Motives and Methods, Conflict and Elements

[ErrathofKosh]

First, I'd like to preface this post by noting that I hesitated before coming up with the resolve to present this.  This is mixture of ideas that I have been mulling over for quite some time now, and I think they may finally be presentable, but I'm still uncertain of several points.  That, and the recent post of Mike's new model has made me wait.  I don't wish to create another model just for it's own sake, and Mike has made several points that are very well-thought out and which have influenced my thinking...

So, here goes...

The past and present discussion of the GNS Creative Agenda of Simulationism motivated me to take up this particular train of thought.  Particularly influential were Simulationism: Reflexive Play?, Risk in Sim Play, and Dramatism and Illusionism.  Also Mike's New 3D Model was (and is) eye-opening.  Reading and responding to these, and other conversations, led me to idea that perhaps the GNS CA's were too broad in scope and that perhaps role-playing styles and conflict of styles needed to be examined more closely.  Additionally, I have come to the conclusion that the GNS definition of Sim is incomplete, too all-encompassing, or altogether dysfunctional.  I'm not sure which of these it is...  Therefore, I decided to discard the CA's as way of describing player motives.  Here is what I have replaced them with.

Motives and Methods, Conflict and Elements

There are two main issues that lead to dysfunctional play and conflicts between players.  They are concerned with what is to be explored and how to explore it.  I call them motives and methods, for lack of better terms.  Motives are the player's primary reasons for choosing to role-play; they include both in-game and out-of-game concerns.  Methods are they way a player prefers to pursue his motives, again both in and out of game.  They lead to as many disputes as motives do.  In-game, I define motives as the object (or objects) of exploration and methods as the means of exploration.  

What do you want to explore?
I divide the category "in-game motives" in two distinct sub-categories, defined by Conflict.  The two types of Conflict are Theme and Challenge.   The term Theme encompasses issues of human choice, morality, and inner conflict.  The term Challenge is about strategy, power, and external conflict.  However, these categories are not mutually exclusive; there is a third "category," of "mixed conflict."

How do you want to explore?
"In-game methods" is divided up into five distinct areas; system, setting, situation, character, and color.  These are pretty much the same as the Elements of Exploration in GNS.  They too are not mutually exclusive; in fact all of them must be present in order for role-play to occur.  The differences that occur between players happen because people prioritize elements in conflicting ways.

These two categories are often joined in making a statement about player motive and method, a Premise about the game. Here are a few examples of Premises and how I categorize them:

"I want to play a Jedi Knight during the time of the Galactic Civil War.  I want to know what it would be like!"

This is the exploration of Mixed conflict prioritizing the method of character, with setting and situation as secondary priorities.  The player wishes to experience both the themes and challenges of being a Jedi.  

"Let's play characters during the time of King Arthur where the older knights grumble about the attitude of the younger generation, because they have never been in any wars.  I want to know if it leads to the demise of Camelot..."

This is the exploration of Thematic conflict (though there could be Challenge involved) prioritizing the method of situation, with setting and color as secondary priorities.  The player is mainly concerned about the theme of the "moral" decline of Camelot.

"Let's make a group of characters that all have complementary abilities so that we can rid the kingdom of orcs.  I want to kick some booty!"

This is the exploration of Challenge prioritizing the method of system, with maybe a little setting thrown in...  The player wants a challenge were his created character fits into a group strategy based on the system.

I would like to point out some observations about the first Premise I have listed.  At face value, it looks like the object of exploration in this case is your character or, more broadly, being a Jedi knight.  However, it is not!  It is about exploring the themes of being a Jedi, i.e., resisting temptation. And it's about exploring the challenges of being a Jedi, i.e., fighting against storm troopers with your lightsabre.  Without conflict, would it be that interesting to explore being a Jedi?  

So to summarize I have the following:

Motives (Conflict)
Challenge-----Mixed-----Theme

Methods (Elements)
System, Situation, Setting, Color, Character

Any thoughts?

Cheers
Jonathan

[Silmenume]

Hey Jonathan,

I thought there was something about your thesis that was interesting.

I divide the category "in-game motives" in two distinct sub-categories, defined by Conflict. The two types of Conflict are Theme and Challenge.

These two categories are very similar to the famous two tools used in story telling - sex and violence aka passion and tension, etc.

That Sim might be descibed as a combination of both, is very similar to something I had brought up recently here, when I used the terms "resourcefulness and character."

I'm not quite sure what the significance, if any, comes from noting the similarity between your Premise/Challenge assertion and the "sex/violence" tools of story telling.  I'd thought I would offer that up and see if anything relevant comes out of that observation or not.

[ErrathofKosh]

Is sex/violence mentioned in Sorceror?  It sounds like an idea that would come from Ron... I've only had a chance to skim through Sex and Sorcery.  I would be interested in reading about these terms in any case...

As far as saying Sim is somehow a combination of both Nar and Gam, I could agree with that...  but, I'd be hard pressed to defend it.  I haven't expanded my thoughts and first post is a little rough, so it probably isn't apparent that my "motives" refer to much smaller instances of play than CA's do.  However, I don't put them on the level of Mike's "atomic" instances.  The way I see it, player's often switch motives when they have accomplished what they set out to do.  This leads to a lot of games consisting of Mixed conflict, which I think is supported historically.  

When I have more time, I'll write something more polished to post...  (This is the first week of Grad school for me.)

Cheers
Jonathan