What's the Bugaboo About Out of Character Context?

[greyorm]

EDIT: Sorry, Marco, this came out way more snippy sounding than intended, so take the attitude perceived with a grain of salt.

If the definition of a GNS mode of play *requires* more information than you'd find in an IRC channel log then you get some very strange situations.

So?

No, really, so what?
So you can't label the mode of play...and? That has what to do with Narrativism and GNS and whatever?

Isn't that one of the things outside the scope of GNS to deal with?

So, if we lock a bunch of people in a sealed room with instructions to play and never let them out or check on them or observe them, you'll never know what mode of play occurred...that's exactly the sort of "strange idea" you're talking about, play occuring without enough context to label the mode...and?

You can spend your time worrying about trees falling in the forest or how illusory buses get anyone anywhere or not. Your choice. It's not really that interesting or insightful, though...after all, what's the point?

A thought exercise? Well, great, have fun. I'm going to concentrate on the actual application of GNS to real issues.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Marco,

Let me take a stab at this... The idea for you is, what matters is the "text" of the "story"?  Is this right?  Is this why you've made the above claim that greyorm quoted?

Now, if this is true...  And I'm not trying to impose anything on you, just trying to understand -- can you in turn understand that his is not what the Model is about?  It's *not* about the resulting story.  It's about *all* the interactions between the actual people.

This may be why many people are suggesting you're expecting the model to be what it is not.  You want something that sums up the "output" of the players only in terms of Exploration (color, characters and so on) but the Model is about all human interaction pertaining to the group.  (You might want to check out my "I Get It!" thread.)

If this is the case, if you actually want some model that does something with only the Exploration Output Data -- which again, is not what the model is about -- would it make sense to stop suggesting that the current Model is faulty for not providing accurate diagnostics doing something it simply is not designed to do?

Best,
Christopher

[Marco]

Marco,

Hey, I had an idea that might help. Think of it this way:

There is no "in-game." All role-playing is "meta-game." There's no such thing as "in character," because there are no "characters." There's only a bunch of people sitting around imagining.

There are two layers here... what the individual player imagines in his private thoughts, and the group output that consists of the combied expressed thoughts of the group as a whole.

Examining a single participant's contribution to the group output tells you what that participant wants the group output to be like.

And, that's pretty much all there is to it. "What players want" is the same thing as "prioritizing." All GNS does is identify and classify them. GNS is a catlogue of "things to want." If several players simultaneously want incompatible things, then you've got incoherence.

(Emphasis added)

Vincent wrote

And but look at how carefully he says "play priority" and "play preference"! Ron, are you suggesting that many play-priority Simulationists are play-preference Narrativists or Gamists? Who might be, because their play priorities don't match their play preferences, sad?

(emphasis added)

I think there's a common assumption that determining the mode will tell you what the players like and then how to improve the game. But that's based on the idea that:

a) you get it right--that your analysis of the mode jives with their intent. (or preferences, if you must).

b) That they are playing in their preferred mode. I.e. that if Susan plays Simulationist then she *is* a Simulationst (shorthand for "prefers Simulationist play")

As far as I can tell, neither need be true from the model. This is a key example of how I think the model is used in ways that it kinda seems to address ... but definitionally doesn't.

-Marco

[Paganini]

Oy vey. This is long and complicated. Read carefully.

I think there's a common assumption that determining the mode will tell you what the players like and then how to improve the game. But that's based on the idea that:

Marco,

GNS is absolutely about improving play by removing incoherence.

But remember it only works on a case by case basis, or as Ron calls it, an "instance of play." Note that Ron was very careful not to exactly quantify "instance of play" in terms of actual Exploration. I.e., we don't know exactly how much shared reality we have to examine before we can identify a play mode being prioritized. Here's why:

Before we can identify Mode of Play X as being prioritized, Mode of Play X first has to come into conflict with Mode of Play Y, and a player has to choose in favor of Mode of Play X. (Or, of course, the group can pre-agree via social contract that, when a conflict comes up, Mode of Play X will be the de-facto choice.) That's what prioritizing is... choosing one mode of play over another mode of play when a conflict between them exists. It might take 5 sessions before a Mode of Play conflict comes up, or it might take 5 minutes. We just don't know how big an instance of play is, until it actually happens.

If it helps, define "instance of play" as a data set containing an actual play sample sufficiently large to identify a GNS mode being prioritized.

Note that "prioritize" and "prefer" are verbs - things that you do while you play. When you say that a player "prioritizes" Narrativism, it doesn't mean that player is likely to make Narrativist choices next week. It means that, right now, during play, that person is choosing Narrativism over some other mode of play.

In that TQB game a couple of weeks ago I made a bunch of Narrativist decisions. "What I wanted" was Narrativism. I was "prioritizing" the Narrativist mode. I was "prefering" thematic decision points. But you can't say that next week I won't "prefer" Simulationism, or Gamism. We're not talking about an emotional attachment formed to a particular mode of play. It's not about my "personal preference." 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.

