What GNS is about [LONG]

[Lee Short]

Actually Lee, I think any experienced GNS "analyst" would answer your question with "don't know, you haven't given us enough information to tell".

I'm not sure what impact that has on your point, but while such snap judgements occur, they are pretty strongly discouraged.

OK.  

Then I'd like your answer to

If you disagree, how would you categorize John's play if he Played The System solely because he enjoys games as problems in game theory and not at all for kudos?

I suspect I know the answer, but I'd really rather not go around putting words in people's mouths.

[ErrathofKosh]

Actually Lee, I think any experienced GNS "analyst" would answer your question with "don't know, you haven't given us enough information to tell".

I'm not sure what impact that has on your point, but while such snap judgements occur, they are pretty strongly discouraged.

I agree with this--although, as I've said recently, I'm not sure if the guy who runs off to kill the orcs because he likes the thrill of victory, the challenge of the combat, etc.--and has his comarads rolling their eyes--is Gamist or not.

The social kudos thing seems, to me, to be only one dimensional.

-Marco

I think you're right Marco...

That's why I refer to "Tactical Success" as a motive for engaging in conflict.  Very often, the person engaging in this activity doesn't care about the social "kudos."  They are driven by their self-perception, i.e., "I 'm a better military strategist than Napoleon!"  It's about personal satisfaction.  When their activities begin to infringe upon other players priorities too often, they are often referred to as "munchkins," and play becomes dysfunctional.

And there are other motives as well...

[Marco]

Well, the case where someone is rolling their eyes is just the extreme one. A more realistic case is one where everyone gets along but Fred just really digs the combat.

Sue and Jeff don't give him kudos for his mad tactical skillz but, you know, they're okay with him--they like him, he finds their dramatics okay--but he's not really into that. The social feedback is "I like your company and I like a lot of your input--but not especially one specific piece of it."

In these cases there may be some social reinforcement going around--but is it necessary? Is it the defining part of the activity--the majority of the drive? Would the players engage in the activity if it was only them and neutral GM (yes, I'd think so)--so what is the key element?

I think it's internal appreciation (for some--social approval for others).

-Marco

[ErrathofKosh]

Actually Lee, I think any experienced GNS "analyst" would answer your question with "don't know, you haven't given us enough information to tell".

I'm not sure what impact that has on your point, but while such snap judgements occur, they are pretty strongly discouraged.

OK.  

Then I'd like your answer to

If you disagree, how would you categorize John's play if he Played The System solely because he enjoys games as problems in game theory and not at all for kudos?

I suspect I know the answer, but I'd really rather not go around putting words in people's mouths.

Lee,

Your example answers two of my questions...

The player engages in conflict to gain Discovery.  What is he exploring?  System.  Therefore, he is engaged in conflict for Discovery of System.  You haven't answered which elements are important to how he does it, but you could.  


Now, if your player was not interested in game theory, but in overcoming conflict through tactically using system for his personal glory or self-satisfaction....  Then he'd be seeking Tactical Success in System terms.  And he may be using character as the vehicle of his exploration.

In GNS terms, obviously if the character is interested in exploring game theory via actual roleplay, he is probably playing Sim.

Cheers
Jonathan

[Valamir]

Then I'd like your answer to

If you disagree, how would you categorize John's play if he Played The System solely because he enjoys games as problems in game theory and not at all for kudos?

I suspect I know the answer, but I'd really rather not go around putting words in people's mouths.

I'm not sure where you're starting from here.

Are you starting from the idea that kudos and high fives from your peers are the only manifestation of a Step on Up agenda?

If so, that would be incorrect.  The player doesn't need to actually get congratulatory slaps on the back from his fellow players to obtain the esteem boost that comes from successful gamist play.  


At which point my answer becomes the same as my previous answer:
Not enough information.

It could be pure Exploration with emphasis on System.  It could be Gamism.  If its not desired by the rest of the group it could be an example of GNS dysfunction in action.  It could be alot of things.

[Lee Short]

I'm obviously not communicating my question very well, so I'll skip it and make some assumptions to get on with my argument.  

Back to our theoretical gamer John.  John loves to "work the system" when he plays games. He does it in CRPGs, RPGs, boardgames, you name it. When John sits down to play an RPG, he does it because he loves to work the system as an exercise in game theory. He finds the game-theoric problems so interesting he'll buy a new game and play it by himself, just because he likes to -- even if he never expects to play that game with another person.  John is largely an individual who values his own self-generated esteem over the esteem he gains from having the respect of others.  Most of the esteem value he gains from Working The System is his esteem in his own eyes; ie, not socially related at all.  But, like anybody, John likes to be respected by his peers.  So he also gains significant esteem value from gaining the respect of his fellow players.  The reason why he sits down at the gaming table has more to do with intellectual curiosity and internally generated self-respect than the respect he gets from his peers, but all three of these are factors.  He's not at all competitive.  

