model proposition

[contracycle]

I'm interested in hearing more from you about the differences between Experience and Exploitation, and specific examples of how players do

Can't say as I can give all you asked for, as this is strictly Back Of The Envelope, but I can try to describe the decision more precisely.  

The simulationist who wishes to Experience Setting wants to find out new and insteresting stuff.  The want to experience discovery, enlightenment. I think they primarily value skilled narration as an aid to communication and portrayal.

The Gamist who wishes to Exploit Setting is mostly a "doer" (here the implicit absence of competition as a motive IMO).  They want to find out how the gears rotate and what they do; conflicts and challenges provide opportunities for exploiting the circumstances and tools around them to best effect, which satisifes the gamist desire to overcome the world and impose their will upon it.

The dramatist who wishes to Experience Story like Cool Shit, mostly IMO.  Many stories have the protagonist as essentially carried by the wave - the Matrix is an example which springs to mind.  Combined with a heavy cool factor, this is sufficient for dramatism IMO.

The narrativist wishes to create story; to be the creative entity as opposed experience anothers creation, the combined authorship model.  To this end, the story itself is the thing they work and act upon.

Thats all I have for now.

[Valamir]

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.

Well, I'm not sure this is empirically proveable in either direction, so it is perhaps fruitless to try, but I will make the attempt.

I don't think what we are saying is that far off.  I acknowledged that considering 2 or all 3 positions can occur (might even be quite common).  I also mentioned that players may come to some sort of compromise justification for their choice.  So we are saying essentially the same thing.

Where we seem to differ is the following:  A player is faced with a choice, call it a choice between a gamist decision and a simulationist decision.  Say the player is 49% leaning towards the gamist decision and 51% leaning towards the simulationist decision.  In the end the simulationist side wins out and he makes a simulationist decision.  You are saying that this is a combination of gamism and simulationism at the point of decision (correct me if I've misconstrued you).  I am saying, no, "In the end there can be only one", and while the gamist notions were concidered, they were not acted upon and therefor the position is strictly simulationist.

The demands for simulationism are pretty explicit:  Adherance to cause and effect rules of verisimilitude.  If this adherance is violated by even 10% in order to achieve some competitive end or to drive the story towards a Premise, then it is not a simulationist decision.  There is no such thing as "it was 'mostly' a simulationist decision".  You either adhered to the dictates of casaul reality or you were willing to violate those dictates to pursue a gamist or narrativist goal.  

For instance if faced with the opportunity to earn your character a +3 modifier in a way that makes no simulative sense, vs a way to earn your character a +1 modifier in a way that isn't so egregious but still doesn't make total simulative sense...choosing the second option is STILL a gamist choice.  It may a choice mitigated somewhat by simulationist concerns but the choice itself (the willing violation of the rules of verisimilitude to achieve a competitive edge) is clearly gamist...NOT a combination.

Similarly the demands for Narrativism are fairly explict (although more difficult to define).  But they center on making choices that illustrate, involve, advance, or resolve a Premise.  If you have the opportunity to spotlight the Premise but you decide instead that to do so would be too out of character, then you've made a simulationist decision.  There is no "it was 'mostly' narrativist".

Now over the course of a game session, I might make predominately Narrativist decisions.  But now and then when focusing on the Premise would be too jarring I might make a simulationist decision instead.  And periodically if the game has a metagame resource that gives me more story impact and provides a mechanic to earn me more of them, I may make a gamist decision motivated primarily by the desire to earn more of that resource.

Ron is not and has never said that this is dysfunctional in any way.  What he has said is that most frequently decisions will cluster around one of these positions.  

Its kind of like an election.  In the end no matter how close America came to electing Al Gore, the Presidency is not occupied by Bush and Gore simultaneously.  In the case of GNS there are three candidates.  No matter how close you come to makeing a decision based on two of them, in the end it comes down to which decision actually got made.


