty epic, I hope this doesn't get too confusing to follow.  I'm afraid I'm going to have to go point by point to keep it straight.

Screeech! go the brakes. Explain how "play style" relates to "decision level". I'd have said your play style is the same as the majority of your significant decisions - if, when the chips are down, you act in a Gamist way, you're playing in a Gamist style, right?

Well, thats kind of the whole point of where I'm going with this.  The simple answer to your question is no.  Just because the majority of your individual decisions are Gamist, doesn't necessarily equate to a Gamist play style (although it certainly may, and that would be the "usual suspect" so to speak).

The angle that I'm trying to explore is this:
1) the pattern of the decisions (i.e. decision map) leads to play style.   Mostly Gamist with some Sim but absolutely no Nar would likely be a completely different play style than Mostly Gamist with some Sim and with some Nar.
2) the interaction of Stance with this pattern of decision is also likely a component of the definition of playstyle.
3) the emphasis on one or another of the 5 fields of Exploration can also be a component of the definition of playstyle
4) some other factor similiar to 2 and 3 which we haven't even started talking about yet.

If this sounds vague its because we've never tried to define playstyles in these terms before (Dramatism in these threads was my first early attempts at it), but it is an area where GNS can be applied to go way beyond the decision level and start talking about things of greater scope.

Its where I'd like to see alot of discussion go in the future.

So...it's a Narrativist decision (story oriented) which might not be compatible with Narrativist play style. This, to me, suggests something of a problem.

Well, the problem is once again one of unfortuneate use of terms.  If it were called Story Decision instead of Narrativist decision but otherwise kept the exact same definition there'd be no problem at all.  "Narrativist" as a term would then be nothing more nor less then yet another playstyle that can be defined by the expanding theory (which would also eliminate accusations of bias from having "Narrativist" as a top level element).

But since such a change in terminology is not likely to happen, we just have to distinguish between Nar decisions and Nar playstyle.

To specifically address your question however.  No it isn't the Nar decision that's incompatable with the Nar playstyle.  Its the highly uneven distribution of the Nar decisions that's incompatable with the Nar playstyle.

See, one of the elements that get combined with a decision map of Nar decisions in order to be a Nar play style is that the Nar decisions are distributed amongst the players to a greater degree than in that example.  In that example the Nar decisions were concentrated in the hands of the GM, and that is what is incompatable with the Nar playstyle.

I'm well aware decisions are key here. I know a dramatist can make Sim decisions. I just don't think the majority of a players' decisions are "significant" in terms of GNS. It really doesn't matter if I chose to eat in that inn to ensure I don't suffer from fatigue-related penalities, or because it's a logical thing to do in terms of the simulation, or because I'm deliberately providing a plot opening for the GM. All three play styles are fully compatible with the action. It's only when the play styles are IN CONFLICT that GNS comes into it.

I don't see where you arrive at that conclusion.  A Sim decision is a Sim decision regardless of whether or not its in conflict with anything else.   Its when it IS in conflict with something else that it becomes more easily observable and identifiable, but that doesn't change the fact that your choice to eat at the inn is either G N or S.  You may be right in that in this instance it doesn't really matter much (that its fairly insignificant) but that insignificance doesn't alter the fact that its still a G N or S decision.

Plus, I would argue that your example isn't really that insignificant.  I think the choice that was made could well be the decision that illustrates an "Instance of play".

Meaning: The decision COULD have been made for any one of those reasons.  Can we identify from what the player said and did and talked about in the course of making that decision WHY it was made.  If he is very careful to "reset his fatigue points" and then he drops the issue entirely; we can clearly surmise a G decision for instance.  If the player has provided a context as to why he made the decision, then we now have an observable data point.

A dramatist can make decisions which might be catagorised as Sim decisions. However, if the choice is clearly between Drama and Acting As Part Of The Sim, the dramatist will choose Drama and the Simulationist will choose The Correct Thing To Do As Part Of The Sim.

Right.  And the moment he does that he's just made an N decision.  Likely an N decision buried in a sequence of S decisions, but the existance of that N decision is what would distinguish him from a pure Simulationist Player.