Now, I think that John's play will be categorized as Sim (heightened Exploration of System) or pure Exploration.  But I really don't have a firm grasp of how I would go about determining which of these it is.  

Now lets posit John's brother Tom.  Tom also loves to "work the system" when he plays games. He does it in CRPGs, RPGs, boardgames, you name it. When Tom sits down to play an RPG, he does it because he loves to work the system as show the other players how clever he is. He finds the game-theoric problems interesting, but he'd never buy a new game and play it by himself, unless he expected to play the game with his friends and impress them with his mastery of the game.  Tom's self-esteem is heavily based on others' expressed opinions of him.  Most of the esteem value he gains from Working The System is in the respect the other players give him.  The reason why he sits down at the gaming table has more to do with the respect he gets from his peers, but intellectual curiosity and internally generated self-respect are factors too.  Tom also is not at all competitive.  

I think that Tom's play is Gamist.  

I think GNS would be better served by categorizing these two players as the same type.  

First of all, it's far from given that even the player involved can separate out whether they value more the internal rewards of problem-solving, or the social esteem -- making the categorization problematic.  But that's a topic for a different thread.  

More importantly, the key thing here is that both Tom and John are going to love the same style of game designs, and are going to enjoy playing in the same kinds of games*.  Which, as I understand the intended purposes of GNS, ought to put them in the same category.  

-------------

Now you may or may not agree with this particular analysis.  Even so, I think that this sort of analysis is useful in determining if GNS has gotten where it wants to go.  

*Assuming no social friction.  As games, they will like the same games.

[Ron Edwards]

You've described two Gamists, Lee. Here's how:

But, like anybody, John likes to be respected by his peers. So he also gains significant esteem value from gaining the respect of his fellow players. The reason why he sits down at the gaming table has more to do with intellectual curiosity and internally generated self-respect than the respect he gets from his peers, but all three of these are factors. He's not at all competitive.

If John is getting this respect from the others by demonstrating personal strategy and guts, then he is playing Gamist. All your qualifiers ("more to do with intellectual curiosity" e.g.) are irrelevant.

I reject your "like anybody" when the crucial issue of strategy and guts is included. John could get that respect in some other way, e.g. in a way which enhances the imaginative space to a degree that everyone likes to do for its own sake, or in a way which addresses a problematic generalizable issue. But if he's doing it by demonstrating strategy and guts, as a person (not his character's), then it's Gamist play.

Your description of John is muddy and problematic because you're not specifying that crucial issue. That's the only reason you can make any claim to John playing in a Simulationist fashion.

I've said it a hundred times: the respect/esteem is necessary but not sufficient. These specific scrutinized qualities are the sufficient and necessary issue.

Best,
Ron

[M. J. Young]

Ralph--my sticking point is that I think sometimes you can get the reward without the conflict. I've been in games in which "conflict", if it existed, was nothing more than "how can I learn what I want to know next?" Even then, it was sometimes as low as "what would happen if I did this, and what do I learn from that?" I would say that those games were simulationist play; I would also say that as examples they force us to the choice between declaring there is nothing driving the exploration in such cases (which leaves us wondering why anyone is exploring anything) versus reducing "conflict" to the point that it has no meaning.

I will agree that response to conflict is a great indicator of creative agendum in most cases; I just don't think it's the only one.

If you could come as far as:

"The nature of the reward sought from play as realized through the player's choices and particularly in response to in game conflict"

I could meet you there.

-----

The case has been raised of the seeming gamist who is playing in the non-gamist group, and so is not getting kudos from his fellow players. I suspect that part of what is happening in the mind of this player is something like, "That was so cool that these people really ought to think so, too, and since they don't they must be real dorks; I'm sure that anyone to whom I described that would think it was wicked cool, so I don't know what's wrong with these guys."

I also think that a lot of gamist solo play has this "self as audience" phenomenon--the glory comes in part from impressing yourself with how well you did it. Sometimes the imaginative aside that appears with this includes the imaginary audience cheering. I'm reminded that the old Intellivision Skiing game had canned applause when you reached the bottom of the slalom course; and if you successfully figured out the code in Bomb Squad the voice that had been guiding you would shout, "You did it! You did it! You're a hero!", and there would be celebratory music and imitation fireworks. These are playing on the drive in gamist play with a sort of "canned glory".

