model proposition

[contracycle]

Well, having spent some time trawling through RPGnet, and participated in various back and forths here and there, I thought I'd take the opportunity to lay out a diffiuclty I see in the existing model and do the usual thing of proposing my own.  It aint that radical, tho.

I have been concerned about the relationship between narrativism and dramatism (which I implicitly accept as an actually-occurring phenomenon).  It seems to me that a lot of the argument about narrativism is really an argument about narrativism and dramatism, and I have come to the conlusion that these are both sufficiently distinct forms of play to constitute a top level descriptor.

This produces a 4-axis model - GNDS.  In order to arrange them in some (hopefully) self evident manner, I have devised a grid layout.

.............Experience......Exploit   
Story......DRAMATISM....NARRATIVISM   
Setting...SIMULAITON...GAMISM   

The top line indicates the motive/act.  The leftmost column indicates the subject/target of the action/motive.  I have effectively collapsed setting and situation etc. into my term "setting".  The term "exploit" should be taken to indicate use/manipulate/modify/create.

I therefore suggest:
The Simulationist seeks to EXPERIENCE SETTING.
The Gamist seeks to EXPLOIT SETTING
The Narrativist seeks to EXPLOIT STORY
The Dramatist seeks to EXPERIENCE STORY

Please apply criticism with vigour.

[Valamir]

Mike and I were talking just this weekend, and I mentioned that I thought Dramaticism should probably be a top level concern.  And I do really like the matrix idea you have, it seems logical, at least at first blush.

However, I ran into a problem.  GNS is all about the motivation behind the player's choice at a point of decision.  In my post a few threads down in this forum I described what I believe to be key differences in motivation for Simulationist decisions, Gamist decisions, and Narrativist decisions.

I could not, at that time, concieve of what would constitute a decision made for Dramatist purposes that would allow it to stand on its own.  The nearest I could think of was a player who made a decision based on the decision he thought the GM would want him to make so as not to spoil any of the GM's unfolding plot line.  But I'm not sure that's really accurate.  Plus while I have seen (and made) this type of decision before, I've never seen it work as a primary decision mode in a game that people were actually enjoying.

So, I have this niggling sense that you're on to something ('cause I've been on to it myself), but unless we can come up with a definition of what an actual Dramatist decision is, I don't know that it fits.

[Mike Holmes]

As long as you were to define setting in a very broad sense, for example including character, etc. then I'd see this as an extension of the earlier GDS theory in which you have subdivided the desires of the D player into passive and active participation. Which is fine. But, as always, the question becomes what do you do with this theory. By being based on player actions in-game, GNS makes itself (it seems to me) to be particularly applicable to game design. How does the GDS or GDSN model apply to design? Or, rather, if I have players who want to experience story, how do I make rules different from those that would enhance experiencing setting?

How about rules that made it more easy for a GM to create story during play? Does that make sense?

Mike

[Le Joueur]

A difficulty I see in the existing model and do the usual thing of proposing my own.

I have been concerned about the relationship between Narrativism and Dramatism (which I implicitly accept as an actually-occurring phenomenon).  It seems to me that a lot of the argument about Narrativism is really an argument about Narrativism and Dramatism, and I have come to the conclusion that these are both sufficiently distinct forms of play to constitute a top-level descriptor.

My thoughts have been along a similar line, except I considered, granted that both Narrativism and Dramatism deserve "top-level descriptors," whether other (possibly unknown to me) styles of play may deserve the same.

With that consideration, I concluded that what was also needed was a 'higher'-level set of descriptors, an abstract set, not bound to specific play styles.  Herein the idea is to find the 'fences' rather than the 'concentrations' of styles.  If Narrativism and Dramatism are both valuable descriptors, then there must be some abstract differences between them.  This 'uber'-level of descriptors would focus on making the differences explicit.  Rather than trying to find all playing styles, I want to find the taxonomy that separates the known ones and allows unknown ones to be described.

