exploration of self

[lumpley]

Hey Em.

Nobody sits down to play or design and says "Narrativist, go!"  They say "we serve Master, go!" or "we summon demons, go!"  Everybody has goals for their games, and nobody's goals begin and end with "Narrativist."  That's all I meant.

Any thoughts about the second half of my post?  (Though of course I'm really asking John.)

-Vincent

[John Kim]

So how does GNS fit in this picture? The "middle layer" interpretation suggests that we should figure out how to structure our play based on G, N, or S -- and then try to get our goals out of that. If this is the case, it seems to me more straightfoward to skip the middleman. i.e. Choose/design your techniques to fulfill the actual goals of play. So if you are trying for Psychological Examination, you look at what techniques best accomplish this regardless of how they fit into GNS divisions.

I don't get this a'tall.  You shouldn't structure your play based on G, N, or S.  Why would you?  How even could you?

No: what the "middle layer" interpretation says is that when you choose your techniques to fulfill the goal of Psychological Examination, you will find that the resultant play is G, N or S, in addition to fulfilling your goal.

I'm not sure what you're saying.  You seem to be saying that GNS is irrelevant for game design -- that it is simply a labelling system to help describe games.  (Note that this is how the Threefold was conceived; and I think this has value as a communication tool.)    However, I don't think that's what you mean.  Certainly many people seem to think that GNS has changes how they design their games -- i.e. they design their games differently after reading GNS essays or posts.  Many people suggest deciding on a Creative Agenda before proceeding with design.  

In response to both Ron and your comments -- while Psychological Examination may be complex, to me it doesn't seem any more imponderable than Addressing of Moral Premise.  Indeed, one of the peculiar features of GNS is the idea that one can follow a Creative Agenda without consciously realizing it.  So we've already wandered into the territory of unconscious behaviors.  Yes, it's tricky and a quagmire.  

But then again, we don't have to "solve" it.  No one's come up with a unified perfect theory of literature which says step by step how to write a perfect novel, or even anything close.  The goal should be just to have enough language to communicate and spark new ideas.

[lumpley]

All I'm saying is that GNS is a middle layer between "why are we roleplaying (at all)?" and "how are we roleplaying (in particular)?" which is what I've been saying all along.

Check this - if you're serious about it, there's a way to prove your position.  Design a game that reliably gives its players the experience you're talking about, but doesn't reliably give them Gamist, Narritivist, or Sim play.  

This is not a dismissive challenge!  I'll be happy to contribute to the game in any way I can, and at the end, I'll be happy to change my point of view.

Just, getting a new CA acknowledged widely will pretty much require actual play and game design.  I hope nobody expects otherwise.

-Vincent

[John Kim]

Check this - if you're serious about it, there's a way to prove your position.  Design a game that reliably gives its players the experience you're talking about, but doesn't reliably give them Gamist, Narritivist, or Sim play.  

This is not a dismissive challenge!  I'll be happy to contribute to the game in any way I can, and at the end, I'll be happy to change my point of view.

Fair enough.  I had put my game designs on hold around '99 when I started by Free RPG List.  After seeing the hundreds of designs out there, I was demotivated from competing.  It seemed like everyone had their own system and no one was playing anyone else's.  However, I am now looking back at them again, like a system for my upcoming Star Trek campaign.  

I don't think a game design will constitute "proof" in any sense since the categorization of a game can easily be debated.  But it's likely a good thing in any case, even if it isn't proof for this question.

[Emily Care]

Ok, time to round up this thread and move on.

The question seems to hinge not on whether psychological inquiry or examination can be a meaningful part of play, but on whether it could be considered a creative agenda of its own.  It can be pursued as a personal or group agenda within gns, and evidence has been asked for to show that play based on its prioritization could result in play that is clearly distinct and mutually exclusive with G, N or S.

Chris Lehrich's suggestion of psychological examination seems a reasonable moniker to me (though the thought of having to refer to "examinationism" is not one I face with relish). And I'll quote his phrasing of the desired goal of psych/exam play:

To experience the situation, at the emotional, intellectual, and spiritual levels, and to generate new possibilities in ourselves.

This highlights what I see as the distinguishing feature of this kind of play: that the area of interest is the effect of exploration on the person doing the exploration. This emphasis takes it out of the purely social realm (it has direct effect on the sis) and it is quite distinct from the G, N or S.  

This clearly isn't enough to establish it as a ca (or else this thread would have ended earlier), and specific examples of play have been requested.  I don't think we actually have to create a game--though if anyone is so inspired, please have at it--because between the fields of psychology that employ roleplay as a therapeutic technique and currently existing movements of roleplaying that incorporate this into game-play, I think we'll have enough to determine if play based on this outlook will generate experiences that we would define as being something other than G, N or S.  I'll start a new thread to this effect.  Any outstanding questions people have from this thread, you might take to a new one of  your own.

Thanks all!

--Emily Care