I also know that a lot of people who play gamist video games tell each other how they managed to overcome this or that within them, and are impressed with just how quickly someone managed to beat the game; so even though they're playing by themselves, they're still doing it to impress people.

Even when they don't have anyone to impress, the success itself gives them a sort of satisfaction of glory. They know they did it; it bolsters their image of who they are.

So maybe it's not as much the glory, but that the glory is a prime means to the real objective, which might be the validation of ability and self-worth. Dang, that's a deep psychological drive. It's best when others validate it for us, but we validate it for ourselves by being impressed with our own successes. Further, I'll note that when we succeed at something and don't think it was difficult, our self-validation fails. (I know--I had the highest SAT scores in my high school graduating class, and wrote it off to skill at standardized tests, because I couldn't imagine that I was actually smart.)

As to Lee's question concerning that player who likes to monkey with the system, he might indeed be gamist, if he's looking to prove his ability against the system. On the other hand, he might be simulationist (in my estimation) if what he's after is understanding how the system works.

I've had this window open so long, I'm sure I've cross-posted with someone; but let me post and see what's been added since Ron.

--M. J. Young

[Lee Short]

You've described two Gamists, Lee. Here's how:

But, like anybody, John likes to be respected by his peers. So he also gains significant esteem value from gaining the respect of his fellow players. The reason why he sits down at the gaming table has more to do with intellectual curiosity and internally generated self-respect than the respect he gets from his peers, but all three of these are factors. He's not at all competitive.

If John is getting this respect from the others by demonstrating personal strategy and guts, then he is playing Gamist. All your qualifiers ("more to do with intellectual curiosity" e.g.) are irrelevant.

I completely concur that John is getting this respect by demonstrating personal strategy and guts, as a person.  No issue there.  

The reason I said, 'like anybody' is because I think that anybody who sits down to play a crunchy game will receive some measure of positive motivation by having their personal strategy and guts recognized by the gaming group.  This applies to non-Gamists playing crunchy games, too.  The question to me is:  how much of 'why they game' does this comprise?  It seems to me that this question is crucial to determining if they are a Gamist.  

Your description of John is muddy and problematic because you're not specifying that crucial issue. That's the only reason you can make any claim to John playing in a Simulationist fashion.

That's not clear to me  If John's primary motivation to sit down at the table to game is 'to better understand the system', and demonstrating strategy and guts to his peers is just a small part, why is he Gamist?

Ignore the part about his internal self-respect.  MJ explained that -- thanks, MJ.

[Lee Short]

You've described two Gamists, Lee. Here's how:

But, like anybody, John likes to be respected by his peers. So he also gains significant esteem value from gaining the respect of his fellow players. The reason why he sits down at the gaming table has more to do with intellectual curiosity and internally generated self-respect than the respect he gets from his peers, but all three of these are factors. He's not at all competitive.

If John is getting this respect from the others by demonstrating personal strategy and guts, then he is playing Gamist. All your qualifiers ("more to do with intellectual curiosity" e.g.) are irrelevant.

I completely concur that John is getting this respect by demonstrating personal strategy and guts, as a person.  No issue there.  

The reason I said, 'like anybody' is because I think that anybody who sits down to play a crunchy game will receive some measure of positive motivation by having their personal strategy and guts recognized by the gaming group.  This applies to non-Gamists playing crunchy games, too.  The question to me is:  how much of 'why they game' does this comprise?  It seems to me that this question is crucial to determining if they are a Gamist.  

Your description of John is muddy and problematic because you're not specifying that crucial issue. That's the only reason you can make any claim to John playing in a Simulationist fashion.

That's not clear to me.  If John's primary motivation to sit down at the table to game is 'to better understand the system', and demonstrating strategy and guts to his peers is just a small part, why is he Gamist?

Ignore the part about his internal self-respect.  MJ explained that -- thanks, MJ.

[Caldis]

I completely concur that John is getting this respect by demonstrating personal strategy and guts, as a person.  No issue there.  

The reason I said, 'like anybody' is because I think that anybody who sits down to play a crunchy game will receive some measure of positive motivation by having their personal strategy and guts recognized by the gaming group.  This applies to non-Gamists playing crunchy games, too.  The question to me is:  how much of 'why they game' does this comprise?  It seems to me that this question is crucial to determining if they are a Gamist.  

The GNS classifications are not really as much about why he games as what he does while gaming that gives him enjoyment.  He can be there primarily for some thought experiment that the gamist crunch allows him to accomplish, if that is getting fulfilled by stepping on up than he is into gamism.  He may be gamist because that form of play allows the most interaction with the system, with combat rolls taking place almost non stop, whereas a more simulationist game may have less interaction with the rules system and not provide the insight he is looking for.