What distinguishes him as a Dramatist player (as opposed to something else that is not a pure Simulationist player) is that the focus of that N decision (why he chose to make an N decision at that particular point in time) was to emphasize Color.

I'd say they'll have a decision map devoid of SIGNIFICANT N decisions. If they're ever given a meaningful choice between S and N, they'll go for S.

Any decision that is observable and can thus be known is by definition significant.

The only N decisions a pure Simulationist playstyle player would make would be N decisions that are what is being called elsewhere as Congruent.  In other words an N decision that is so close to what would make sense from a Sim perspective anyway that the Simulationist player isn't put off by it.   It is unlikely for such perfectly Congruent decisions to provide an observable data point to the decision map (unless there was a lot of table talk around it where the players actual motivations became known).

That's simply not true, in my opinion. Simulationism has its own identity. Decisions categorised as S should be as rare as G or N decisions.

Simulationism is not just "suspension of disbelief". It's suspension of disbelief even when maintaining that suspension of disbelief detracts from the story or the challenge.

I disagree, and is where I suggest that your confounding Sim decisions with a Sim play style.

A Sim PLAY STYLE insists on making Sim decisions even when that decision "detracts from the story or the challenge."  A Sim decision has no such requirement.  

A Sim decision is simply a decision that is made to maintain verisimilitude.

This again highlights the difficulty in the chosen terminology.  A "Simulationist" Player, is more than a player who makes mostly Sim decisions.  A "Simulationist" play style also includes certain stance preferences and emphasis of Exploration.

Calling the "S" decision Simulationist confounds things greatly because people (like you have here) equate "S" decisions with Simulationist playstyle and they're not the same thing.

Right. Which says, to me, that the Simulationist definition used by GNS is flawed, and is much too wide. One of the reasons it's much too wide is that it includes a lot of dramatism.

Whoa.  That is a leap of logic I can't even follow.  It says NOTHING about the width of the definition.  It says only that you'd have less trouble seeing the point of the S decision if it wasn't labeled "Simulationist"

But because its labeled "Simulationist" you bring with you a pack mule full of "Simulationist baggage" that you try to ascribe to the Simulationist decision...which flat out doesn't work and is the source of your discomfort.  I feel confident saying this because I was 100% right there with you.

Basically you just have to pretend that the "S" in GNS really stands for "Shabox" and not "Simulation" (Shabox being a word I just invented and thus has 0 baggage ascribed to it).  

Once you get beyond the realization that "Simulationist" as defined in GNS has very little to do with "Simulation" that us wargamer types have been doing for decades, the theory will make ALOT more sense.

The vocabulary will still be confusing and annoying as hell, but the theory actually works.

Ok. Cool. I agree - the way you jump determines your GNS decision...but in your own decision map, our Dramatist is going
SSSSNSSGSSSSSSNSSSGSSSSSSNSSNSSNSSSSSSSSSS

He's jumping towards Simulationism almost all the time!
So...either
1) Dramatisism is part of simulationism
2) You're calling every decision a critical one, one where you "jump"
3) You're calling every decision which isn't clearly G or N a S decision.

I think 2 and 3 are both true.

Choice 1) once again is confounding GNS with playstyle.  "Simulationism" is its own playstyle (just like Dramatism) that has its own pattern of GNS decisions (with a dominant preponderance, perhaps even exclusive preponderance, of S decisions) and stance choices and exploration emphasis.  That in no way implies that every playstyle that uses a signficant number of S decisions is a subset of "Simulationism".

Choice 3) is basically a logical truism.  Given there are only 3 decisions that theoretically cover all decisions, any decision that is not G or N  IS going to be S.  Similiarly any decision that is not G or S   IS   going to be N and any decision that is not S or N  IS going to be G.   I'm not seeing the problem.

Choice 2) I would say is Theoretically absolutely true...every decision is a decision where you jump, but in practical observation is not always possible to identify.  Again this is what Ron (way ahead of me) called Instances of Play.  An Instant of Play is not only a decision where you jump but its an OBSERVABLE decision where you jump.  It may result from witnessing a series of a dozen jumping decisions that individually cannot be categorized (without mind reading powers) but collectively can be.

