I Get It! (I think)

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi All,

Okay.  Thanks to Marco and John's replies to my question about OOC bugaboos, I think something has snapped into place.

A lot of this is old hand even to me.  And a lot of it might be absolutely clear to you all.  But something clicked for me a few moments ago that brings the whole point of all of this into new clarity.

Some people see the whole GNS thing as a labelling machine.  A tool to determine who's playing what kind of game, so we know what "kind" of people we're playing with, we know what kind of game we're making.

Now, anyone who's gone through the GNS graduate degree progam knows this has nothing to do with anything.  GNS isn't about labelling people.

But then, what is it?

For me, today, it's a diagnostic for determining if a group's Social Contract, Creative Agenda and Exploration are being met.  It is also, importantly the manifestation of Social Contract, Creative Agenda, and Exploration.  That's why the GNS stuff is part of the "verb" of the model.

When we sit around trying to figure out if "GNS" (a tiny, tiny part of the model in my imagination all of the sudden) is "scoring" a game's play correctly, we're just missing the whole boat.  

According to the model, we've got, a group of human beings with a Social Contract (that's either been worked out or not), who've gathered with their Exploration elements (characters, setting, whatnot), and a Creative Agenda.  Once they start to play they're either going to be doing Sim things, Gamist things, or Narrativist things (whether mindful of them or not.)  That's it.  These three ways of prioritizing decisions are simply going to manifest the Social Contract, Exploration, and the Creative Agenda.  

If the first three elements are vaugue (or even in conflict) with the player's expectations, then there's a chance that the making of the game (the "verb"; the choice of GNS priorities) is going to get muddled and reach conflict.  Thus, the game isn't G, N or S -- there are just the instances of play that are these things.  The GNS part of the model suggests that if manifestation of play is grouped tighter around one of these three modes of play, there will be less strain on the group, and probably a better time had by all.

But not because they're playing G, N or S, but because they're manifesting a shared Creative Agenda, having fun Exploring stuff they've all agreed upon, and, here's the important one, manifesting a Social Contract they all enjoy.

The purpose of the model is to lay this stuff out on the table -- so, if need be -- everyone can be mindful of what's going on.  That is, make choices about Social Contract, Exloration and Creative Agneda.  Thus, if a game feels off, one can review all the element of behavior during play.  If it becomes clear that the GNS stuff was all over the map (or two people were playing tug of war between Sim and Gamist) one could work backard through the model, perhaps even reaching Social Contract, and ask, "Exactly, why did I show up at that game last Friday?  Why are we doing this?"

Because the model isn't just about play (which is tucked gently in the middle of the Venn diagram).  It's about the whole kaboodal of why we'd do this, who we're doing it with, and how we want to do it.

Yes?

Best,

Christopher

[edited second paragraph from a run on sentence down to three sentences.]

[Matt Snyder]

Yes, agreed, Christopher! You've done a superb job, in my mind, of summing this up. And, you've done it in a way that, hopefully, is helpful to other people "on the precipice" must like you were up to writing this!

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Yup, that's the idea.

The typical problems in working out unsatisfying play, or in trying to reach more satisfying play (not necessarily the same thing), are:

1. Trying to deal with it by adding or subtracting Techniques.

2. Trying to deal with it by focusing on the imagined outcomes (what a character did, what happened when this happened, would the council really have decided that, etc), which is to say, staying with the Exploration per se.

... both of which are missing the "verb" element of the Creative Agenda and thus are not able to link all the layers/levels/boxes of the model together.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

Well, that's not what it is for me.

I don't see GNS as a labeling system. I see part of it as a useful way of categorizing player decisions. Useful in that if I know the kind of decision that was made I can then see how other players, the game rules, etc. react with that.

But it's not a way of categorizing decisions. It's a way of describing what you think you saw at the table. This creates several problems.

a. People keep using it to describe the motivation behind decisions (Matt does this. Raven does this. People will, I predict, continue to do this because that's where the real value is--who cares if you diagnose a game as Sim? What's the value? It says nothing about how or why people were engaged, just how you *think* they were) and assuming the observed behavior will keep up (raven says there's context, I see the context, I don't think I buy it).*

I think the extreme vaguenss surrounding the techniques an analyst uses to categorize actual play is very, very telling.

I can only conclude the reason other people don't see that is because they have no problem analyzing the play--but that doesn't make it seem more rigorous to me. If anything it appears that the analyst will see nothing more than what he expects to see and the lack of criteria for observing, say "Exploration of character" makes it all in the eye of the beholder.