I think part of your disagreement stems from your referring to the GNS positions as lieing on an axis.  Since axes lend themselves well to measuring the degree that something is something you've gotten used to thinking of degrees of G or degrees of S.  This in not the case.  A G, N, or S decision is descrete.  It cannot be a combination of more than one because to a large extent the definitions are mutually exclusive.

Now what CAN be measured along an axis (which Ron has implicitly acknowledged by his reference to clusters) is the actual play of a person over the course of an entire session involving many decisions.  If a player makes 100 decisions in the course of a game and 70 of those were simulationist 20 of those gamist and 10 of those narrativist, then we'd say that this player is a simulationist because he "predominately" makes simulationist decisions.  You could map this tendency on a set of 3 axes. No where has GNS ever said it was exclusive at the player level, only at the decision level.

Now what Ron HAS said is that a player who made 34 simulationist decisions, 33 gamist decisions, and 33 narrativist decisions is likely to be experienceing some form of dysfunction.  This belief would best be characterized as a conclusion drawn from applying the theory to his own experiences and NOT as a tenent of the theory itself.

If you want to debate him on this point, by all means do so.  I haven't seen enough evidence one way or the other to support or refute that idea, so I would be quite interested in such a discussion.

But G N S decisions are discrete and mutually exclusive because they've been defined that way.  If you want to fashion your own theory with your own definitions where this is not the case than feel free to do so, Ron has infact encouraged this.  But your altered definitions in no way invalidate the definitions that are set for GNS.  Only whether your model proves more or less useful after several years of implementation and practice can it be judged as to whether it is more or less effective then GNS at certain things.

[contracycle]

For instance if faced with the opportunity to earn your character a +3 modifier in a way that makes no simulative sense, vs a way to earn your character a +1 modifier in a way that isn't so egregious but still doesn't make total simulative sense...choosing the second option is STILL a gamist choice.  It may a choice mitigated somewhat by simulationist concerns but the choice itself (the willing violation of the rules of verisimilitude to achieve a competitive edge) is clearly gamist...NOT a combination.

This is a perfect outline of the difference of perspective; to me I think that it is precisely a combined decision, and that the player has sought out a solution that allows a sufficiently comfortable compromise between their two drivers.  The player has made neither a pure gamist nor pure simulationist choice - they have selected a mode that accomodates both to the extent that they (the player) are comfortable.

Similarly the demands for Narrativism are fairly explict (although more difficult to define).  But they center on making choices that illustrate, involve, advance, or resolve a Premise.  If you have the opportunity to spotlight the Premise but you decide instead that to do so would be too out of character, then you've made a simulationist decision.  There is no "it was 'mostly' narrativist".

I would contend that you could do so if you were able to find a way that would portray both the premise, AND the fact that this behaviour on the part of the character is out of character.

I think part of your disagreement stems from your referring to the GNS positions as lieing on an axis.  Since axes lend themselves well to measuring the degree that something is something you've gotten used to thinking of degrees of G or degrees of S.  This in not the case.  A G, N, or S decision is descrete.  It cannot be a combination of more than one because to a large extent the definitions are mutually exclusive.

As far back as r.g.fa., I proposed a model in which a given game was rated 1-10 in each of G, D, and S simultaneously.  A game may then have had a predominance of a style, or a couple of equally balanced style and a compromised one, or any combination of three indicators.  I think it is harder to do a game that maxes out all three axes simultaneously, but possible.

But G N S decisions are discrete and mutually exclusive because they've been defined that way.  If you want to fashion your own theory with your own definitions where this is not the case than feel free to do so, Ron has infact encouraged this.  But your altered definitions in no way invalidate the definitions that are set for GNS.  Only whether your model proves more or less useful after several years of implementation and practice can it be judged as to whether it is more or less effective then GNS at certain things.