Thus...a decision is a decision.   An Instance of Play is however many decisions are required (from 1 to alot) before an outside observer can detect the GNS position at work.

So yes...the THEORY is about individual decisions.  But its at the Instance of Play level that the theory begins to be practically applied.

So...why have you tagged all the "unidentifiable" decisions as Sim ones?

I haven't, save perhaps by the coincidence of hitting keys.  The unobservable ones could be anything, although we may well be able to extrapolate what a probable motivation was for an unobservable decision by comparison to a similiar situation that was observable.

Keep in mind, however, that this isn't a test to be passed or failed by getting a certain number of answers right.  Its merely a theoretical construct that can be used as an evaluation tool.  The goal is to identify a pattern of behavior over time.

If that pattern can be identified by focusing on only 3 critical decisions made over the course of the entire game without even looking at the other 257 decisions that were made, then the tool was successfully used and the theory successfully applied.

We don't need to identify every single molecule in the atmosphere to know that 78% of them are Nitrogen.

We test enough of them to extrapolate that 78% of them are Nitrogen and leave the rest untested.  That doesn't mean that the untested elements are some unknown amorphous thing.  Those untested molecules are still 78% Nitrogen.

Same thing with GNS.  Yes in theory the decision map would be one like I initially drew where every single decision was either G N or S.  But we don't NEED to test every single one of those decisions to determine the underlying pattern, any more than we need to test every single molecule in the atmosphere.  A good many of those decisions are going to remain unidentified.  But they are still going to G N or S, we just haven't observed which for each one.

Any time you make a decision because thats what a character would do is a "Sim" decision.  Any time you make a decision because that is the sort of thing that would happen in the "real world" its a sim decision.

No. Not true. Any time you make a decision because that's what the character would do WHEN THAT DECISION OVERRIDES STORY AND CHALLENGE, that decision is an S decision. Most choices happen in the middle of the triangle, they're composed of aspects of all three extremes.

Your emphasis is entirely added by you, and has nothing at all to do with the GNS theory.  You are creating your own definition of Simulationist Decision, trying to apply it, and then finding it doesn't work.  

I suggest you stop doing that, apply the definition as its actually is, and then it will work.

The source of your problem once again, is mistaking Simulationist decisions for a Simulationist playstyle.  What you wrote is absolutely 100% true of a Simulationist PLAYSTYLE.  It is absolutely 100% NOT true at the atomic decision level described by a Simulationist DECISION.

This is why thread after thread after thread went around in circles and got nowhere.  This is why I've pointed out in other threads that our problem back then is that we were argueing playstyles when the theory was talking about decisions.  We were trying to fit playstyles into 1 of the 3 vertices of the triangle and when they wouldn't fit declare the triangle broken (a triangle we invented BTW).  But that's not what the theory is about, and thats not how we should be trying to use it.

Once again Simulationist decisions  /= Simulationist playstyle.

Its unfortuneate that they both use the word Simulation...but there you go...again think "Shabox decisions" and it won't be so confusing.

Valamir - is there a centre of the triangle? Is every decision wholely and completely one of G, N or S? Can every choice be clearly categorised?

1) There is no triangle.  Ron has never put GNS in a triangle.  We did that, and its an analogy that screwed us all up.

2) Yes EVERY decision is wholey and completely one of G, N or S.
Some choices are Conguent in that they can serve multiple purposes.  Meaning I can make a G decision or an S decision and arrive at the same choice (as in my earlier operative preparing for a mission example).  That choice is Congruent.  The decision is still either G or S depending on why I made it.

Think of it as a multiple choice.  I can choose A or I can choose B.  If I can choose A because of Gamist reasons, and you can choose A because of Simulationist reasons then Choice A is G-S Congruent.  That doesn't change the fact that I made a Gamist decision and you made a Simulationist decision.

3)  No not every choice can be clearly categorized, because not every choice can be observed.  In the above example an outside observor has no way of knowing that I just made a Gamist decision and you just made a simulationist decision unless a) he's a mind reader, or b) we spent a lot of time kibbitzing about it and he was able to extrapolate our motivations from the context of that discussion.


Edited to give props to Walt for intoducing the idea of Congruency in another thread.