With a continuing lack of any concrete examples of how to make a G/N/Sdetermination, I can only wonder what I'd be expected to think.

b. The analysis between Sim and Nar (as exemplifed in Matt's example) looks completely subjective to me. I can look at any story and see multiple themes expressed there. I just ran a game in IRC--with OOC information. Looking at it, I can't classify the play in any way that's meaningful to me. Sure, I can say "looks like Exp of Situation--" but that's always what it looks like to me.

-Marco

[Matt Snyder]

But it's not a way of categorizing decisions. It's a way of describing what you think you saw at the table. This creates several problems.

Marco, it's only a problem if what you think you saw at the table isn't indeed what you think you saw. If what happens IS what you "think" you saw, what's the problem? That's all there is to go on. Sure, you'll be wrong, but -- as I've been saying -- with some confidence, some experience you'll learn to cope and understand what's happening. This ain't empirical science.

a. People keep using it to describe the motivation behind decisions (Matt does this. Raven does this.

No, Matt does not do this. Dimes to dollars says Raven does not either. Marco's reading is such that he thinks Matt and Raven do this. I do not describe the motivations behind the decisions, Marco. That's intent. Don't put words in my mouth, and don't point to my post and say "Aha! But you do." No, I don't. You've misunderstood. I don't know how, at this point, to make it clearer for you. This is precisely what the model does not do. I've read your post in the other thread regarding how you see my examples as "broken." Naturally, I disagree, and I'll have to give some thought as to how to address your concern. Right now, I really don't know what to say that will change your mind in that regard. I truly am trying to think of a way to better explain my position.

People will, I predict, continue to do this because that's where the real value is--who cares if you diagnose a game as Sim? What's the value? It says nothing about how or why people were engaged, just how you *think* they were) and assuming the observed behavior will keep up (raven says there's context, I see the context, I don't think I buy it).*

So long as the "perceived" behavior keeps up, what's the problem, Marco? That's all there is that matters! You're equating "perceived" with "phony." There is a negative connotation on your part there. I think that's a mistake. Human behavior, stuff that people -- not their characters -- do and say, even when those human beings say stuff to describe what their characters are doing is behavior that you perceive. If all this behavior, all this "Stuff" (sound familiar?) keeps happening, then what the heck else do you need to know? It's real, it's happening. It keeps happening.

Once it's happened, you assess it, analyze it, think about it, evaluate it, make play more conducive to it if you can, or change it if you think your group needs change. But don't bother worrying about intent. It'll get you no where. Just worry about this "stuff" that keeps happening. That's all there is to go on! Guess what?

You'll be wrong, inevitably, when discussing this "stuff" with your group or here at the Forge. You'll forget something, miss something, remember something wrong, hear something wrong, whatever. I was wrong assessing my own play (and design) often. I get over it. That you talking about it or evaluating means you might be wrong some of the time is not a problem with the model, it's a problem with your application of it.

Marco, it's subjective to you. You've pointed to examples of your own actual play, as did John Kim. Both of you were met with, "Yeah, we discussed those. Based on what we had to go on they appeared to be X or Y. What's the problem?" You guys' argument seems to boil down to, "I can't tell." Others are saying they can. So which is it? There's the rub.

Can you think of examples wherein it might be challenging to determine whether play has generally priortized Gamism or Simulationism? I can. You're not posting about that, so what's the problem here? Does the problem boil down to, "I, Marco, am generally unable to tell the difference"? If that's the case, get in line! I'm right there with you. Have patience. Accept that this is not mathematics.

I can only conclude the reason other people don't see that is because they have no problem analyzing the play--but that doesn't make it seem more rigorous to me. If anything it appears that the analyst will see nothing more than what he expects to see and the lack of criteria for observing, say "Exploration of character" makes it all in the eye of the beholder.

What level of "Ok, that's enough for me, Marco, to agree with these other folks" is necessary? It seems to me that many folks are saying it's sufficient. That they can distinguish between Sim. and Nar. You literally have said you can't distinguish. So, you claim that the model isn't, on this particular point, good enough. I'm not seeing it that way.

b. The analysis between Sim and Nar (as exemplifed in Matt's example) looks completely subjective to me. I can look at any story and see multiple themes expressed there. I just ran a game in IRC--with OOC information. Looking at it, I can't classify the play in any way that's meaningful to me. Sure, I can say "looks like Exp of Situation--" but that's always what it looks like to me.

