Things NOT GNS (including g, n, and s)

[AnyaTheBlue]

Ralph,

I think I disagree with you, too, and on grounds similar to Gordon.

I suspect the tree goes something like:

Code Select Expand


                              +-> Gamism
Social Contract -> Exploration +-> Narrativism
                              +-> Simulationism



And I strongly believe that what you are trying to describe is the 'haft' of the trident.  Which is 'just' exploration.  I put the word in quotes because I don't personally think it's 'just'.  I think what you are thinking about is the presence of the activity of Exploration in the absence of G, N, or S.  That's not the same as a kind of Simulation.

I believe Ron stated somewhere that he believes this stage to not be RolePlaying, and that as soon as someone says something, as soon as the game starts to play, then there is some Agenda in existence beyond the lone presence of Exploration.

I think I understand this, and why he says it.  I'm not entirely convinced that play can't happen here, but that's beside the point.  I think that's what GNS is saying.  I certainly agree that the 'haft' of the trident is not coeval with G, N and S.

One way to think about it is probably to say that GNS indicates three kinds or flavors of Exploration: G, N, or S.  So Exploration isn't really a 'stem' or foundation or seperate state -- it's a category, and the kind of Exploration you have is G Exploration, N Exploration or S Exploration.  It's like Vanilla.  It's 'plain', but it's still a flavor.  You can't have flavorless ice cream, just as you can't have Agendaless Exploration.

That's what my reading of this and previous discussions has suggested to me, anyway.

[Valamir]

Ralph,

So - Sim1 rejects Prioritization?  Not Explore as a Priority, just Explore? That doesn't make any sense to me - if Explore is something you do (as a group), it's not a "just" any more.

I never said that.  This "just" word is becoming quite the red herring.

Sim1 is pure unadulterated Exploration.  I have no idea where you're getting "rejects Prioritization" from.

I think the lack of any agenda beyond Exploration (including the agenda of Prioritizing the Exploration) is . . . unlikely.

I can't even understand this sentence.  If you are doing nothing but Exploration how is it possible to "Prioritize" Exploration any more than that?  I mean, what does that even look like?

I'm over here busily exploring.  I'm assiduously avoiding anything that even smells like Step on Up, or Story Now, or Invention.  What more do I have to do to earn the "Prioritize" label.  It looks pretty prioritized to me.

[Gordon C. Landis]

I'm over here busily exploring.  I'm assiduously avoiding anything that even smells like Step on Up, or Story Now, or Invention.  What more do I have to do to earn the "Prioritize" label.  It looks pretty prioritized to me.

OK - but now I'm back to the begining of the argument.  How is that not fully The Dream, as described and discussed previously?  You're right, it is pretty prioritized - which is why it (labeled Sim/The Dream) fits in next to Story Now and Step on Up.  Invention  . . . hm, a seperate question as to if it belongs as a new Priority category or is merely part of Technique.  But I'm not seeing any support for Sim1 (on its own or as a subset of another category) living anywhere but right up next to Nar and Game.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, and I'm really OK with us just disagreeing - but it seems to me that there might be something about the nature of your argument that I'm missing.

Gordon

[Valamir]

I'm over here busily exploring.  I'm assiduously avoiding anything that even smells like Step on Up, or Story Now, or Invention.  What more do I have to do to earn the "Prioritize" label.  It looks pretty prioritized to me.

OK - but now I'm back to the begining of the argument.  How is that not fully The Dream, as described and discussed previously?  You're right, it is pretty prioritized - which is why it (labeled Sim/The Dream) fits in next to Story Now and Step on Up.  

You're righ I think it is time to let the issue go for awhile and people muse over it more.

But I'll endeavor to clarify my key point.

Story Now and Step on Up are Exploration PLUS something
Sim1 is Exploration plus nothing

That's the difference.

Sim2 on the other hand IS Exploration plus something.  That something being the added commitment towards Invention.  I'm not just exploring the world, I'm helping to create it.

That "plus something" is why I believe Sim2 fits next to Step on Up and Story now.  All three are then Exploration plus something (that something being the "creative agenda").

Sim1 is plus nothing and that makes it the odd man out.  Basic math tells me that Exploration plus Nothing = Exploration.  Therefor I think Sim1 is roleplaying that hasn't seen the need to go beyond that fundamental root of all roleplaying, Exploration, and therefor belongs located back at that root.

