Simplistic GNS examples...

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I'll field the Doc's questions. But I caution everyone to start considering that this thread is beginning to sprout little spawn, sticking off its body and independently waving their own limbs ...

1. S and N together are often uncomfortable pals, just as S and G together can also be difficult. There are very specific sections in the essays Simulationism: the Right to Dream and Narrativism: Story Now which deal with this issue in detail.

I suggest that what you describe may be Narrativist play with a strong Explorative chassis, and perhaps not S at all. Or rather, since I don't play with you guys, what I'm saying is that such play is a possible explanation based on your description.

2. I also draw a distinction between Gamist play as a general category and a version of Gamist play called the Hard Core. The latter tends toward throwing the Explorative chassis to the winds and revelling in power-tripping one another, and I will agree with you about them, speaking personally - in fact, your phrases echo precisely what I use to say about Gamists in general as well.

However, there's a difference between a power-tripper who cannot bear to lose and a competitive sportsman. Speaking judgmentally, real competitors do not need either to brag or to whine, nor constantly to Calvinball the rules. I submit that most role-players who prefer this sort of play are not especially public about it, and also that since they probably have the highest satisfaction-rate in the entire hobby, are rarely found on the internet talking about play. It's ruthless, strategic, demanding, imaginative, highly social, and rewarding - very much like people who enjoy pickup basketball among a neighborhood community, with "imaginative" perhaps replacing "athletic."

I've tried to enjoy this form of play quite a bit over the last year, especially with Tunnels & Trolls, and I think it works very well. If designers would turn their attention to designs of this sort without the hobbyist trappings of guys-in-armor and monsters-to-fight, I submit that a mainstream breakout game would be in their hands.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Xero, ever play a good game of chess against a fun opponent? Just convert that sort of competition over to RPGs as the format, and you have an example of one small sort of functional Gamism. Very simply, to these gamists, it might be something akin to a complex board game to be won or lost either to the GM or to each other.

Again, that's just one small example. But it's fully functional and quite common. Arguably, gamism is the most supported and played mode, given that D&D tends to produce this sort of play.

Scourge, the basic theory says that Mode is defined as what you're prioritizing. So Narrativist doesn't mean that you don't do anything that's supportive of exploration. It just means that when there's a potential conflict that you'll tend to select the choice that makes it obvious that you have the narrativist priority. So, if your goal is narrativist, no amount of sticking to detail or anything can be considered sim play in the process.

OTOH, I do believe that one can be closer to a balance and that something approaching Hybrid modes is possible. To be very precise that's to say that I think my mode of play is like yours, and I understand what you're getting at. It's precisely describing this sort of phenomenon that makes me go through all the Beeg Horesehoe theory gyrations.

Mike

[Doctor Xero]

there's a difference between a power-tripper who cannot bear to lose and a competitive sportsman. Speaking judgmentally, real competitors do not need either to brag or to whine, nor constantly to Calvinball the rules.

Xero, ever play a good game of chess against a fun opponent? Just convert that sort of competition over to RPGs as the format, and you have an example of one small sort of functional Gamism. Very simply, to these gamists, it might be something akin to a complex board game to be won or lost either to the GM or to each other.

I think I understand.

If I wanted to apply G/N/S on a micro-gaming level, I might be able to get away with stating that I'm being a bit of a gamist when I take pride in an elegantly constructed character which finesses the rules or when I enjoy "gamer war-stories" about tactically outwitting a game master's elaborate puzzle through distanced strategy rather than psychological drama with the NPCs, with stating that I'm being a bit of a simulationist when I become highly "genre fiend" (as Aaron Allston puts it) about a campaign setting and/or my character in it, and with stating that I'm being a bit of narrativist when I plumb the depths of my character's ethical and emotional uncertainties and questions.

However, the G/N/S schema is not intended for application to particular moments in an individual's repertoire, but rather it is used to analyze the overarcing approach of a particular gaming communities or campaign communities to RPGing.  Some players may prefer G or N or S overall, but other players may be G in gamist-oriented communities and N in narrativist-oriented commmunities and S in simulationist-oriented communities.

Have I (basically) got it?

Personally, no, I have seldom encountered gamists who were not power-gamers in my RPGing experience.  There was a sometimes-vitriolic division of powergamer-vs.-roleplayer/artiste divisions in most of the areas in which I have RPGed, and you were expected to ally yourself with either pure strategist (all utility, no dramatic aesthetics, anti-characterization except when said characterization worked as intimidation tactics) or with pure dramatist (all characterization, a proud rejection of tactics in favor of dramatic aesthetics, an effort to construct characters who innately fulfilled story/genre obligations without having to be meta-gamed once game play began -- S + N through meta-gamed character construction?).  I have difficulty imagining that most of the people on these fora have not dealt with similar animosities in their RPGing communities.