Marco, I'm begging you to answer these questions honestly. Do you have a personal preference, a bias toward Simulationist games? Do you find that you "like" the idea of Simulationist games more than others? Do you classify yourself as a Simulationist? How do you know? Or, do you do so because others have told you that's likely what you are? Simmilarly, to you think Narrativism is not as much to your liking? Do you find something, however slight, distasteful in Narrativism? If the answer to these things is "Nah, I like all of the above games," then that's great. But I raise the point because I sense a bias on you part when you say:

" Looking at it, I can't classify the play in any way that's meaningful to me. Sure, I can say "looks like Exp of Situation--" but that's always what it looks like to me."

That is, when you say "that [Sim exploration of situation] is what this stuff always looks like to me" you very much seem to be predisposed to that type of gaming. Maybe that's just because you've done that more often. But I wonder we're getting the full story from you. Maybe we are, in which case, fine. But you seem to be very much arguing from the position that "Yeah, but Sim. can do that, too!"

In other words, is this a case of "Shit, I'm playing Narrativist!"? How do you know?

[John Kim]

Marco, it's subjective to you. You've pointed to examples of your own actual play, as did John Kim. Both of you were met with, "Yeah, we discussed those. Based on what we had to go on they appeared to be X or Y. What's the problem?" You guys' argument seems to boil down to, "I can't tell." Others are saying they can. So which is it? There's the rub.  

Really, I don't feel like I'm being told consistent answers.  At times, people will say "Look, that's easy -- it's Vanilla Nar.  Why don't you just accept it?  Just read the 'Shit! I'm playing Narrativist' section."   Then other times people will say "Look, you're clearly playing Sim.  What's the big deal?  That is a valid way to play, too."  

A few people have characterized me as being contrary -- either as clinging to Sim as a label because I missed the Nar bus, or resisting Sim as a label.  I really don't get that.  Honestly, I'd be happy with either as a result of analysis.  It's not like I'm angling to identify with either.  However, it seems that as soon as I pick up either mode, people say I should be the other one.  

Marco, I'm begging you to answer these questions honestly. Do you have a personal preference, a bias toward Simulationist games? Do you find that you "like" the idea of Simulationist games more than others? Do you classify yourself as a Simulationist? How do you know? Or, do you do so because others have told you that's likely what you are? Simmilarly, to you think Narrativism is not as much to your liking? Do you find something, however slight, distasteful in Narrativism? If the answer to these things is "Nah, I like all of the above games," then that's great.  

(This is to Marco, but you've referenced me as well, so I'll throw in my answers.)  

As I said, I'm pretty much happy with either as the result of analysis. I see nothing at all distasteful in Narrativism as it is defined, but then I don't see anything distasteful in Simulationism either.  Like Marco, I don't see a necessary conflict between, say, exploration of character and addressing moral premise.  It seems to me that internal moral conflict is an excellent tool for exploration of character.  

There are some things which might count as bias.  The published game systems which I have enjoyed most are ones which have been classified as Simulationist -- notably HERO System and Ars Magica.  I'm also pretty partial to James Bond 007 and now Buffy the Vampire Slayer.  I have played a number of games classed as Narrativist, including Over the Edge, Prince Valiant, and HeroQuest.  However, I have not been thrilled by the results.  

I should mention that I did align mainly with Threefold Simulationism on rec.games.frp.advocacy (varying from 50% to 99% Sim) -- but that is a very different beast from GNS Simulationism.  Threefold Sim is a method of decision-making, i.e. a strategy or technique for running games.  It was based on conscious intent/methodology, not on possibly-subconscious behaviors.  I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the rgfa Simulationists (like, say, Mary Kuhner) would be considered Narrativist in GNS.

[Marco]

John, I agree completely. Whole post, I think. I have absolutely zero attachment to sim play, As I said, I got a pretty strong vibe it must be sim-play because the games that seemed to work perfectly for me were Sim.

And while *I* can see where *I* was responding and engaged in moral questions during play, I've no idea if anyone else could. And I couldn't point to any specific reinforcement of answering those moral questions over, say, exploration of character or situation--the GM and group seemed to be pretty supportive no matter what I did.

-Marco

[pete_darby]

I'm getting this odd picture of Marco playing via IRC, smirking to himself, with a thought bubble "Ha! I'm playing nar, but they all think I'm playing sim, and they'll never know..."

Probably followed by a cackle, a twirl of his moustachios and him disappearing into the fog with a grand sweep of his cape...

