Can GNS modes be identified outside of GNS conflict?

[ewilen]

Over in What kind of GM/Player Am I?

I'm looking at this topic with great hesitation.  I read a post on a blog not long ago that mourned the loss of the war of turning the creative agendas according to Ron's big model into identity politics.   That is, it is absolutely critical to understand that a person isn't Gamist, Narrativist or Simulationist.  There are no G, N or S people, there are only instances of play that are G, N, or S.

I wonder, even though there are no G, N, or S people, when there is a GNS conflict it must be affecting some people. Otherwise, what's the use of identifying the conflict? Does it affect them because one person wants G and the other wants S during that instance? Or because one (or more) of the people experiences an unenjoyable discord?

But an interpersonal difference in G/S preference is only important if it actually disrupts that instance of play, correct? That is, it has to be internalized in any case as one player's G preference intrudes on the other's S preference.

So are GNS modes only identifiable when there's a conflict during an instance of play? And (crucially) not by a player's own perceived preference--since player A can think he's enjoying a Sim instance of play at the same time that player B thinks he's enjoying a Gam instance--yes?

I realize, this is such an elementary issue that it's probably been raised and answered many times, so if there's a thread or article where it's been dealt with conclusively, I'd appreciate a pointer.

[xenopulse]

I like to connect the GNS discussions to my current AD&D group, which has been very enlightening.  I know people have told you to try and look at actual examples of play, and I strongly second that.

Now, while no one is a Gamist per se, people tend to have preferences, and games as well as GM and play styles tend to support one agenda over another, in the big picture of things.

When I was introduced to my current AD&D game, the GM and main player appeared to be running a Sim game. They told me all about their detailed world, how they do research and use geography books to create accurate locations, how they like to tie characters into the world, etc.

So I created my character believing this to be a Sim-oriented game. That means, when it came to character creation choices, instead of making my character powerful, I made him consistent with the setting.

It turned out that in play, the GM strongly encourages Gamism. Even with the details and world consistency and cultural history background, actual play and rewards (XP) revolve around combat, traps, lockpicking, puzzle solving, etc. I find that I cannot play my character as expected, because if I did, I would fail more at those tasks and die rather quickly. In fact, I have almost decided to let my character die at the earliest possibility to make a more Gamist-oriented character. Because that's the dominant style of the group.

So yes, there can be GNS conflicts, and proper understanding of what's going on in my group has helped me enjoy the Gamism aspects instead of being constantly frustrated about the absence of Sim play (not to mention Nar).

And while agenda can differ from instance to instance, you will find that certain aspects, notions, and play styles support and further different agenda. As I said in my example, we could all have different agenda and play them differently in various instances of play, but the reward system alone pushes us to make more Gamist decisions.

[Bankuei]

Hi Elliot,

By way of analogy- let us say that out of a group of people, there is a number who like vanilla, chocolate, or strawberry ice cream, respectively.  Some people like two of the flavors, and some like all 3.  These are preferences.  Although one can jokingly call someone a "Chocolate person", they may also like vanilla, or whatever else.  Their tastes may change with time, or maybe they only like it if it has nuts and candy in it, whatever.

These likes exist, and are identifiable.  In GNS, you can also identify the sorts of things you like and the things you don't like without necessarily needing conflict to show it.  The reason most people only notice the CA preferences in conflict, is the equivalent to only noticing the difference in the ice creams after you put it in your mouth.

For most gamers, the problems identifying CA usually come from one of the following:

- Familar with only one way ("I've only eaten chocolate, therefore all ice cream = chocolate.   Anything else is not ice cream!")
- Misperceptions of value ("Strawberry is immature and for kids.  Chocolate is real ice cream.  What I'm eating is pink chocolate!")
- Misperceptions of what constitutes a given choice ("All Dreyers is chocolate.  I'm eating Dreyer's Vanilla Chocolate!")

Obviously, if we're talking ice cream, the conflicts between reality and imagined beliefs are where people are going to have to become honest with what they're really dealing with.  Likewise, for gaming, when people are dealing with a misperception, conflict usually points to folks trying to do two incompatible things, and the fact that the two are not the same becomes apparent.

For folks who know their flavors- they don't have this problem to begin with.

Chris

[ewilen]

Thank you both for your answers.