When I want that kind of friendly competition, I have always turned to chess, traditional card games, collectible card games, war games, and of course traditional board and knowledge games (such as Risk or Facts on Five).  I've never found it among the RPG players I've known.  And since I turn to RPGs for the interactivity and dramatic characterizations impossible in chess et al., I admit I haven't really looked for it there, either, in a number of years.

Doctor Xero

[RDU Neil]

Xero my friend (not that I know who you are, but I feel friendly toward you at the moment) I think we are cut of the same cloth.

My gaming experience almost completely mirrors yours, and I have long taken steps to distance myself from Gamist (especially Hard Core, as Ron describes them) players.  

I am also a Simulationist, in that my priority is always, first and foremost, that during a scene, the players and GM "feel like they are there."   I want a car chase to "feel breathtaking" to the players, because they are tense with every swirve and intersection.  I want a fist fight to reflect (genre wise, or realistically depending on the game) actually being in a fight, where every second a decision must be made quickly, and instinctively, and each swing is a unique blow that would have a unique effect depending where it might hit.

I want a player to "feel like he is flying a Mach 2" if that is what his character is doing at that time.

To me, nothing has every made me feel better as a GM, than a couple of weeks ago when a new player to my group really experienced his first, detailed, intricate, flavorful, intense combats... and right in the middle he just crows "Holy Crap!  Champions combats are so COOL!" because the description and system support for intricate maneuvers made the scene so visible... tactile even.

BUT... while this may be my main priority... the campaign I have run for 17 years has always had a Narrativist theme.  From the beginning, the supers campaign was not about emulating genre, but about asking the questing "If you have power greater than your fellow man... what do you do with it?  Can you remain part of society, or can you care about those to whom you are godlike, in comparison?"  It has been a question of what is ethical and moral... and when does a level of inate personal power change your ethics and morals... or does it?

So, moment to moment... I want a consistent, causal SIMULATION of an internally consistent and causal world that the players and GM explore and develop over time... and often the question of "power" is lost in the exhiliration of the moment... but it always comes back in the long run.  There is almost always a moment when the players start to say, "Oh my god... what have we done?  What might we do?  What will happen now?" because the use of their power changes things and effects the world, and repercussions are important.

See... I can't break the S from the N (and now I'm going to get it confused with the MBTI Sensing and Intuation dichotomy... damn) because I don't think I could properly explore from an Nar perspective, if there wasn't a verisimilitude created by a strong Sym (consistent cause & effect) game play.

Anyway... that's my .02 on a thread that has drifted quite a bit... but hey that doesn't bother me, even though I guess it's against the rules here.

[Mike Holmes]

Xero, Neil, you guys are portraying yourselves as if your experiences are far different than ours. Realize that GNS exists because of the sorts of issues that you guys are talking about. Of course we've all encountered powergamers, etc. Where did we say that we didn't?

GNS doesn't say anything about the proportion of players who play a mode coherently or not. It just describes the coherent mode, and what incoherence looks like. In other words, everything that you've been saying is simply support for GNS. GNS is there to fix the precise problems that you've encountered.

As to your personal experiences. I can say that I have seen coherent Gamist play. So we have differing annecdotal evidence. Which doesn't mean much at all, either way. My experience could be atypical, yours could be atypical. Who knows.

But even if my experiences are atypical, and coherent gamism is less common than I think (and I already think it's uncommon), that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as coherent gamist play.

So nothing you guys are saying is contradicting anything anybody else is saying. All I'm hearing are typical experiences, support for GNS, and some mention of personal preferences. Nothing at all controversial here at all.

Mike

[Doctor Xero]

Frustration ensues, even though neither of you are wrong, but there's a disconnect between modes of play there. You're not sure why he's wanting to break immersion so blatantly, and he's not sure why you won't let him do this cool scene he'd like to have happen.

Someone once asked me about the volatile roleplayer/powergamer divisions of the 1970s/80s.  Using Andrew Norris' language, I can encapsulate a large issue in that nasty war.

Roleplayers/dramatists were pro-immersion.  Meta-gaming considerations of tactics were therefore condemned as disruptively vulgar.

Powergamers/tacticians were anti-immersion.  Sacrificing tactics for the sake of theatre was dismissed as self-indulgently effeminate.

As you can see, each side became more extreme in reaction against the other side.  (And nasty gender slurs and class warfare entered into it at times as well.)