We may not agree on it, and thats fine...we can always discuss it in another thread down the road...but does that clarify where I'm drawing the distinction.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Ralph,

Yup - point of disagreement now clear.  I'd say there is no exploration plus nothing - it's all exploration plus Prioritization.  Maybe Exploration plus Prioritization of Invention is suficiently distinct from Exploration plus Prioritization of The Dream to be another category at that level - though I don't think that's been demonstrated yet - but I see Sim1 as basically the same kind of thing as Nar or Game.  Just a different area of Prioritization.

So I'd say that issue just needs to sit, for now.

Gordon

[M. J. Young]

Ralph (who is among those here whose opinions I most respect) is suggesting that there is a distinction between simulation without invention and simulation with invention.

I don't see it.

Let us submit a theoretical game in which anyone can at any moment add anything to the world; it is a fully inventive game with high emphasis on exploring the dream as it is corporately created.

Let us now alter this, so that invention of world details is limited to the referee, and the players don't invent anything--except they do, don't they? They create their characters, and continue to express and expand those creations through in-play decisions. Thus they are still being inventive, and the referee the more so.

We can take away all that invention from the referee by giving it to the game designer; that still means someone is being inventive, it's just not someone currently at the table. Still, even if the referee is completely uninventive and does nothing but read the game book text aloud, the players are still creating and expanding their characters.

Can we take away all invention from players? Yes; but when we do, we have either a book or a script, neither of which fit our understanding of a role playing game.

Zero invention doesn't exist; if there is no "off" point for it, then you're looking for a point on a continuum. If it's a point on a continuum, either we argue forever how to identify the breakpoint between minimal invention and moderate invention, or we admit that really it's not a distinguishing feature of a core type of play.

Sorry Ralph; I can't agree with you on this one.

--M. J. Young

[Valamir]

Let us now alter this, so that invention of world details is limited to the referee, and the players don't invent anything--except they do, don't they? They create their characters, and continue to express and expand those creations through in-play decisions. Thus they are still being inventive, and the referee the more so.

Ahh, but there's the rub, are they really?  Are they really inventing their character as they play.  I'm not talking about character creation which exists before actual play begins...I mean during actual play.

See, I spent alot of words trying to demonstrate that characters don't exist, and when I did that, there were alot of people who challenged that notion saying that while they of course do not truly exist, for many they are a close enough approximation of existance such that during play they are actually channelling their character.

So I ask you, are the choice this player is makeing for his character during play actually inventing the character.  Or is the player treating the character as if it already exists as a complete person and what they are doing is interpreting it.  They may well be enhancing their understanding of this character through play, I've been told that they can even be surprised by the answer to the question "what would my character do?".  At this point are they inventing?  I'd say no.  Because if they are, then we are back to characters don't exist as I proposed it and to heck with all of the people who are just fooling themselves otherwise.  

OR we acknowledge that while its true characters don't really exist, for some the enjoyment comes from pretending that they do and treating them as if they really were living breathing entities waiting to be portrayed by the player.  What has been called "channelling".  

A player cannot both invent and channel at the same time.  The very idea of channeling presupposes that the character already exists...there must be something for the player to channel.

So no I would not say that all players are being "inventive" (in the sense Walt and I have been discussing) simply because they are playing their character.  You can play your character without the active meta agenda of invention.  A half dozen threads were full of angry posters railing at me for daring to suggest otherwise.

[Mike Holmes]

Nobody ever said that the character exists sans the player. It's only a feeling. Of course the player is inventing it as he goes. The act of "channeling" is a creative act. It's just one that feels different from authoring.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I agree with everyone's input over the last few threads, and if I'm not mistaken, there was a smidgeon of a call to let this one end.

Ralph? Going once, going twice ...

Best,
Ron

[Gordon C. Landis]

Ralph and Mike just teased out another way of looking at the agree-to-disagree point (channeling is or isn't invention), which I guess is useful, but if being the thread-starter means anything - looks to me like we're at the end, too.  

Gordon

[Ron Edwards]

Oops, I meant Gordon. Damn threads confused me as to who started which.

End o'thread, then. Good one, too.

Best,
Ron