Sure, absolutely.  At the moment I primarily value GNS for the explication of Narratavism; perhaps one might also say, that narrativist perspective of the other styles (like one of them "what we think of the Brujah" type things :) )  That has been very valuable; but part of my hesitance to accept the model in toto lies in my discomfort with the atomisation of the styles.  I think its appropriate to draw categories from observed phenomen - I'm not convinced its valid to conclude that the category definitions in themselves ever occur in play or have any kind of objective existance.  Thus I think it is quite plausible to say that a given *decision* exhibits strong elements of style X, a consideration for style Y and an abnegation of style Z, for example.  That is how I interpret my own observations.  A tendency in a give player to favour or privilege a style within their decisions may also be identified, but unless the commitment to a given style is very strong, that player can probably "drift" with ease and in response to other players.

[Valamir]

For instance if faced with the opportunity to earn your character a +3 modifier in a way that makes no simulative sense, vs a way to earn your character a +1 modifier in a way that isn't so egregious but still doesn't make total simulative sense...choosing the second option is STILL a gamist choice.  It may a choice mitigated somewhat by simulationist concerns but the choice itself (the willing violation of the rules of verisimilitude to achieve a competitive edge) is clearly gamist...NOT a combination.

This is a perfect outline of the difference of perspective; to me I think that it is precisely a combined decision, and that the player has sought out a solution that allows a sufficiently comfortable compromise between their two drivers.  The player has made neither a pure gamist nor pure simulationist choice - they have selected a mode that accomodates both to the extent that they (the player) are comfortable.

Yep.  Thats where the difference lies.  I don't see this as being a combination at all.  To be a simulative decision, the player would have had to have made a choice that was completely within the parameters of verisimilitude.  Since in this example he made a choice that was outside the parameters of verisimilitude it was NOT a simulative choice.  The issue of Premise never entered into it so it was NOT a Narrativist choice.  The player had a choice between verisimilitude and increasing character effectiveness, and he chose to increase character effectiveness.  That is clearly a gamist choice.

Granted he did mitigate the "damage" to verisimilitude in the example.  But that does not make the decision simulative.  Making a choice that is less of a violation than another choice doesn't change the fact that its still a violation.  Now this player very well may be the kind of player who normally prefers to make simulative choices, and so selecting the lesser violation is easier for him to live with; but that does not change the fact that that particular decision was still a gamist one.

I think part of your disagreement stems from your referring to the GNS positions as lieing on an axis.  Since axes lend themselves well to measuring the degree that something is something you've gotten used to thinking of degrees of G or degrees of S.  This in not the case.  A G, N, or S decision is descrete.  It cannot be a combination of more than one because to a large extent the definitions are mutually exclusive.

As far back as r.g.fa., I proposed a model in which a given game was rated 1-10 in each of G, D, and S simultaneously.  A game may then have had a predominance of a style, or a couple of equally balanced style and a compromised one, or any combination of three indicators.  I think it is harder to do a game that maxes out all three axes simultaneously, but possible.

And thats entirely within the bounds of GNS.  GNS itself doesn't rate games it rates decisions.  So you could if you desire rate a game 1-10 on each axis based on how well it promotes decisions of that particular type.  In fact, one of my first GNS threads back on GO was a suggestion of this myself.  But again that was before I understood that GNS was about decisions.

You could similiarly rate players like this.  The above example may be about a player who 80% of the time makes Simulative decisions and 20% of the time makes Gamist decisions.  That doesn't make the above decision a combination, it simply means that decision was one of the 20%.

Thus I think it is quite plausible to say that a given *decision* exhibits strong elements of style X, a consideration for style Y and an abnegation of style Z, for example.  That is how I interpret my own observations.  A tendency in a give player to favour or privilege a style within their decisions may also be identified, but unless the commitment to a given style is very strong, that player can probably "drift" with ease and in response to other players.

Again, nothing in these observations is contradicted by GNS.  GNS says a decision can be only 1 thing.  But my examples have shown that it can certainly have given consideration to those other things.  Similiarly a tendency of a player to favor one thing over the other but not be exclusively limited to that thing is also within the bounds of GNS and fully compatable with Ron's useage of "clusters".  A player can easily drift in response to other players from makeing X type decisions, to Y and back to X, etc.  So EVERYTHING you've written above is perfectly possible within and not denied by the GNS theory.  I agree (and I'm virtually certain Ron does too) with everything you've said in the above paragraph.


