Experimental Validation: GNS Congruence

[Walt Freitag]

This is, IMO, slightly different from congruence as defined. In Congruent play, there are no "tells" it seems to me. That is, there are two levels being considered here. The first is whether the action is plausible, and the second is whether the action displays metagame agendas (other than the sim one). This is, yes, the Beeg Horseshoe in effect.

That is, some players require only that the actions be plausible and then refuse to be annoyed by any other metagame if that condition has been met. Other players require not only some level of plausibility, but the absence of the CA which they do not like.

We'll call them:
Player A: who just requires plausibility.
Player B: who requires adherence to his particular GNS agenda.

For player A, this "semi-congruence" of having all events be plausible is enough to make play enjoyable. For player B, either play must be all in the agenda that he wants to see, or play must be congruent, meaning that there are no "tells" that play must be other than his agenda.

Making congruent Gamist play the equivalent of "stealth" Simulationism and  Narrativism.

Does that fit your definition, Walt, or is Congruence the lesser requirement, where events merely need to be plausible?

No, the lesser requirement of plausibility is not definitionally adequate for congruence in general. However, if perceived "lack of plausibility" happens to be a tell (Gamist or Narrativist, most likely) that causes friction in a particular group, then enforcing plausibility might go a long way toward achieving congruence for that group. For example, citing the letter of a rule to attempt to fource or justify an outcome that's completely implausible in the game world might set a Gamist player at odds with others in the group with different agendas. Congruent play would require the player to not do that, or (less functionally) another player to have the authority to overrule such attempts.

But there are many other sources of potential friction. Use of out-of-character knowledge (however plausible the character actions resulting from such use may be), minmaxing a character (however plausible or even cliched within the setting the minmaxed character might be), crowing about one-upping another player when the other player wasn't even trying to compete in that arena, or playing in a self-centered defensive "the world has no holds on me" manner (however plausible the character's attitude might be) are some examples that a Gamist player might exhibit. All are potentially functional in coherent Gamist play, but would likely have to be suppressed for congruent play.

Let me quibble about the phrase "congruent Gamist play." This is close to an oxymoron. We can speak of (as I just did) a player with Gamist preferences or a "would-be" Gamist player playing congruently. But where play itself is congruent, it's by definition ambiguous between at least two of the modes. (I think what you meant was "Play congruent between Gamist and Simulationist" but I'm not certain.) The phrase "congruent play" all by itself implies congruence between all three modes, though I'd prefer people to be more explicit about stating that.

- Walt