I think that division may be one reason for some G/N/S problems as well, both the approaching G/N/S within that roleplayer/powergamer dichotomy and the leftover negative vibes from that nastily divisive time.

Doctor X
cross-posted http://www.indie-rpgs.com/posting.php?mode=reply&t=10051

[Mike Holmes]

Yep, this is often refered to as the Role-playing vs. Roll-playing dichotomy. And yes, it's classic GNS. Even without the rancor, play during these times was rife with these problems. I personally was looking for more in the way of in-character play in the late 70's, and can even remember wondering why my players were so "bad" at RPGs. I litterally thought that they lacked some talent for it that I had. Only decades later did I realize that they were persuing a legitimate reading of the rules we were playing by. That it was the system, not the players, that was to blame for this specific problem.

Mike

[John Kim]

I think Andrew Norris' post that Doctor Xero refers to is pretty appropriate to this subject.  I'll include the full quote:

Let's take a hypothetical example. We'll say you, Neil, have a player with Narrativist leanings, and wants to be able to set up scenes in which his character could explore a moral premise. Maybe they'll propose, during the game, a scene between two NPCs that leads to a crisis, and have his character walk in on the scene at that moment.

Now that's Narrativism in Author stance, but from what you've said, you might very well describe that as "talking about roleplaying" -- not playing at all. My guess would be that you'd be unlikely to take this player's suggestion. Frustration ensues, even though neither of you are wrong, but there's a disconnect between modes of play there. You're not sure why he's wanting to break immersion so blatantly, and he's not sure why you won't let him do this cool scene he'd like to have happen.

The GNS model doesn't fix that kind of situation at all, but it makes it pretty explicit where the disconnect lies.

So here's where I see differences.  To me, the disconnect here doesn't seem to lie in GNS at all.  This is a split over technique -- i.e. using immersion-breaking director stance vs immersion-maintaining actor stance.  Now, there might be an underlying GNS split -- but from RDU Neil's comments in this thread, he identifies with Narrativism as the agenda of his game.  

Now, there is something of a split in how this is approached in practice.  In theory, it is often said that Narrativism rests on an Exploratory foundation, and that it is 100% compatible with immersion.  However, in discussion of game design, the designs cited when discussing Narrativism are almost inevitably non-cause-and-effect ones like My Life With Master, Trollbabe, The Pool, and so forth.  Thus, as an example someone will cite wanting to use director stance as indicating Narrativism.  

I'm not sure what to do about this.  While in principle GNS modes aren't supposed to be matched with specific techniques, people do make associations with simple visible techniques and use those for examples.  It seems almost inevitable.

[RDU Neil]

For some reason, I don't see a post from Andrew Norris here... and he seems to be referring to something I said in another thread, not this one.  (You guys are quoting something I just don't see.)

Anyway... reading AN's full quote, here is what I would say.

I have a "chit" system in place that if you have drawn certain chits, you can spend them to shift scenes or act "in character" but outside the normal rules limitations... essentially allowing the players to give input and mini-GM, but at a limited amount.  They are not equal to the GM... DURING THE GAME.

Now... anytime before or after the game, I'm totally up for "I'd like this scene to happen... and my character would really like to pursue X, Y & Z for the sake of theme or story."   We have those conversations all the time, and then I take their suggestions and work them in to the presentation as I feel appropriate to the current causal/appropriate/plausible events.  

So, yeah, I'd think it odd if players were to speak out of character a lot during a game... but they can do the same "in game."  If one wants to talk to an NPC, then have them describe "In the few moments before we leave, I grab my cell and call Frank.  If he answers, I ask if he is available to meet me for dinner.  We need to talk about his sister."

That kind of thing happens all the time... I just ask that they keep it "in character" and reasonable/plausible for the current storyline/events going on in the game.  I ask that they do it in character, and only step OOC if they need to explain "character intent" not player intent.  

Ah HA!  That's it.  I don't have a problem with a player setting a scene or driving the game from an Actor stance (if I'm using that correctly) but players engaging in the Director stance should do that before and after the actual game play.

Does that make sense?

(And where is Andrew Norris' post that I could read it fully?)

[John Kim]

Sorry.  Doctor Xero put in a "cross-posted" note with his post, but I think it's bad etiquette.  I would say one should post on one thread or the other, and then put a note in the other thread pointing to where you continue discussion.  

Andrew Norris' post was in an "RPG Theory" thread.  Here is a link: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=105461&highlight=#105461

[M. J. Young]

John, I think perhaps that games that use those techniques are presented as examples because they are more obvious and easier to see; the techniques facilitate the play mode, but are not synonymous with it. The best counter example (if I understand correctly) is Donjon, which is heavy with director stance but strongly gamist. Donjon isn't generally cited as an example of gamist play precisely because despite being gamist it uses director stance techniques which are more common to narrativist play--so if you are not more familiar with the game you're likely to be confused by the description.