This means that GNS analysis is *retroactive,* not *predictive.* It is fundamental that an "instance of play" is ACTUAL PLAY that has REALLY HAPPENED. I's not a vague measure of something that exists only in theoretical thoughtspace. GNS identifies player behavior that has already happened. GNS does not predict future player behavior.

This is why GNS analysis works to fix incoherence. There's no guesswork involved about "what might happen." You look at an instance of play and say, "Aha! There was a problem because Player X prioritized Gamism while Player Y prioritized Simulationism with Exploration of Character." Voila! Next time Player Y will prioritize Gamism. Or player X will prioritize Sim/Char. Or one player will go find a new group to game with. Or whatever solution presents itself. The point is to know what happened, why the problems ocurred, so that future behavior can be altered. *THIS* is where personal preference enters the picture. The player must decide what he wants and take the appropriate action.

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.

[contracycle]

The "intent" "problem" again.  Sigh.  We have discussed this at gereat length, Marco.

I'm at a loss. I would assume that he means that the intent of the player will be born out in the observed behavior and that in functional play that will be assisted by the rest of the group--but Raven and Gareth were two of the major voices arguing that a player can't really know their own mind when it comes to knowing what they intend. This seems like an about face on that whole thread to me.

I have vigorously objected to this mischarectersiation of the point before, and will do so again.  This is a straw man argument: attacking a position the opponent does NOT hold because it is easier to attack than the position the opponent DOES hold.

I have never said that the player CANNOT know their own intent.  I have never claimed that intent does not exist.  I have only claimed that for methodological purposes, SELF-REPORTING OF A MENTAL STATE IS NOT DATA.  There are too many potential reasons that impinge on why a particular players mouth moves and they say "I prefer sim" for us to assume that the self-report is reliable and accurate.  Therefore, I reserve the right to disagree with a players self report.  Behaviour, however, even if subjectively assesed, is at least behaviour and that provides a sounder basis for any decision.  Thats all there is to it.

As far as I can tell, neither need be true from the model. This is a key example of how I think the model is used in ways that it kinda seems to address ... but definitionally doesn't.

Please.  The symbol is not the thing, the symbol only represents the thing.  Thats why we can say the average family has 2.4 children even though 0.4 of a child cannot ever exist.  Thats the only way I can parse this "objection", which appears otherwise nonsensical.

[Marco]

I have vigorously objected to this mischarectersiation of the point before, and will do so again.  This is a straw man argument: attacking a position the opponent does NOT hold because it is easier to attack than the position the opponent DOES hold.

I have never said that the player CANNOT know their own intent.  I have never claimed that intent does not exist.  I have only claimed that for methodological purposes, SELF-REPORTING OF A MENTAL STATE IS NOT DATA.  There are too many potential reasons that impinge on why a particular players mouth moves and they say "I prefer sim" for us to assume that the self-report is reliable and accurate.  Therefore, I reserve the right to disagree with a players self report.  Behaviour, however, even if subjectively assesed, is at least behaviour and that provides a sounder basis for any decision.  Thats all there is to it.

FWIW Re. The Strawman.

In that thread I said all kinds of things like: "I don't think you can know anyone else's intent--no matter what they say. I was pointing out that if I'm the person making the decision I could know my intent behind it ("To win!" eg. Gamist) and therefore observe how well that intent interacted with the game system. I even clarified: not all the time. Self deception can certainly occur--but some of the time, in situations that aren't heated, (weapons selection for a character was an example).

In that thread was pointing out that if the person doing the GNS Categorization is also the decision maker then you have, potentially a uniquely valuable situation to be clear on the situation: You know the intent and you can see the result and you can know how satisfied you were with it.

This is what you said.

Are you really so arrogant as to believe that the complex psychological states that affect so many people leave you alone immune? Are you so arrogant as to assume that you, alone, have the clarity of vision to insightfully inspect your own thoughts and motives without bias or self-endorsement or self-interest.

Then I bow to you, and ask you to go out and heal the sick with the hem of your gown, because this is fucking miraculous.

-Marco

[Alan]

Hi Marco,

I've read this whole thread twice and I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to get at.  It must be important to you to spend so many words on.  So let me share some comments.

If the definition of a GNS mode of play *requires* more information than you'd find in an IRC channel log then you get some very strange situations.

I think you're confusing definition with assessment.  A definition describes the parameters of a vocabulary term.  On the other hand, assement  involves comparing observable events to a definition to see if they fit.

It seems obvious to me that, if one uses a channel that cuts off some observable behaviors, one will have a harder time assessing the activity against a definition.  This doesn't reflect on the model in use.  

Likewise, the fallability of observers and participants doesn't reflect on the model.  The participants may be able to report their own inner process and states accurately, or they may not.  Humans are like that.  For this reason, an observer relies on external behavior.

The observer may also misread or misunderstand behavior and statements.  All this must be admitted when making an assessment.  for this reason, a good observer views their own observations with a level of skepticism - and trusts their observations more the more confirmation they receive from other observations _and_ other observers.

You get games where the protagonists constantly address moral issues but can never be labeled Narrativist. You get games that are constant hack and slash but can't be labeled Gamist. You get games of exploration with neither moral nor challenge issues but they can't be labeled Sim.