I thought, and I may be wrong, that the creative agenda was what was demonstrated through play: hence what you think your doing is, afaics, pretty irrelevant to finding out what your doing. If it's sim play, then it's sim play, no matter whether the intention was nar, sim or gam. If you've got nar itches which you're fulfilling in your mental play-space, but is expressed in the shared play space through sim-identical play, re-inforcement etc, then the play is sim.

Isn't that what the model is talking about, fulfillment of agenda through play? How you're fulfilling your agenda through mental processes that inform play lie outside the model. Informing SC and CA, but outside it.

In Marco's examples, his nar decision making process is informing sim play, but not making it nar play: if it's expressed in sim terms, without making expressions among the players that promote a nar agenda, then the play is sim.

BTW, we're still getting hung up on "Game X is a sim game, so if I like games like X, I'm probably a sim gamer." Any rpg can be played in any mode, even if it's not supportive of it. "Sim" games are especially open to drift to nar and gam agendas, as they're designed to support the explorative substrate of all CA's. I've had Pendragon pulled all three ways in one campaign, I'm using HeroQuest for pretty darn simmy play atm, and I've even seen a couple of mad fools using Paranoia for Nar play.

System matters because the contained techniques and exploration level "stuff" can support specific creative agenda or not, but each CA can be wrung out of any system. Painfully sometimes, but it can be done.

So never mind what you were playing, or what you were thinking, what were you and the other players doing?

[Matt Snyder]

Good point, Pete. I'm with you on the "it's the doing, not the thinking or even, necessarily, the specific game you were 'playing.' "

You know, Paganini (Nathan, right?) raised an excellent point in another thread, and I was going to call off my dogs on Marco in light of that. He's already answered the questions, which is fine. I think you've (Pete) presented one very likely reading of Marco's situation.

The whole personal preference issue is a a red herring. I might say "I like to make Narrativist choices." But that doesn't mean I don't also like to make Gamist and Simulationist choices, given the appropriate context. We're talking about what I actually do when I'm playing the game. If I make choices in favor of the Narrativist mode, then I'm preferring Narrativism.

Well said. He also said:

GNS is a strong tool in this respect, because it allows players to clearly identify their options. It also means that players may enjoy modes of play that they would not previously, because they now "get the point" of that mode of play. This last feature, I think, is often overlooked, and is in my opinion one of the most important effects of GNS. It allows people to have fun doing things that they might not have otherwise had fun doing.

This has been my own personal experience. I was, plainly, mis-using the model for a long time, effectively "believing" I was a "narrativist." By which, I mean, I thought there were no or rare instances in which I could enjoy those darn "gamist" games, for example. Boy, was I wrong. I recently have been playing some tried and true Gamist games, and LOVING it. Step on up, indeed! The model was helpful in showing me, a guy who really, really enjoys it when Narrativist "stuff" happens in a game, to step on up and enjoy the hell out of a game in which balls-to-the-wall gamist "stuff" happened.

So, I'm ashamed that I've asked Marco (and in answering, John Kim) to label themselves. Sorry guys. My purpose, I think, was to clear the air of any bias -- forcing all of us to air out any dark corners we didn't like to venture to. There seem to be none, and as I've said, that's great.

Marco, I think we covered one area of this ground already. You say when you're playing, you were "responding and engaged in moral questions during play" but you recognize no special reinforcement for that. As I said in another thread, one possible -- perhaps even likely answer -- is that there is an incoherence of priorities. That is, the group MAY have something of an identity crisis on what deserves rewards. This may be functional, but it may not. My experience and my observations have been that in such groups, everyone says they're perfectly fine and having fun. But, they find out in more "coherent" play that they have an order of magnitude more fun. Often, in this "everyone says it's cool," I find that everyone's just saying that for everyone else's sake. In fact, they would love it if play focused on the mode they want Right Now. Instead of having, oh, 60% fun, they might have 95% fun. Guess which one I'd pick? (And, Marco, I emphatically disagree that only "texts" can be incoherent -- I think play can, too).  

And with that, guys, I really don't know where or what to discuss. I do indeed agree with Christopher's assessment above (first post of this thread), and I stand by what I've said. (Except, you know, where I said I was wrong and apologized. Funny that!) But, I really don't know what else to tell Marco and John specifically regarding their (well, Marco's at least) inability to distinguish on this particular matter. Marco, there are several points left unanswered, which is fine. I'm still interested to know whether Sim vs. Gam. analogs help clarify the matter for you, for example. But, I've said my bit. I'll gladly respond to specific questions, but in the mean time I'm dizzy from dipping my toe in many whirlpools.