There are narrativist games that do not have strong use of these techniques, but they are easily drifted, so they don't serve well as examples.

Neil, there is a lot of talk around here about hybrid design; what is confusing is that people assume this means there is such a thing as hybrid play. Now, it has yet to be agreed whether there really is such a thing as hybrid design--a game design which promotes multiple agenda without creating incoherence--but hybrid play as such is not possible.

The problem with this idea that "I play narrativist with a heavy underpinning of sim" (that's a paraphrase) is that it misunderstands the core notion of what an agendum is. You can't have an agendum as support for another agendum; you're either trying primarily to do A or to do B (or to do C). You can't be trying primarily to do A and B, because you have to choose one over the other.

Hybrid design would mean that if we were playing the game and chose N the game would support us, or if we chose S the game would support us (in a theoretically N/S hybrid). In extreme cases, it would mean that if you chose N and I chose S, we could play together like this without conflict because the narrativist and simulationist choices would be compatible with each other. My example of a three-way hybrid system is a game in which the players are all members of a platoon in Viet Nam: gamist, narrativist, and simulationist choices are all going to be close enough that as long as the game system does not oppose any agendum players could pursue conflicting agenda without creating incoherent play beyond possibly some boredom (as one player wants to take time to dictate his letter home, another wants to prepare for the next fight, and a third wants to make sure they portray the problems of trying to keep watch and get sleep in the jungle).

However, hybrid design doesn't mean you're going to have multiple agenda yourself; it only means that whichever agendum you do have the game supports. If you are playing simulationist, you are there to learn about things, to understand situations, settings, characters, the elements of exploration. As Ralph said somewhere, if the rules say that you can survive jumping off a fifty-foot cliff, that means this is the physics of this world, and exploring system means discovering that the physics of the game world are different from those of the real world. You're there to learn about these things, to experience them. If you are playing narrativist, you are there to create theme from premise, to provide answers to moral and ethical and personal questions.

You're confusing one of the techniques of game play with one of the agenda. Verisimilitude, in-game causality, consistency, realism, genre emulation--whatever you want to call it--is not about agendum. It's about technique.

Now, I haven't seen your games; but from your statements, I suspect you are playing narrativist within a system that demands high levels of verisimilitude and in-game causality, and demands actor stance of its players most of the time. Those are techniques, a framework within which the roleplaying occurs. The question is, are you primarily about looking at issues and wrestling with hard questions, or are you primarily about discovering this other reality? You can't be primarily about both.

The other possibility is that you have drift; this is possible, but thus far I think it's generally a slow process. I see a lot of drift in Multiverser play, but it's usually either that each player is in a different agendum and the game accommodates them individually, or that a player's agendum shifts to fit a new universe as he becomes aclimated to the change in setting.

Does this help at all?

Some discussion of techniques supporting different agenda is in my article http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/23/">Applied Theory in the articles section here.

--M. J. Young

[Andrew Norris]

Hey, guys. Sorry for the confusion. (By the way, feel free to just call me Andrew! I'm still getting used to the use of real names here. Two years of running games online means I constantly expect to hear myself called "SweeneyTodd".)

I'm going to summarize what I said in the other thread in context here. Neil's comment was that he was trying to see how GNS was prescriptive in describing how people should change their behavior.

My response was essentially that GNS as a model is wholly prescriptive, and not descriptive. Here's the full text. (I think John quoted *most* of it above -- if he included it all, I will be happy to edit this out.)

From what I've seen of GNS's use to help dysfunctional games, it is descriptive rather than prescriptive. You don't do anything because the model tells you to. Rather, the model may help you understand why two good friends who game together might experience deep frustration during the actual act of play (because their Creative Agenda priority is different but they don't realize it.)

Let's take a hypothetical example. We'll say you, Neil, have a player with Narrativist leanings, and wants to be able to set up scenes in which his character could explore a moral premise. Maybe they'll propose, during the game, a scene between two NPCs that leads to a crisis, and have his character walk in on the scene at that moment.

Now that's Narrativism in Author stance, but from what you've said, you might very well describe that as "talking about roleplaying" -- not playing at all. My guess would be that you'd be unlikely to take this player's suggestion. Frustration ensues, even though neither of you are wrong, but there's a disconnect between modes of play there. You're not sure why he's wanting to break immersion so blatantly, and he's not sure why you won't let him do this cool scene he'd like to have happen.

