More than Three 'Boxes'

[Marco]

Hi Gordon,

That's pretty lucid: I like Authorship and Challenge broken out. I might consolidtate the others as Story (with sub-sets). The real idea is that any game has to be rated in all areas rather than one--GNS does that too--but in practice games tend to get described in terms of only one box.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

I thought this was a thread about more boxes? Storyist works fine for all intents and purposes--in fact changing Gamist (the other GDS term) might be clearer too.

If you look back, you'll see that Fang has specifically said that these classifications should have nothing to do with adding or subtracting from actual GNS theory per se.

As for the joiners ... well, we don't know much about them except they're fairly passive (as you'd expect from people whose primary enjoyment comes from the unfolding of a story) and say they 'like the story.' Since most people role-play with friends there's a social aspect to almost all groups. If asked why they're showing up and they say "I like the stories," in GDS terms they're Dramatist, no? If they said: "I came for the company" then Joiners or Tourists or whatever would be more descriptive (IMO).

Well, I'm just guessing, but from a careful reading of Jesse's description, and having people like this myself, my assumption is that when asked why the play RPGs that people give an expected response about the game. It's obvious that they come for the companionship, and they don't think (correctly, actually) that they are being asked about that. Instead they fumble around and come up with "story, I guess?" Not really an answer, because when it comes down to it, there is nothing that you can do one way or another to make the story better for these people, really, or damage their enjoyment by playing Gamist or Sim or any non-story oriented fashion. They just don't have a goal in play.

Of course, I could be characterizing Jesse's players wrongly, and there are certainly people who do have the goal of passively recieving a story from the GM (call em Dramatists or story-oriented simulationists, whatever), I don't claim that such do not exist. I just think that in this particular case they are Joiners.

FWIW I wasn't refering to someone saying "this is good for Narrativist play" but more like "I'm using narrativist techniques like ..."

Possibly an oversite that illuminates the bias here. Doesn't change the fact, however. Also, look at the context. Many times a FitM mechanic, forex, will be described such that the player describes the outcome of the result in a fairly empowered fashion. Most people think of FitM in this context, and in this case it is supportive of Narrativism more than anything else.

But you make a good point that FitM can be used successfully in Sim and Gamism as well.

Mike

[Le Joueur]

Sorry for being out of contact for so long folks, Scattershot (just the mechanix) is up now, so back to business....

Let's take stock of what we have for boxes so far.

Back in January, Marco brought up the Story-as-Result (we might call that SaR) and Story-as-Creation (this could be SaC) issues.  He also made it plain that the terms 'Simulation,' 'Simulationism,' and 'Simulationist' have way to much baggage; me? I think its time for them to rest now.

James West (without the 'V'), points out a new theory needs a new set of axes.  This is very true, I might go so far as to suggest that it ought to have a different 'point.'  Ron has clearly stated that the GNS is for people who aren't happy with their games; it exists to give them a 'compass' to find their way to a coherent style of play.  Therefore it's about play-style goal alignment.  As I have heard it, the GDS is about how decisions are made during play and styles where those decision-types find the best homes.  (A bit of an over-simplification, but discussing other theories, especially in their complexity, isn't the point here.)

When I gamemaster (or play for that matter), my main focus is on delivering value to the players.  I look for what they value, and how to help them feel valuable to the game.  (And I know I don't like it when my characters are irrelevant.)  I usually do this through a number of techniques that engage them, to play on their emotions, and make use of whatever they bring to the game (which they value right?).  I am the facilitator, I 'work all the parts.'  I am the person who is expected to bring it all together when no one else will; I am the gamemaster (or at least that's what I expect from one).  So that's what I am looking for in a new theory.  (Boxes are then a way of finding patterns of desires.)

Back to our inventory....

Mike offers Joiners as a category, and I think we can say that if 'I like the stories' is an excuse, then these people must be way on the 'receptive end' of things.  (Which would mean that people who want lots of 'player power' are on the 'active end' of things.)  And I think Mike's right, both Dramatist (and probably Storyist) is a loaded term.  (Let's break them down and rename them later?)

Marco points out Gamist is a problem too.  I have been thinking about this for awhile and I'm convinced that basing new model terminology on loaded words is always problematic.  So I have a bold suggestion; remember SaR and SaC?  These nonsense words might be the key to terminology that wouldn't be misunderstood.  Let's make up words!

Gordon has taken the familiar elements of play (Story, Situation, Character, System, and Color) and added two more (Challenge and Authorship).  I offered my list earlier which was also two elements more than the original (Chara, Background, Circumstance, Genre Expectations, Mecahnics, Props, and Relationships).  The problem with both new schemes is how they are being interpreted in terms of the old.  Ron's five were 'things that Simulationists explore.'  I'm not sure you can explore Authorship or Challenge (or Color for that matter), I mean you can experience them, you can use them, but I don't think you can 'go to them' and explore.

My seven elements are meant as a list of things you can 'take to another game.'  Gordon's suggestions don't look like 'portable elements' either; they look like the 'terms of the game' (like Authorship is the terms of a game where 'active' players working on SaC, or like Challenge is the terms under which everything is looked at like competition).  Are there any other terms of play?

Bringing it all together?  Well, so far James has suggested we work out new axes of comparison; I think 'terms of play' (would that be ToP?) is a good start.  I suggested a new 'point,' structures that enhance value and involvment.

Mike and Marco suggest that old, 'loaded' terms should be jettisoned.  My suggestion is using words that have no meanings at all, new words.  Gordon indirectly suggested a couple of new axes (but according to my terminology suggestion, we need words other than Authorship and Challenge).  Taken with my idea of valuation a initial structure seems to be emerging, but we need 'more boxes' if we're going to see what emerges.

Especially boxed that don't seem to fit.

Fang Langford

[Marco]

Let me here offer:

Immersionist instead of story-oriented simulationist.

The Immersionist wants a premise "what is it like to be confronted with a choice of Love over Power" (or other N-sounding Premise). This is different from the Narrativist who wants to address that premise from an authorship perspecitve.

The Immersionist is interested in exploring story with out breaking SOD. They may want to explore--or participate in a story--but on the story-oriented end of things, they want the story-quality of the Narrativist without breaking SOD.

(note: this would still be covered under the Dramatist box)
-Marco

[Le Joueur]

Let me here offer:

Immersionist instead of story-oriented simulationist.

The Immersionist wants a premise "what is it like to be confronted with a choice of Love over Power" (or other N-sounding Premise). This is different from the Narrativist who wants to address that premise from an authorship perspecitve.

The Immersionist is interested in exploring story with out breaking SOD. They may want to explore--or participate in a story--but on the story-oriented end of things, they want the story-quality of the Narrativist without breaking SOD.

In my experience you are limiting Immersionists more than usual.  I understand the difference you're making, but what you're talking about Immersionists who show interest especially in SaR.  Just because an Immersionist is not interested in SaC, that does not keep them away from things like 'Tourist mode' (an exploration of Setting over Story).

In fact it sounds like you are renaming what you have described Dramatists as.  I think what you have, with a minor edit, is gold; "The Immersionist is interested in exploring...without breaking SoD."  I think putting 'in-character' and SoD (Suspension of Disbelief) ahead of everything is the only way to describe Immersionists; if think otherwise that becomes an argument to keep the idea, but lose the terminology.

So we have a 'my-guy' box?

Fang Langford