Xenopulse, I don't have a problem with the existence of conflicts. What I'm wondering is whether GNS can be identified absent of conflict. Now, in your example, you do answer my second question, which is whether a person can (as it were) self-identify GNS goals--but note that this is only in the presence of a clash between modes.

Bankuei, if I see three people eating ice cream, I can tell what flavors they're eating by looking at the colors and I can tell whether each person is enjoying it by asking them. What if I can't see the colors?

Similarly, how can I tell which CA each person is prioritizing, and whether they might possibly be prioritizing different CA's, except by either (a) asking them, (b) observing a clash in their agendas (analogous to having the ice cream eaters rotate their cones and then watching their reactions), or (c) playing the game myself (which just makes me another ice cream eater)?

[xenopulse]

You're right, my response was more aimed at your second question.

I think the ice cream comparison is a bit flawed, because we're talking decision making here. Which is still imperfect when observed from the outside, but has a better chance. It's more like people who choose what car to drive--and then you can guess why one picked a Mustang while another picked a Prius. You might be wrong, but you have some chance.

E.g., think back to moments in play when a player had the choice to either show off their skills and/or character power, or make a thematic statement by not doing that. What did they do? When creating a character, are they taking "flaws" in order to buy better powers, or to give thematic openings, or because they seem "appropriate" given the character concept?

The primary player in my group is clearly a Gamist, and he has no clashes. How do I know? Because he scolded me for my choice of skills upon leveling. "We have to maximize our potential," he said. "So you should max out your sneaking and hiding, because player B already has the lockpicking and trap finding down." That's a very clear Gamist statement; he thinks about maximizing the group's ability to face challenges.

I can clearly think of other things he could have said that would have been more Sim or Nar oriented.

[Bankuei]

Hi Elliot,

Similarly, how can I tell which CA each person is prioritizing, and whether they might possibly be prioritizing different CA's, except by either (a) asking them, (b) observing a clash in their agendas (analogous to having the ice cream eaters rotate their cones and then watching their reactions), or (c) playing the game myself (which just makes me another ice cream eater)?

And this is exactly the problem we have communicating online whenever someone asks, "What GNS thing is this?"  And also why it always becomes a long question and answer process trying to gather clues and ends in "Well, I think you're seeing X".

First, by the fact the person is asking the question, they've shown that they're not able to identify it for themselves yet, and that makes it rather hard to rely on asking them directly- instead we usually have to infer by other clues.  ("It's Dreyer's, that means it's chocolate!"... "Um, we don't know that for sure...")

Second, while conflicts might help by showing the differences in various preferences, it still requires a lot of clue hunting, as you might have two or more groups arguing about stuff that doesn't tell you much ("Well, stuff in a quart container is always better than stuff in a pint container!")

So you have, more or less, come to the problem that most of us reach in trying to communicate online- we're not there, we didn't witness it, the person we're asking isn't "getting" our questions("What COLOR is it?" "$2.49!").

The same telltale information you'd use to identify what's going on in a game that you play in or watch for yourself is the same information you'd need to tell it from anyone else- and if you're not there to witness it, you have to struggle to put together clues from what information you do get from them and hope that the information is accurate.

Chris

[ewilen]

You're right, my response was more aimed at your second question.

I think the ice cream comparison is a bit flawed, because we're talking decision making here. Which is still imperfect when observed from the outside, but has a better chance. It's more like people who choose what car to drive--and then you can guess why one picked a Mustang while another picked a Prius. You might be wrong, but you have some chance.

E.g., think back to moments in play when a player had the choice to either show off their skills and/or character power, or make a thematic statement by not doing that. What did they do? When creating a character, are they taking "flaws" in order to buy better powers, or to give thematic openings, or because they seem "appropriate" given the character concept?

Thanks, that helps somewhat. You seem to be saying that an outside observer can put himself in the shoes of the player and, in the context of the rules text and other uncontroversial elements of the game, evaluate whether the decisions made sense in one CA or another. This implies, though, that we can best observe a CA in this way if the player makes decisions which aren't supported by the context. Which brings us back to the problem of identifying said context--the flavor of the ice cream, or the type of car.

The primary player in my group is clearly a Gamist, and he has no clashes. How do I know? Because he scolded me for my choice of skills upon leveling. "We have to maximize our potential," he said. "So you should max out your sneaking and hiding, because player B already has the lockpicking and trap finding down." That's a very clear Gamist statement; he thinks about maximizing the group's ability to face challenges.