Or, contrary to how the GNS tries to 'cluster' modes, I am looking for what 'sets them apart.'

This produces a 4-axis model - GNDS.  In order to arrange them in some (hopefully) self-evident manner, I have devised a grid layout.

Code Select Expand

         [u]Experience[/u]   [u]Exploit[/u]
Story     DRAMATISM    NARRATIVISM
Setting   SIMULATION   GAMISMThe top line indicates the motive/act.  The leftmost column indicates the subject/target of the action/motive.  I have effectively collapsed setting and situation etc. into my term "setting".  The term "exploit" should be taken to indicate use/manipulate/modify/create.

I really like where you are going with this, but as I said, I found the 'grouping' methodology flawed when it comes to examining wild fauna in the field.

For your "use/manipulate/modify/create" motive (as opposed to "Experiencing"), I made note of the fact that this is an 'exploitation' of the entire unit, an objective PoV.  Contrariwise, "Experiencing" quite easily fits the concept of subjective PoV.

When it comes to "Story versus Setting" (or more appropriately 'Story versus Setting/Situation/Character/System/Color?'), I found this 'divide' highly dubious.  I am inclined to separate 'Story' concerns from all others (making it a separate set of Story-Intent versus Story-Result divisions).  I can see how this works to fit the four playing styles you are struggling to find relativity for, but I just don't see the purpose of the sketchy relativity.

What I came up with was more along the lines of (not involving "Story") a measure of 'direction,' whether a playing style addresses itself to inward (focusing on that which is within or adds up to the PoV) versus outward (working with or improving the totality and relative value of the sum of what makes up the PoV).

As far as 'Story' is concerned, I saw that story-intent versus story-result as a separate issue that could be applied independently of the above 'directions' and PoVs.

I therefore suggest:
The Simulationist seeks to EXPERIENCE SETTING.
The Gamist seeks to EXPLOIT SETTING
The Narrativist seeks to EXPLOIT STORY
The Dramatist seeks to EXPERIENCE STORY

And I suggest instead:
A Simulationist approach is an inward (looking at the 'parts' of...), objective (...of the 'larger picture') playing style with no more than story-result (it might become a story) focus.

Out here in the sticks, we've been calling this one 'playing the Explorer' (because 'tourist' is too passive), but I want to change that to Swashbuckler (but the jury is still out).

A Gamist approach is an outward (looking at the value or ability of...), subjective (...of the player's 'contact point' or sometimes character) playing style with no more than story-result (it might become a story when recounted) focus.

In our work, we've been calling this one 'playing the Joueur' (I especially like it because it combines gambling with playing and adds a little 'real operator' into the mix).

We've also identified how much sharing impacts how things are played.  While we haven't seen a need to identify playing styles specifically different because of sharing issues, but they are obviously important here.  We have concluded three separate sharing 'levels.'  The first is similar to the traditional 'the player only uses character perceptions and actions.'  It's a bit more complicated than that, but we call it Self-Sovereign.  Next up is having control over everything that happens to your 'point of contact' (this is usually the character, but can also refer to anything you are the proprietor of - see the Scattershot stuff for explanations of issues relating to propriety).  This means not only can you create things specifically for how they affect your 'point of contact,' but also anyone affecting it must do so at your permission.  We've called this Referential in the past, but are actively seeking a better term.  Lastly is when you have ability equal to what is traditionally thought of as being the gamemaster.  For us this is Gamemasterful sharing.

A Narrativist approach is an outward (looking at the value of the sum of...), objective (...of the 'big picture') playing style with both story-intent (working on it's value 'as a story') and up to Gamemasterful sharing (everyone is allowed to do everything).

In our program of work, we've been calling this 'playing the Auteur' (after the auteur method of direction in the cinema).

On the other hand, a Dramatist approach would also be an outward (looking at the value of the sum of...), objective (...of the 'big picture') playing style with both story-intent (working on it's value 'as a story') and usually only Self-Sovereign (the players stick to their characters) sharing.