To segue the discussion a little bit:

I think a major point of confusion around here is when we start to attribute INTERPRETATIONS of the theory with actual TENANTS of the theory.  This is especially confusing when dealing with Ron's interpretations because as the primary author of the theory it can be difficult to tease out of one of his posts whether what he is saying is part of the strictures of the theory, or whether what he is saying is a subsequent conclusion he has made as a result of applying the theory.

I think that ultimately the greatest benefit and widest understanding is to be had by keeping the actual tenants of GNS fairly basic and very explicit (such as what I attempted with my Primer).  Once we have the basis of that theory in place, everything else becomes application and conclusions stemming from those applications.

For instance:  Ron has said (and this is a crude paraphrase Ron, forgive me) that games that seek to encourage multiple decision types will tend to lead towards dysfunctional play.  This to me is NOT a tenant of GNS theory.  This is now within the range of Ron putting on a new hat and applying the theory to his own experiences.  Now if I have a difference of opinion with Ron on this, say I don't happen to see where an incoherent game is at greater risk for dysfunction [which BTW would be a great thread to explore] I can debate this point with him, and we are NOT debating the validity or accuracy of GNS theory we are debating application of the theory.

Thus, IMO alot of the "GNS is wrong because A, B, C is not true" is misguided.  A, B, C alot of times aren't part of the actual theory they are just someone's application of the theory.  Disproving A, B, or C doesn't invalidate the theory, it merely contradicts conclusions that have been independently (and perhaps inaccurately) drawn from the theory.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey guys,

Great discussion. As a bitsy point, I want to acknowledge Gareth's point about the difference between "theory as such," and "observations regarding the theory and reality." This is a big deal.

A good example is Stances vs. GNS categories. In the theory, by definition (itself based on previous observation), Stances shift easily and unconsciously, well within the unit of "instance" that GNS applies to. By definition, no one Stance defines a GNS category or vice versa.

OK, now take it to videotape and we see that Author Stance shows up like a monster during Narrativist or Gamist play; that Actor Stance shows up consistently during a couple-three nuanced versions of Simulationist play; and that Director Stance shows up in wonky forms scattered all 'round the map. H'm! Have we just altered the theory? No. That observation remains an observation, and perhaps it may become a basis for proposing some causal relationships between [G / N / S] and [Act / Auth / Dir], but it ain't going to change the "GNS is not defined by Stance or vice versa" as described above. Nor does it preclude the possibility of new combinations arising; for instance, a case may be made that Universalis supports Simulationist play with heavy Director Stance.

Anyway, the above example should itself become a topic of debate except on a thread of its own. I present it to demonstrate and support Gareth's point.

I am attending this discussion with great interest, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that Ralph's points are making the most sense to me. But no matter what, even if I'm not participating much, I'm attending carefully and everyone's making a lot of sense.

Best,
Ron

[Gordon C. Landis]

As Ron said, great discussion, and the identification of Tenets vs. Interpretations is a "big deal", as is the "does 51% G + 49% N = 'G', or is it 51% G + 49% N = 'Just a little more G than N' " question.

Let me look at a few other "equations" - I think that under GNS, Experience + Exploit + (a number of other things) = Explore, so one thing we see in this theory is a 'refinement' of the meanings/types of Exploration that are possible in RPGs.  That may be a good thing, but it doesn't seem to me *neccessary* in order to explain Dramatism.  I do not understand why Gareth says "I find the location of dramatism inside simulationism implausible".  Dramatism = the players as actors in a story created by the GM and/or a game line metaplot.  Simulation = the prioritization of particular Explorative elements.  Thus, in GNS Dramatism = Exploration of "the GMs story", where "the GM's story" can be broken down into Setting, Color, and etc.  Having the goal of Exploring an existing (or even an evolving/varying) "story" is not the same as having an N-Created Story as a goal, and that's why N-Story-Creation is not an Explorative element - though making both N and G Explorative elements, and allowing Goals to be essentially any valid combination of the (now) 7 Explorative pieces, is one way a theory could go (probably consistent with the percentage/weighting approach, which concerns me - I think the GNS 51% G = G is an accurate model, at least in terms of looking at player satisfaction and design requirements).