Someone else pointed out that the GNS model is not about what the protagonists do in the collective fantasy - it's about what the players do at the moment of creation.

It's perfectly possible that, lacking the behavioral data to assess an instance of play, one might still receive enough data to know the content of the collective fantasy - ie what the protagonists did.  This doesn't reflect on the model, only on the method of observation.

Are you saying that our methods of observation are insufficient?

Or that the model has no testible consequences?

Or is it simply that you'd like more examples of what "observable behavior" is and how such actions are interpreted?

[Ian Charvill]

I think I get where Marco is driving to here, Marco can of course confirm or deny.

No one deny's IRC roleplaying is substantively different from tabletop roleplay - in the way that they might with LARP and CRPGs.  What Marco seems to be worrying at is that IRC seems to contain less GNS diagnostic stuff that other forms of play.

Which might suggest that IRC gaming isn't all that similar as an activity to tabletop roleplaying as we tend to presume or that GNS seems to have a blindspot - that is doesn't apply to roleplaying universally.

I don't want to spend any energy on counterpoints unless that is the point.  Marco, yay or nay?

[Halzebier]

The "intent" "problem" again.  Sigh.  We have discussed this at gereat length, Marco.

C'mon, take it easy. This is an important and unresolved issue for some of us. If you're getting exasperated, let others take the point.

I have only claimed that for methodological purposes, SELF-REPORTING OF A MENTAL STATE IS NOT DATA.  There are too many potential reasons that impinge on why a particular players mouth moves and they say "I prefer sim" for us to assume that the self-report is reliable and accurate.  Therefore, I reserve the right to disagree with a players self report.  Behaviour, however, even if subjectively assesed, is at least behaviour and that provides a sounder basis for any decision.  Thats all there is to it.

Self-reports, even regarding one's own mental state, are most definitely data, albeit problematic data (i.e., tainted by personal perceptions and agendas).

However, the data you get by observing behaviour is often problematic as well. (A fact you note but seem to dismiss.)

Consider satisfaction, for instance.

It's certainly possible to observe related behaviour such as laughter, eye contact, attendance and so on, but unless you go about this in a scientific way (e.g. by analysing a videotaped game), any assessment will be very problematic.

The best way of finding out whether a player was satisfied by a particular game is to ask him. That's not perfect, but I don't see the alternatives here.

(Now, when it comes to analysing *why* he was satisified, things get more difficult. But we shouldn't throw out self-assessment, but rather *combine* it with our observations.)

Also, I daresay that those interested in serious discussion of roleplaying games may be able to improve their own self-assessment (by being aware of aspects which cloud perception and so on).

*-*-*

At this point, intent isn't accounted for by the model. I can see why people might get aggravated when others try to use the model in ways it was not intended for, but I also sympathize with these attempts, as I consider intent to be of prime importance in analysing roleplaying and am somewhat frustrated that it isn't adequately expressed as yet.

(My apologies if I am covering old ground here; I am reading up on old threads, but there are so many posts I'm having a hard time catching up.)

Regards,

Hal

[Ron Edwards]

Excuse me, but "intent" is accounted for in the model.

You are free to insert the term wherever and however you see fit in order to clarify to yourself what's going on. As long as you don't replace or dismiss any of the other terms, it's no big deal.

I say this over and over. Few people seem to read anything except "Ron says there's no 'intent' involved," and go "aaacckk!"

Best,
Ron

[Matt Snyder]

Huh. See, here I am amid a flurry of posts and threads, placing stakes in the ground, defending this, decrying that. And you know what? I'm still learning. I'm happy to admit that, and I made a (hopefully) conciliatory post today to Marco about labeling.

So, Ron, I'm still learning, even though I'm pretty confident on a lot of issues. Can you help me with this intent business. Specifically, I want to know, when and where are people (and I don't care whom) -- especially lately -- misapplying intent?

Similarly, I know at least one post you made in reply to John Kim that said, "Sure, call that intent. That's perfectably acceptable and compatible with what I've said." I'm not sure at all what you meant there. Can you clarify?

In other words, I'm begging for a more detailed clarification of intent, if you're willing. Or, should all this stuff just have to wait 'til the Nar. essay? Maybe that's for the best!

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Matt,

See Behavior vs. Intention for some background.

My only claim is that "intent" cannot be used as a unique explanatory term, in the model.

Anyone can point to any single term in the model, or any set or sequence of terms, and say "There's the intent!" That is 100% cool beans.

It is not valid to omit a term (and its qualities) and replace it with "intent." Nor is it valid to place "intent" into the model to play a unique role of its own.

But otherwise, hey, be happy and apply as you see fit. I have no doubt that people will do so in a wide variety of ways, but given the parameters I describe here, it shouldn't mean a thing to keep us from being on the same page.

Best,
Ron

[Matt Snyder]

Ok, actually, that helps quite a bit, Ron. Thanks.

EDIT: Wanted to also say that I had completely forgotten about that thread. Thanks for the link -- it should be insightfull "looking back" like that.