This would also be 'playing the Auteur,' but with a restriction on the sharing.  The GNS appears to relegate Dramatism to a Simulationist's 'exploration' of story (story-intent by only by the gamemaster), but we felt that caused too much confusion with the overall 'exploration' of story in Narrativism (story-intent by everyone).

After comparing Simulationism's 'exploration' of story, 'Illusionism,' and 'vanilla Narrativism,' I concluded that Dramatism was more in parallel with Narrativism than Simulationism, differing mostly in sharing issues.  The important point is at least one player at the table is making choices based on story-intent issues (even when the story-intended may be predetermined).  But this is beside the point as I use neither the terms Narrativism nor Dramatism.

The reason I don't segregate Simulationism they way you do, is because I have seen it possible for all players to share in a Simulationist-driven game whereas you imply that Simulationism is 'done to you.'

I could not conceive of what would constitute a decision made for Dramatist purposes that would allow it to stand on its own.

This describes the inherent problem using a modeling approach at identifying clusters as opposed to looking for criteria for judgement.  I should reiterate that I do not have a problem with the 'central masses' of the clusters that make up Gamism, Simulationism, Dramatism, and Narrativism.  The problem I have seen with the threefold and the GNS is when these models encounter new fauna; that is when we get into 'square-peg round-hole' arguments.

That's why we came up with the criteria we did and why we call it 'playing the...' instead of 'ists' or 'isms.'  It's more intuitive to consider changing what your playing from moment to moment, but counter-intuitive to change your 'ism.'

Fang Langford

(Clearly, I need to take this over to RPG Theory or Scattershot.  I just thought I'd post a 'taste' of things to come.)

[contracycle]

How about rules that made it more easy for a GM to create story during play? Does that make sense?

I would say you could, yes, although I would also like to say that I this idea was just to open discussion.

I think, in line with the narrative catalyst thread, that it could be plausible to design mechanics in such a way as to aid a GM construct a game that has a post facto story value.  I donl;t think dramatica has much application ot narratavism myself, but it may have value to dramatism, as a category, in feeding GM's unfamiliar with story structure an appropriate set of variables to fill, boxes to tick.

Thus, as per dramatica proposal, part of the mechanics and decisions in play explicitly addresses the story role of a given character - but does not need awareness of the story per se; the player only has to concern themselves with staying IC and portraying certain elements of story structure; perhaps PC's can be spcified as "foils" for other PC's and thus have a "duty" to, at some time, make appropriate decisions to portray this foil role.

Anyway, just an idea.

[Mike Holmes]

Hmmm. This makes this a very tempting idea. But the problem is with what Fang brings up. Essentially the model begins to examine the full range of player desires in RPGs (what players "seek" as you put it). The problem is exactly ad Fang puts it. What makes these four categories atomic? Why not break them down further. To compare to GNS, that theory decides to divide things at the level of decision where, arguably, there are only three possible choices.  But certainly with desires, these things can be easily broken down further. This is why one can introduce Narrativism into this (Gareth's) model making it four-fold. But, the difference between these being player-empowerment to affect story, where is my player-empowered setting desire? Or really any other breakdown?

I'd buy that these are mutually exclusive groups at the level you describe  (or could be defined as such, much as Ron does), but what makes this level useful as opposed to a finer breakdown, or one that consideres more parameters tham just the two you mention?

Mike

edited for clarity

[Mike Holmes]

How about rules that made it more easy for a GM to create story during play? Does that make sense?

I would say you could, yes, although I would also like to say that I this idea was just to open discussion.

I only gave this example to clarify the potential kind of use that such a break down might have, not as a practical example. I'm just wondering about the applicability of the model. For example, if this is a desire based model I can see it being good for discussing GMing techniques as well as design techniques.

Mike

[contracycle]

I guess my major source of discontent, as it were, with GNS at the moment is:
a) the absence of dramatism
b) failure to distinguish between player and GM modes
c) the mutual exclusivity of the 3 types.