I don't see it as *required* though - can Gareth (or whoever shares the concern) help me see why "Dramatism = Exploration of the GMs story" (which is to say, Sim in that it has as its' Goal the prioritization of Explorative elements) is an unsatisfactory construction?

Gordon

[Marco]

I don't see it as *required* though - can Gareth (or whoever shares the concern) help me see why "Dramatism = Exploration of the GMs story" (which is to say, Sim in that it has as its' Goal the prioritization of Explorative elements) is an unsatisfactory construction?
Gordon

I see it as unsatisfactory.

Example: A character "takes a bullet" because the player thinks it'll make for a GREAT story. This isn't done "in character" (it's actor stance) and uses no explicit or implied meta-game mechanics (which, I understand to mean "no creation of story").

What is this act? Probably, under GNS, exploration of Color (turing the game from a victory-against-all-odds tale to a tragedy). Maybe Ron could swing his cat and give me a better idea of what he's hit with it, though.

What it boils down to, though, is that there's two modes of simulationist play at work and they don't look remotely like each other.

One is versimilitude oriented: what would my character do? How would the world portray this? Etc.

One is, for lack of a better word, Story oriented: the player will do what he thinks will lead to the best story without using directoral power. In these games you'll see Fortune In the Middle, Relationship Maps, and other Narrativist tropes that usually get lumped in with Narrativist gaming--but they're not being used to "create" story but rather to explore the GM's story.

The two are lumped together because of the Exploration Focus which is weak (all three modes involve Exploration).
-Marco

[Le Joueur]

About that model I proposed back at the top of this thread; it's up!  Just drop on down to it in the Scattershot forum, and tell me what you think.

Fang Langford

[contracycle]

I think Marco's explanation stands well for me - it's exactly the kind of player-originated but story oriented decision that I was thinking of.  No, the player is not being truly authorial and thus is not to me Narrativist; but it seems reasonable to me to describe this aspect as dramatist.  Its about effect, cool factor, personal satisfaction in selecting types of scenes or experiences which the player believes will, I guess, make their character more interesting, their personal "story" more interesting.

I don't think this sort of behaviour occurs in reference to cause and effect - the player is not extrapolating probability or anything (and probably chooses to be ignorant of much of the required data).  I think what they ARE doing is "spotlight authoring" by intervening in how, and to a lesser extent what, the portrayal goes and what it describes.

Thus, I think the duel between Darth and Luke in Empire Strikes Back has "story value" independant of its significance to the emotional states of the characters; it is simply cooler, more dramatic to do this on a gantrey overlooking a giant pit.  Some logic applies to opening seen of Jedi, with the sarlac pit.

If players or GM's make decision on this basis - not extrapolation of the sim, not construction of the actual story points - then I would submit they are making a decision which could be described as Draamtist.

(PS: I think players each make decisions about THEIR individual story, not the story experienced by the group).

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

This discussion just went straight down the rabbit hole for me.

Marco has described, 100%, with no bones or ifs-and-buts, a Narrativist decision on a player's part.

Marco, your interpretation of this act as non-Narrativist is plainly, purely bizarre. Doing something during play "because it makes for a great story" is the definition of Narrativist play.

The bizarreness is compounded by non-substantive detail. For one thing, you state that it's not "in-character," which is irrelevant (in, out, whatever, irrelevant). You also specify that it's not in Actor stance, which is only mildly relevant, although not definitive, and without further details cannot mean much.

Also, what's all this about Directorial mechanics? Narrativist play is not defined by their presence.

I dunno, guys. Nothing here indicates to me that the basic issues are being understood - which means, to me, that the debate about them may yield some useful details, but not much overall illumination.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

You beat me to it.  I was about to say exactly the same thing.

