thesis : the two approaches to RPG player enjoyment goals

[Doctor Xero]

After reading (and participating in) the various posts involving cooperative and competitive gaming, the purpose of fantastical races in FRPGs (and SFRPGs), and some of the G/N/S concerns, I think I have discerned two different visions of player enjoyment goal in RPGs.

According to one vision, the player's enjoyment goal is interactive -- specifically to interact with the campaign (including setting, NPCs, perhaps plot or storyline) and through it with the other players.  According to this vision, the player's enjoyment comes from having something against which and through which to interact, something stable and coherent with at least the illusion of pre-existence, although this interaction may range from competitive interaction (monsters or even other player-characters against which to battle) to dramatic interaction (tragedies and figures against which the player can enact her or his character).  The campaign may be fairly responsive, the grounding or stage for impromptu activity, or fairly unresponsive, not unlike many computer games.  One gaming group member is assigned the task/privilege of constructing and bringing to life this campaign against which to interact -- we call this gaming group member the game master.

According to the other vision, the player's enjoyment goal is independent -- specifically to independently create the campaign elements (including perhaps setting, NPCs, plot or storyline) with structure imposed only by group consensus (which may include competitive veto power over the player's additions to campaign or her or his character's actions) and by social contract, including any consensually determined story structure restrictions or consensually accepted game mechanics.  Interaction is with the occasional restrictions enacted by group consensus, not with a pre-formed or unchanging campaign, and a player's inclination alone determines whether she or he has any interaction with any other player or with any other player's imaginative constructs.  There is no need for a game master, and a game master might be seen as a disruption of each individual player's independent creative expression.

Most game systems exist somewhere on a spectrum between these two visions, although most traditional RPGs are closer to the vision of interaction while most GMless RPGs are closer to the vision of independence.

I'm not trying to state which is superior; I'm trying to discern a pattern of approaches to RPGs -- and through this a perspective within which some of the RPG controversies on this forum (and others) become clearer.

Does this schema seem to accurately encapsulate the two visions?

Doctor Xero

[RDU Neil]

Not being one of the "big brains" around here (I feel more like Ben Grimm than Reed Richards on these boards) I think you are close to at least MY gaming experience.

In another thread, I over reacted to a discussion of games that you have detailed as Vision of Independence... rather than Interaction.  This did come from my rather limited experience with VoIND games, which I found petty, solipsistic and frustrating.  

I come from a solidly Simulationist bent (if my tenuous understanding of GNS is correct) and expect and desire Vision of Interaction in my games, whether playing or GMing.  I totally see the need for players to exhibit influence over situations and story... but in the end, it is the GMs game.  A good GM should make an VoINT game FEEL like a VoIND, because s/he is effective at incorporating player actions/decisions into their overall story.  

It is the GM's game... but the players have influence and decision making power.  Maybe "First among equals" is my feeling of how a good GM should present themselves.

[Mike Holmes]

I think that this notion pertains strongly to what John Kim was saying in an essay on Narrative Paradigms.

It's also akin to what I see as the "beeg horseshoe" axis that runs perpendicular to the GN one. Basically how invested are you in the notion that the character has some functional reality of a sort in the fictional reality.

Mike

[John Kim]

I think that this notion pertains strongly to what John Kim was saying in an essay on Narrative Paradigms.

It's also akin to what I see as the "beeg horseshoe" axis that runs perpendicular to the GN one. Basically how invested are you in the notion that the character has some functional reality of a sort in the fictional reality.

Yes, I see some relation.  I develop the idea a little further in my essay for the Solmukohta 2004 book.  (I'll put it online at some point, but for the moment I'll encourage buying the book.)  

A key point from that essay is about identification.  In classical theatrical drama, an audience member identifies with the protagonist played by an actor.  So you identify with a character external to you.  Thus the playwright and the actor both work to externalize that character's emotions to the audience.  But in some RPGs, the player identifies with his own PC, which makes it an internal process.  This changes the dynamic of how the story works.

So there may be relation between storytelling with external; and experiential with internal.

[Doctor Xero]

I think that this notion pertains strongly to what John Kim was saying in an essay on Narrative Paradigms.

Wow!  It's very similar!  I wish that this had been brought to my attention during the GMless-versus-GMed discussions/battles.

It's also akin to what I see as the "beeg horseshoe" axis that runs perpendicular to the GN one. Basically how invested are you in the notion that the character has some functional reality of a sort in the fictional reality.

I concur.  I would extend it to include the idea of how invested are you in the notion that the setting (including NPCs and environment) has some functional reality of a sort in the fictional reality.