The GNS model doesn't fix that kind of situation at all, but it makes it pretty explicit where the disconnect lies. That, hopefully, means it's easier to discuss and iron out between the human beings involved.

To the extent that that post helped anyone, it was probably just that I tried to describe how the lightbulb came on for me the first time the GNS model finally clicked with me. If that helped anyone grappling with it, then I'm glad, but please just think of it as synthesis -- the ideas are all from other Forge posters.

I also now understand why cross-posting is discouraged here. I know Xero had the best intentions, but I was pretty confused.

[RDU Neil]

... in responding.  I was on vacation.  Florida Keys, and no thought of GNS at all.

Anyway... I wanted to respond to M.J. Young's quote

The question is, are you primarily about looking at issues and wrestling with hard questions, or are you primarily about discovering this other reality? You can't be primarily about both.

To this I say I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree.

The reality of this other reality must encompass the issues and hard questions important TO that reality.

Example:  A sci-fi campaign that has humans in first contact with aliens.  The meat of this would be about "what do you do?  How do you represent humans meeting aliens?  What does alien mean?  What does human mean?  How does living in deep space change humans?  How does contact with aliens change humanity?" etc.   But these questions can't have any meaning or impact if the world doesn't have a deep, causal reality of the utmost consistency.  You have a hard s-f sub-light spd, space is cold and harsh world... you can't just throw in laser blasters and death stars without undermining the whole context.

On the flip side, what I really get my jones on, is "feeling like I'm there!"  Being that pilot sitting in the cracked plastic seat while the ship rattles and the crimson light of re-entry fills the cabin... sweat pouring down and stinging the flash burn left after he had to stop the Fercops Priest from killing the SS'sslythern ambassador with a combat torch.

To have that scene come alive in the most vivid and almost tactile sense... THAT is why I game... but it CAN NOT come alive unless there is a consistent, ethical, social backdrop that gives meaning to my character's actions.

I just can't seperate the two.  Can you tell ME which I prefer?  I see them both as essential for my enjoyment... EQUALLY.

[Valamir]

No one can tell you which you prefer.  Only you can judge that.  

But I can point out some of the stumbling blocks you're having.

You see this:

But these questions can't have any meaning or impact if the world doesn't have a deep, causal reality of the utmost consistency

and this

what I really get my jones on, is "feeling like I'm there!"

and this

but it CAN NOT come alive unless there is a consistent, ethical, social backdrop that gives meaning to my character's actions.

Is not Simulationism.  Therefor your requirement of these things does not make you a Simulationist.

These things are basic fundamental Exploration.  Setting, Characters, Situation, System, and Color.

Exploration is the box that ALL agendas are in.  Gamists and Narrativists like and require this stuff too.

What people have had trouble grasping since the very early days of this forum is that merely saying "I like this stuff" does not make them a Simulationist.


Similarly these:

what do you do? How do you represent humans meeting aliens? What does alien mean? What does human mean? How does living in deep space change humans? How does contact with aliens change humanity?

Do not automatically represent Premise.  The fact that in hindsight you could review your memory of the game and note that you made some pretty powerful commentary on how living in deep space changes people does not in itself indicate that you were actively engaged in addressing Premise.  The mere existance of Theme does not Narrativism make any more than the mere existance of Exploration makes Simulationism.

[RDU Neil]

... what you are saying is that it doesn't matter what I DO... or what SYSTEM I play... or what the RESULT/OUTCOME is of the game...

... GNS only is concerned with what I WANTED to be the focus of the game.  It's only about the focus of my desire in the game.


What use is that?  I don't need a model and a lot of esoteric, academic speech to sum up the phrase "People want different things when they game, so talk with the group about what you want."

GNS comes across as much to dense and detailed to be boiled down to that.  If it is to be of any use, it should proscribe actions and behavior to take, once you have determined Nar or Sim or Gam play.  

It's like a reduction of analysis past the Exploration point is kind of ridiculous, since everything I care about you say exists above the CA level in this theory.  By your statement GNS is irrelevant to my gaming experience.  The game could take place IDENTICALLY... but if I was thinking "I want to question the meaning of humanity" then I was NAR... and if I was thinking "I really want to make sure this experience is internally consistent and causal" then I was SIM.

That makes GNS kind of pointless unless one of these is significantly stronger in desire than the other.  To me NEITHER is stronger... I want them both, equally... and get satisfaction of desires only if BOTH are met... and neither will be met equally in any given game.  One will always end up... resulting in... a stronger experience.

How you can disconnect a Creative Agenda from the result of the game played... well that just makes no sense to me.