[Marco]

The case has been raised of the seeming gamist who is playing in the non-gamist group, and so is not getting kudos from his fellow players. I suspect that part of what is happening in the mind of this player is something like, "That was so cool that these people really ought to think so, too, and since they don't they must be real dorks; I'm sure that anyone to whom I described that would think it was wicked cool, so I don't know what's wrong with these guys."

--M. J. Young

I have two comments on this:

1. It is saying that all sense of accomplishment, all pride-of-craftsmanship, all self improvement is based on impressing other people--even imaginary other people--and even if, given the chance to talk about it, you don't.

I think a case can be made (the expert craftsman is psychologically working to impress his now-dead father who trained him)--but it is one I would be leery of taking on faith or applying in all circumstances.

2. If we allow a ghost audience then we've removed the need for observation of reinforcing behavior from CA description or analysis. The Narrativist need not have any feedback from the group ... or even negative feedback--so long as, in his head, the right guys are impressed.

I don't mind that--but I see that as a major change.

Additionally: I don't see the negative-feedback case as dysfunctional. I think the far more common case is the other players are pretty neutral on the behavior and the player's ghost audience is the one doing most of the cheering.

-Marco

[Lee Short]

I completely concur that John is getting this respect by demonstrating personal strategy and guts, as a person.  No issue there.  

The reason I said, 'like anybody' is because I think that anybody who sits down to play a crunchy game will receive some measure of positive motivation by having their personal strategy and guts recognized by the gaming group.  This applies to non-Gamists playing crunchy games, too.  The question to me is:  how much of 'why they game' does this comprise?  It seems to me that this question is crucial to determining if they are a Gamist.  

The GNS classifications are not really as much about why he games as what he does while gaming that gives him enjoyment.  He can be there primarily for some thought experiment that the gamist crunch allows him to accomplish, if that is getting fulfilled by stepping on up than he is into gamism.  

Well, that is precisely what I was trying to determine.  Because I see some people here using the term that way, but I don't see that it is consistently being used that way...but many times, it is unclear to me which of them is being used.  At least in part, this is because both 'why do they game?' and 'what they do while gaming that they enjoy?' can be, at some levels, answered the same way.  But that doesn't explain all the ambiguity -- and when I asked a question that distinguished between the two usages, both Valamir and Ron seemed to unequivocally state that 'why they game' was the real question.  

This all related back to contracycle's question about what the similarities and differences are between GDS-G and GNS-G, which I'm still thinking about.

[M. J. Young]

O.K., I do understand the difference between "Why they game" and "What they do while gaming that they enjoy", but I don't think the difference can apply here, really. The two are truncated into one in GNS, I think.

Obviously, the answer to "Why do you game" in almost every case (and I'd wager in every case we would consider functional) is "to have fun". Then "What do you do while gaming that you enjoy" really is "What is it about play that you find fun, and how do you get that to happen". Thus GNS becomes what it is that you do to get enjoyment from the game so it will be fun--and since "fun" is why you play, whatever it is you do to have fun is the reason you're playing, or at least tells us what that reason is. That, then, is gamism, or narrativism, or simulationism--you're doing things to get the kind of reward from play that you enjoy, and so play so that you can get that reward.

Thus the difficulty in answering the question. I swim ultimately because I enjoy it. Do I enjoy swimming laps, and the feeling of accomplishment and of doing something healthy for my body? Do I enjoy playing games with others in the pool? Do I enjoy impressing friends with the sorts of dives I can do off the board? Whatever it is that I enjoy about swimming, that's really why I swim. Whatever it is that I enjoy about role playing games, that's why I play.

--M. J. Young

[Caldis]

Obviously, the answer to "Why do you game" in almost every case (and I'd wager in every case we would consider functional) is "to have fun". Then "What do you do while gaming that you enjoy" really is "What is it about play that you find fun, and how do you get that to happen". Thus GNS becomes what it is that you do to get enjoyment from the game so it will be fun--and since "fun" is why you play, whatever it is you do to have fun is the reason you're playing, or at least tells us what that reason is. That, then, is gamism, or narrativism, or simulationism--you're doing things to get the kind of reward from play that you enjoy, and so play so that you can get that reward.

Right but the important distinction to make is that the player is doing this in the game.  If the player values creating theme then he does not care if the game is creating theme, he cares whether he is able to create theme in the game.  It's like baseball when your 6 years old and you get stuck in right field, nobody hits the ball there so the game isnt all that exciting at least until you get to bat and you can actually play.  That's why I disagree with the idea that a game with theme is a creative agenda.  The agenda is to create theme not to partake in a game that has theme.