A good GM should make an VoINT game FEEL like a VoIND, because s/he is effective at incorporating player actions/decisions into their overall story.  

It is the GM's game... but the players have influence and decision making power.  Maybe "First among equals" is my feeling of how a good GM should present themselves.

I agree completely!

Since I find interaction far more interesting (perhaps because, as a scholar, I spend a lot of research time in independent not interactive activity, and most teaching while interactive is not a "first among equals" experience, alas), I prefer the VoINT game more.  In that way, I guess I'd be seen as a stodgy traditionalist by some of the VoIND enthusiasts in these fora.

Doctor Xero

[Mike Holmes]

Since I find interaction far more interesting (perhaps because, as a scholar, I spend a lot of research time in independent not interactive activity, and most teaching while interactive is not a "first among equals" experience, alas), I prefer the VoINT game more.  In that way, I guess I'd be seen as a stodgy traditionalist by some of the VoIND enthusiasts in these fora.

What games have you played that would convince you of this? I see a lot of people claim that they wouldn't like this sort of game without even trying it. I don't mean to sound like your mother, but have you played InSpectres?

Mike

[greyorm]

I totally see the need for players to exhibit influence over situations and story... but in the end, it is the GMs game.  A good GM should make an VoINT game FEEL like a VoIND, because s/he is effective at incorporating player actions/decisions into their overall story.

Query: isn't that simply Illusionism? What you are describing sounds, to me, exactly what I would describe Illusionist play as.

[RDU Neil]

I totally see the need for players to exhibit influence over situations and story... but in the end, it is the GMs game.  A good GM should make an VoINT game FEEL like a VoIND, because s/he is effective at incorporating player actions/decisions into their overall story.

Query: isn't that simply Illusionism? What you are describing sounds, to me, exactly what I would describe Illusionist play as.

Please define "illusionist" or point me in the direction of a definition.   I've no idea how you are using this term.

Thanks

[contracycle]

Please define "illusionist" or point me in the direction of a definition.   I've no idea how you are using this term.

Illusionism
A mode of story creation by the GM in which his or her decisions carry more weight than those of the players, in which he or she has authority over rules-outcomes, and in which the players willingly or unwillingly do not recognize these features. See Illusionism: a new look and a new approach and Illusionism and GNS for a more complete definition and associated discussions.

This from the article (see top of the page for articles) on Simulationism, where the two bolded entries are links to threads.

[RDU Neil]

Please define "illusionist" or point me in the direction of a definition.   I've no idea how you are using this term.

Illusionism
A mode of story creation by the GM in which his or her decisions carry more weight than those of the players, in which he or she has authority over rules-outcomes, and in which the players willingly or unwillingly do not recognize these features. See Illusionism: a new look and a new approach and Illusionism and GNS for a more complete definition and associated discussions.

This from the article (see top of the page for articles) on Simulationism, where the two bolded entries are links to threads.

Thanks contracycle.   Having read the Illusionism thread on the link, I would definitely say to greyorm's post... "Absolutely.  I'm an Illusionist of the No. 2 stripe, 100%!)

DoctorXero... I think you might want to read that thread, if you haven't already.   It may point us in a very different direction.

GNS may not apply to me at all.  I think I'm a simulationist... but unless the Illusionist model is a subset of simulationist (still not clear on that), then we might be spinning our wheels discussing GNS at all.  Since I can honestly say I've never experienced the absolutist definition of Nar play (nor does it sound at all interesting) and Sim play is defined too narrowly to accept the Illusionist mode... then I'll have to go with Illusionist as not only appropriate, but the recommended mode of gaming.

Wow... in fact, this is really a lightbulb going off.  I now understand that my frustration as a player is when the illusion falls.  When I can see the gears grinding in the GMs head as they make the decision, and I either out guess them, or disagree with the plausibility of their decision.  Comes from too long behind the "wall o' fear and ignorance" myself.  

Wow... cool.  Now I have to find the Seth guy who started that thread, as his profile indicates he lives in the same small city I do.

[RDU Neil]

Here is the direct link to the Illusionist thread.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4232

The more I read about this, the more I realize I'm totally an Illusionist... and my group is both knowing and unknowing in their participation.  Some feel "wow, we are so cool at telling the story" and others realize how much I back load stuff, flex in game, etc., so that player actions "do matter."

To that end, I'm even more confused about Nar type play, since I see a group of  true equals just stalemating in competitive "no, I say the scence goes like THIS!" situations.  At best, you get the VoIND situation where the players are in the same room, but might as well not be... each exploring their own solipsistic slice of the world, and ignoring the other players.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello Neil,

Let me lay your doubts to rest on one issue: Illusionist techniques are very, very common and powerful in the context of Simulationist play.