I guess this comes down to a kinda belief thing: I don't believe that you ever, ever, come across an X player who makes X decisions.  I do not accept that any discrete decision X is or can be mnotivated by only one strand.  IOW I think you find, say. Gamist/Sim combo players, and when they make decisions, they do so along BOTH axes simultaneously.  Therefore, I see no need for the present mutual exclusivity - its useful in a diagnostic sense but I don't think the model ever appears in a material form anywhere.  I think any given player, AND any given decision, contain a multitude of styles.

As for the GM thing - yes, I can certainly see that in SOME forms of play the GM and players are essentially indistinguishable, but I'm not convinced that this should be an initial assumption.  Its a problem that I have dating back to the rgfa threefold - I think GM's make decisions in fundamentally different ways to the ways players do.  I would prefere a model which relegated the GM-less/full scenario to a special rather than a general case.

From these two positions, I can construct dramatism as a quarter primarily inhabited by the Illusionist GM.  Some player decisions would fall into this box, such as systems which provide point rewards for falmboyant/entertaining play and whatnot.  Symmetry is not needed; not all aspects of the model need address players IMO.

[Mike Holmes]

That last post should be in the thread about current valid GNS Issues.

But getting back to your new model: I like the notion that you separate the GM and player positions. I'd add that there are combinations of GMs and Players where the decision making process for each is different. For example, a certain GM might play an open Illusionist game with some players while playing a hidden Illusionist game (lying) with others.

Some of these combinations are probably dysfunctional. One could use such a theory for diagnoses (again, just speculating on usefulness).

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Gareth (contracycle),

I'm afraid I see all of those issues as being fully resolved in the existing essay, such that what remains is explanation, not debate.

Taking them out of order ...

1) What mutual exclusivity? It is not there regarding people as units, nor as games as units, nor even as sessions as units. The unit is "instance of role-playing," which is to say, one decision of play. A scene is probably the minimal unit.

Now, I suggest that sessions and games (ie "campaigns") and players are not characterized by a random assortment of GNS priorities, but the extent to which decisions are "clustered" in GNS terms is observed to vary widely.

I've always stated this point, back to the very first days of the first System article; granted, I did not articulate it formally until the most recent essay. I also stand by the observation that real humans do tend to cluster those priorities, at least into larger units of play. That is not exclusivity inherent to the model, but rather an observation.

2) Where does the perception that GM and player are equivalent at all times come from? That is madness. Stated very, very clearly in my essay, is the concept that the functional role of GM as opposed to player varies widely within each category. It is one of the "further application" issues that the GNS level is officially, definitely, and totally not responsible for describing, but is necessary for functional play. I even list the possible variants of GM/player roles for each category!

I am beginning to think that the "layer" issue, as described in my Seven Misconceptions post, is perhaps the biggest stumbling block of all - people are not seeing that GNS exists in a "block," and that many crucial elements of play exist in further "blocks" within each GNS category.

3) And finally, dramatism. I think I mentioned my views on this somewhere in the last few flurries, but damned if I'm hunting for it now. Let's see ... what I said was this:

a) Dramatism as a uniquely-featured mode of play has never been described or observed. I am still swinging my dead cat and have not yet hit any evidence of an actual human who is actually playing "Dramatist," in a way that isn't described by some aspect of GNS.

b) When I have asked for a description, I am given a textbook description of a form of Simulationism. This assignment to that category has required absolutely no "bending" or discomfort of the fundamental definition of Simulationism. All discomfort with that assignment has been based on emotional reactions, whether toward "story" being a Simulationist possibility or based on loyalty to the Threefold version of the term.

In conclusion, I still see Dramatism as a non-issue if we are discussing role-playing in the terms of my essay. Either we are talking about (b), in which case "Dramatism" as described to me is nicely present in GNS, or we are talking about (a), in which case we are in a Bigfoot situation - you gotta show me a specimen before we start talking about mammalogy.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

I just want to pop in and comment on Ron's point one above.

