quick clarification: loving each CA

[kwill]

in the discussion I've been following about the box model, I want to verify where we're at in terms of "preference" and support for different CAs

as I recall the GDS model basically supposed Dramatism as where roleplaying *should* be

in GNS we've engaged each CA, Ron has even written great skeleton games for his essays, but there's still talk of preferences; now, as long as you let me know where we were going - "this game has a Setting Simulationist focus", "this has a Gamist engine" - I'd be happy to try out any game, no matter the CA (not the same as wanting to prioritize all modes in a single game)

is this just my broad taste, where others have stronger preferences, or are we talking about each player having a specific preference that must be catered for, including not being in your group/trying your game?

[John Kim]

in the discussion I've been following about the box model, I want to verify where we're at in terms of "preference" and support for different CAs

as I recall the GDS model basically supposed Dramatism as where roleplaying *should* be

Just a note: if you're talking about the rgfa Threefold model, this really isn't true.  The posters who bought into the Threefold on rgfa tended to cluster around Simulationism, not Dramatism (though this is very different from Ron's "Simulationism").  However, they were also adamant that actually any point on the triangle was valid.  This should hopefully come through in the old FAQ that I have on my http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/">Threefold Model page.  

The Threefold was also different in that there wasn't any concept of "incoherence".  That is, it was generally believed that any hybrid was possible.  The model said that there were trade-offs between the modes, but that didn't mean it wasn't valid and fun to have 50/50 Sim and Drama, say.  In fact, a number of people preferred the middle of the triangle and thought that the extreme points (i.e. pure Gamism or Dramatism or Simulationism) was too limited.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

John's nailed the quick-corrections necessary for discussing this issue (not that you need my confirmation, John, just lettin' you know I appreciate it).

I have discovered that my tastes and preferences in role-playing have expanded dramatically since getting the key features of the model straight in my mind over the last three or four years. There are still a few sorts I'm not too keen on, but most significantly, there are brands of play within all three basic modes that I'm now very enthusiastic about.

Best,
Ron

[kwill]

thanks -- sorry about the misrepresentation john!

[Emily Care]

Hopefully this is not too terrible OT:
With Ron's streamlined model, and the way talk is moving now to center on CA, rather than g/n/s, it has seemed to me that we've made a progression in theory (with respect to the three modes anyway):

Threefold (GDS): certain differences of play preferences identified.
GNS: conflicts arising from specific differences of preferences elaborated.
CA: preferences generalized as creative agenda, the simple fact of having them seen as fundamental to act of roleplaying--regardless of what the specific, individual agenda may be.

--Em