I strongly suggest that you have not quite managed to process the difference between Exploration (required for all role-playing) and Simulationist play (a very specific aesthetic and creative criterion for how to play).

Habitual illusionist role-players are almost guaranteed to be boggled by Narrativist play, and vice versa. I hope to have explained why, in detail, in Narrativism: Step On Up.

Have you looked over that essay with that issue in mind? Start with the ideas that "this is not what I do," and that "this is something I should not be threatened by," and I think it'll show you why illusionist techniques are usually anathema to the entire Narrativist mode of play.

The effect is compounded when Gamism, specifically Gamism-avoidance, is taken into account. Efforts to expunge opportunities for Gamist play tend also to expunge Narrativist opportunities (the two modes are very similar, procedurally), which is why you're concerned that Narrativist approaches would lead to a competitive play-context.

I'm not sure I can provide much more insight than I tried to provide in that essay, in particular, so let me know if you have any questions about anything I've said in it.

Bear in mind as well that a play-transcript which is identifiable as a story, because it does present a theme, does not have to have been produced through Narrativist play. You can very well have been playing thematically, but not Narrativist, for all this time.

Best,
Ron

[ethan_greer]

I hope to have explained why, in detail, in Narrativism: Step On Up.

Huh?  What's this? An article in the works, or an error?  Did you mean "Narrativism: Story Now?"

[RDU Neil]

I hope to have explained why, in detail, in Narrativism: Step On Up.

Huh?  What's this? An article in the works, or an error?  Did you mean "Narrativism: Story Now?"

Uhm, yeah Ron.  I read (understanding very separate) the Narrativism: Story Now article... but not Step On Up.  Did I miss something.

(I mean, I know I missed a LOT in Story Now... but hey, I'm new at this.)

Ron,  I would say that your line about Gamist and Narrativist being similar "procedururally" finaly hit home.  If I interpret that correctly, that means that a lot of "metagame" talk is happening "in game" in both G & N... but my heavily Illusionist Sim is all about erradicating "metagame" discussion in game, and instead immersing oneself.

If I got that right, then no wonder I'm confused by Nar play.  You might as just sit around the room and talk about gaming (which is a lot of fun) but to actually call that the game itself.   Whoa.  Totally NOT a mode I'd ever prefer.

But thanks for the continued insight.  Your answers to my questions have been a lot more effective in explaining GNS than I'd ever get from just reading the articles.

Now I've got to figure out how GNS proposes behavior changes, rather than just analysis.  Is there a specific part of the articles you'd suggest I re-read... since you seem to indicate that GNS is intended to help fix dysfunctional games... and by that I would assume it gives suggestions for behavioral changes to enact.

[Doctor Xero]

What games have you played that would convince you of this? I see a lot of people claim that they wouldn't like this sort of game without even trying it. I don't mean to sound like your mother, but have you played InSpectres?

Well, Mom, <grin!> . . .

Ironically, InSpectres is one of the settings that one of my current gaming groups made me rewrite to be game-mastered rather than GMless before they would play it.

My longest experience with VoIND was an online GMless game I played once during one of those times I am able to allot to leisure time.  I spend enough time in the role of teacher or alone in research and creative writing and such that I look forward to my communal experiences, and one of my friends encouraged me to try my hand at this online stuff.

All the other online players were completely involved in their private character development and their individual character interactions with the reality they individually controlled, only noticing what other players did long enough to veto this action or that addition to the shared game world.  For community, I could have been going to a party, hanging out with my friends, having a pizza while discussing LOTR or having glasses of wine while discussing Lacan, and if I'd wanted a solitary activity, I could have been reading a good book or watching a good film or immersed in writing a story, but instead I was in a room by myself with only a computer monitor glaring at me while each of my online "fellow players" avoided interaction with anything except himself/herself.  It felt positively onanistic, and to be honest, I was both bored and felt like I needed a shower after that one experience.

Reading the VoIND approaches on these fora have given me enough curiosity that I might try my hand at it again, but only after I know enough to avoid that initial experience.

Either way, however, I know that VoINT will remain my favorite.  But then, I'm the sort who enjoys pointing and clicking on everything in an OOP computer game and remain utterly indifferent to how few points I rack up while I enjoy myself exploring the computer game world's setting instead, and when I've played multiplayer online games, I focus more on interaction with other players than I do with gaining notches on my belt for number of kills.  I have my needs for independent, private creativity fulfilled through my creative writing and my research efforts (and, true, my game mastering efforts) rather than through playing RPGs.

Doctor Xero