That section is worth reading again and again.  IMO it is the key to unraveling the mysteries of GNS (which is why I highlighted it in my recent post on the subject).

Looking back on my history with GNS at GO and later here, I think that the lack of understanding of this point (by different people at different times) was the source of a LARGE number of our impassioned discussions.

I can recall Ron mentioning "at the instance of role-play" and other similiar phrases but they never really clicked with me, and in retrospect I suspect they never really clicked with several of us.  (Possibly because the meaning of phrases like "at the instance of role-play" isn't immediately obvious except to people who already get it; or possibly because there is just some level of exposure required before understanding dawns).

But this really is for me the key.  So many of the discussions here went around and around in circles because people were argueing completely different points.  They may have been using the same jargon but in hindsight it is clear to me that much of the time one side or the other (often me) didn't grasp this point.  We spent alot of time argueing about "games" and "players" and "player preferences" and "play styles" and other such ambiguities, when what the model was really designed for was decisions.  We were trying to apply Newtonian rules at a Quantum level and it just wasn't working.  Decisions are the subatomic particles, so to speak, and it is decisions that are what GNS is about.

Speaking for myself, probably better than 1/2 of my disagreement with what GNS says, or should say or doesn't cover, etc. in the past stems from not haveing truly grasped this concept.  I read it, I understood it at that acknowledgement of syntax level, but I never really got the implications until the last several months.

It was clear to me from the recent RPG.net thread that most of those folks don't grasp this about GNS either.  It is also clear to me that even here on the Forge, our self developed short hand tends to obscure rather than highlight this point.

Also I do believe that my own years of experience in roleplaying looked at through the lens of decision bears out the idea that ulimately each decision can only occupy 1 G-N-S position.  Granted, one might weigh the pros and cons "this is what my character would do, but this would be better for the 'story', but this would help me level faster" of a decision; and you may try to "balance" the decision or compromise as much as possible "yeah it was a little bit gamey, but mostly justifiable"; but ultimately the internal debate has to end and the choice has to be made, and that choice will be either a G, N or S choice, regardless of whether the player is even concious of the difference.

[Laurel]

I just want to pop in and comment on Rons point one above.

But this really is for me the key.  So many of the discussions here went around and around in circles because people were argueing completely different points.  They may have been using the same jargon but in hindsight it is clear to me that much of the time one side or the other (often me) didn't grasp this point.  We spent alot of time argueing about "games" and "players" and "player preferences" and "play styles" and other such ambiguities, when what the model was really designed for was decisions.  

It was clear to me from the recent RPG.net thread that most of those folks don't grasp this about GNS either.  It is also clear to me that even here on the Forge, our self developed short hand tends to obscure rather than highlight this point.

This just struck me as a particularly important post.  The biggest objection I have about many of the "new models" I've seen suggested is that they are not intended to look at the *instant* of roleplaying, the decision being made that relates to the fufillment of an underlying goal.   Its not that they aren't interesting (they are), but they are attempts to apply GNS-ish building blocks to other issues than *this* specific act of role-play or *that* specific act of role-play.

I'm reaching a conclusion that the existing literature on GNS is a little too dense and ambiguous to really hammer home specifics for the casual reader, and agree that we make it even more confusing when we slip into refering to ourselves as "gamists", "simulationists", etc., which is actually short-hand for 'a player who  best identifies with and believes they are most inclined to utilize this mode of play'.  

Too often I see arguments that boil down to "the model is wrong because sometimes I make Gamist-decisions and Narrativist-decisions inside the same game or game session" when there's nothing in GNS that says such doesn't happen.  

I don't think any of the other work other RPG theorists are doing should be dimissed out of hand, and I do think sometimes some of us are dismissive.  But part of the problem is that models are sometimes offered as improvements or alternatives to GNS when they fail to actually tackle the same issues-- its like offering an airplane to replace a jogger, because it can get around the block faster, when the purpose is to run on the sidewalk.