I'm not sure where this hang up came from that to be Narrativist it must be with authorial power.

Its all about player motivation in the decision making process.

If a player does something because it would be what his character would do, its a simulationist decision.  If that decision cooincidentally happens to make for a good "story" (there's that damn word again), great.  But its still a simulationist decision.

If a player does something because it would make for a good "story" its a Narrativist decision.  If that decision cooincidentally happens to also be what the character would have done any way, great.  But its still a narrativist decision.

Its that simple.  Don't ask "what did the player do", ask "why did he do it".

[Ron Edwards]

Hey Ralph,

I'm a liiiiittle uncomfortable with your phraseology, although I do agree that we're aiming at the same thing.

I don't think we are dealing with intangibles like motivation, though - GNS really is about observable behaviors, like those that I list in the Simulationism discussion in the essay. So when Marco states "in order to make a great story," I take that as short-hand for a wide variety of tangible context and actions that accompanied the player's stated decision to "take a bullet."

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

I'm a liiiiittle uncomfortable with your phraseology, although I do agree that we're aiming at the same thing.

Ironic. Ralph chastised me for exactly the same thing a few threads ago. It's a shorthand problem.

Mike

[contracycle]

Hey,
Marco has described, 100%, with no bones or ifs-and-buts, a Narrativist decision on a player's part.

Ah well, another permanent disagreement then.  I kinda boggled when I saw this - how can a player be making a decisions about story in this sense when they have deliberately abdicated story authoring to the GM?  To describe this as narratavism is far too great a stretch for me - it essentially becomes a meaningless statement, making narrativism congruent with too many behaviours to be useful as a  descriptor.

Marco, your interpretation of this act as non-Narrativist is plainly, purely bizarre. Doing something during play "because it makes for a great story" is the definition of Narrativist play.

ALSO the definition of Dramatist play.  I prefer that as a descriptor for this behaviour; it is to me a more accurate, comprehensible description.

[Mytholder]

Hey,

This discussion just went straight down the rabbit hole for me.

Marco has described, 100%, with no bones or ifs-and-buts, a Narrativist decision on a player's part.

Marco, your interpretation of this act as non-Narrativist is plainly, purely bizarre. Doing something during play "because it makes for a great story" is the definition of Narrativist play.

*head in hands, audible weeping*
That's dramatism. Story-oriented decisions without any authorial/directorial power on the part of the player. That's all the stuff myself and Supplanter (Jim) were arguing for back in the day, just after Logan's first draft of a FAQ.

The bizarreness is compounded by non-substantive detail. For one thing, you state that it's not "in-character," which is irrelevant (in, out, whatever, irrelevant). You also specify that it's not in Actor stance, which is only mildly relevant, although not definitive, and without further details cannot mean much.

Also, what's all this about Directorial mechanics? Narrativist play is not defined by their presence.

I dunno, guys. Nothing here indicates to me that the basic issues are being understood - which means, to me, that the debate about them may yield some useful details, but not much overall illumination.

Ok. Let's add details. The player wants his character to get shot because the PC was, previously, a selfish guy, but he's learned the value of friendship and is now willing to put his life on the line to protect others. The story is being told by the GM, it was mainly concerned with investigating an NPC conspiracy, and there was no attempt to involve the players or their characters in the construction of the story, other than a basic plot hook handed out by the GM. There's no conscious exploration of capital-P Premise.  

If you'd asked me to say what that is in Forge-speak, I'd have said Exploration of Character in a Simulation of a cop movie or something similar. I'd also have grumbled, and said that personally, I'd see it as Dramatist play - it makes little sense tactically and doesn't address the real challenge of the conspiracy. It's borderline Sim, but only because we're Simming a story-driven world. A good story being told by the GM is paramount here, and the player is playing into that, using the only tool at his command, his control of the PC.

I've always defined narrativism as requiring some level of input from the players, beyond "my guy does this". Am I wrong?