And the reason we can never seem to get to seeing if the jogger can jump hurdles (take GNS blocks and build new blocks, move with it into related and exciting topics) is because *as a community* we're telling ourselves/constantly being told that we have to get rid of the jogger or change his tennis shoes because they might be the wrong color.

[Laurel]

This produces a 4-axis model - GNDS.  In order to arrange them in some (hopefully) self evident manner, I have devised a grid layout.

.............Experience......Exploit   
Story......DRAMATISM....NARRATIVISM   
Setting...SIMULAITON...GAMISM   

The top line indicates the motive/act.  The leftmost column indicates the subject/target of the action/motive.  I have effectively collapsed setting and situation etc. into my term "setting".  The term "exploit" should be taken to indicate use/manipulate/modify/create.

I therefore suggest:
The Simulationist seeks to EXPERIENCE SETTING.
The Gamist seeks to EXPLOIT SETTING
The Narrativist seeks to EXPLOIT STORY
The Dramatist seeks to EXPERIENCE STORY

Please apply criticism with vigour.

I'm interested in hearing more from you about the differences between Experience and Exploitation, and specific examples of how players do each of these things at the instance of role-playing, and some defining connections between these two modes  and decisions/goals.   I do think there's a real diamond in the rough here, although I wouldn't necessarily equate Experience/Exploit with distinct GNS and GNSD modes and need to see some proof they do so.  :)

[contracycle]

Gareth (contracycle),
1) What mutual exclusivity? It is not there regarding people as units, nor

This is implied in the assertion that gamers of mismatched typoes, or games with mechanics mismatched with the ostendible goals, are or a are likely to become dysfuntional.

recent essay. I also stand by the observation that real humans do tend to cluster those priorities, at least into larger units of play. That is not exclusivity inherent to the model, but rather an observation.

I contest the observation.  IMO, any given player is such a cluster of all three (or four or whatever) axes.  A cluster of players may thus shift priorities and modes with a great degree of internal consent.

2) Where does the perception that GM and player are equivalent at all times come from? That is madness. Stated very, very clearly in my essay, is the concept that the functional role of GM as opposed to player varies widely within each category.

Only in the ommission.  It appears plausible to me that some forms and motives and play may be unevenly distributed - ie.e tyhat there are some motivations in GMing which are NOT common to players and thus do not fall into a set of categories which do not differentiate between player and GM.

a) Dramatism as a uniquely-featured mode of play has never been described or observed. I am still swinging my dead cat and have not yet

This I disagree with.  I find the location of dramatism inside simulationism implausible.

hit any evidence of an actual human who is actually playing "Dramatist," in a way that isn't described by some aspect of GNS.

Me, insasmuch as I am not particularly interested in co-authorsip, but I do think the delivering a story to players fulfills some of their desires.

b) When I have asked for a description, I am given a textbook description of a form of Simulationism. This assignment to that category has required absolutely no "bending" or discomfort of the fundamental definition of Simulationism. All discomfort with that assignment has been

To your satisfaction, not to mine.  To me, it requires considerable and egregious mental contortion to fit dramatism under simulationism.

based on emotional reactions, whether toward "story" being a Simulationist possibility or based on loyalty to the Threefold version of the term.

I regard that as an uinworthy characterisation.  Ron, you do yourself no favours if your characterise those who disagree with you as irrational.

[contracycle]

I just want to pop in and comment on Ron's point one
I can recall Ron mentioning "at the instance of role-play" and other similiar phrases but they never really clicked with me, and in retrospect I suspect they never really clicked with several of us.  (Possibly because the meaning of phrases like "at the instance of role-play" isn't immediately obvious except to people who already get it; or possibly because there is just some level of exposure required before understanding dawns).

Then let me be absolutely explicit: I think that, at the very moment when an actual player or GM is making an actual decision, they may be doing so (indeed are probably doing so IMO) on more than one axis simultaneously, possibly on all of them.  I would concede that they are probably doing so to different DEGREES, but not that they are following one axis exclusively in any given decision.