Well, I disagree that there's no clash--his preferences are visible in this example partly because he scolded you for doing things in a way that clashes with his mode. But his expressed rationale is also revealing.

Bankuei, what I think you're saying is that an experienced theorist can recognize GNS modes in person more reliably than an untrained person who is self-identifying. But it's still not entirely clear to me what the theorist is going to be looking for. I suppose the biggest problem for the third-party observer might be distinguishing so-called Vanilla Narrativism from certain forms of Simulationism within a given instance of play, since Vanilla Nar is described as Narrativist play which lacks certain identifying techniques.

Note that I can easily see that there would be no difficulty in identifying a mode transition from an instance of Narrativist play, say during character creation, to Sim play later on. But while xenopulse's example contains an overt "symptom" of Gamist preferences, and a gateway into observing coherent Gamist play (such as players engaging in metagame strategizing), I'm at a loss to see how one would identify Vanilla Nar as Nar.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Elliot,

I'll be able to help you out a lot in this issue if you'll do one thing: post in Actual Play. Describe your play-experiences, tell us what the people did, and so on.

It could be an old session, a recent one, a fun one, a crappy one, from a short game, from a long game, whatever.

There's no need to try to analyze it yourself, although reflecting on it using whatever criteria you'd like is necessary. Then we'll talk a little.

That is the only way to learn about the Big Model.

Best,
Ron

[ewilen]

Okay, I'll do that, perhaps later today. It will have to be an old session, and of those I think I might choose several memorable examples from a particular campaign. See you over there.

[Jason Lee]

Bankuei, what I think you're saying is that an experienced theorist can recognize GNS modes in person more reliably than an untrained person who is self-identifying. But it's still not entirely clear to me what the theorist is going to be looking for. I suppose the biggest problem for the third-party observer might be distinguishing so-called Vanilla Narrativism from certain forms of Simulationism within a given instance of play, since Vanilla Nar is described as Narrativist play which lacks certain identifying techniques.

Note that I can easily see that there would be no difficulty in identifying a mode transition from an instance of Narrativist play, say during character creation, to Sim play later on. But while xenopulse's example contains an overt "symptom" of Gamist preferences, and a gateway into observing coherent Gamist play (such as players engaging in metagame strategizing), I'm at a loss to see how one would identify Vanilla Nar as Nar.

In addition to looking for conflicts you can look for what kind of emotional return a player is getting during play.  I find moments of frustration particularly revealing, but amusement works well also.  It can be tricky though, because it can be difficult to isolate frustration caused by things like deprotagonizing losses and "cheating" from frustration caused by failed escapism.  For example, a Nar player may enjoy a difficult fight because pushing a character to their limits can lead to hard choices like self sacrifice; or a Gam player may enjoy it because it's a tactical challenge.  However, different Nar and Gam players (or the same ones in a different mood) may find a difficult fight annoying simply because it doesn't have instant gratification of a power fantasy.  The latter is usually marked by frustration even if they make it through completely unscathed and victorious, in my experience anyway.

Generally, if you see a lot of empathizing with the emotional state of the characters then you're looking at Nar play.  If you see emotional engagement in resources mechanics and other tactical/strategic concerns then you're likely looking at Gam play.  This is surely not an exhaustive list.

So... I wandered over here from the link in the actual play thread.  The following is not really appropriate to a thread about GNS, but I felt it was less appropriate to the actual play thread.  I think if you want to get analysis useful for your actual play out of GNS it would be best to ignore Sim.  GNS analysis always struggles around distinguishing G/S and N/S for a good reason, as the features that are said to define Sim are often necessary for both modes.  Anyway, all I can really say about Sim play is that if you see such play it'd likely be marked by lacking any emotional return except gratification of curiosity.  Please don't let this derail the thread - that's really not my intention.  Others can speak to identifying Sim if you are looking for an understanding of how the big model works.  It's just that if you are interested in practical application, I would skip Sim.

[ewilen]

Cruciel, thank you for your comments--I'd also appreciate anything you might have to add to the Actual Play thread. (For reference--Highs & Lows from an old campaign. Even though I wasn't trying to illustrate any points germane to this topic, there may be some.)

You write, "I think if you want to get analysis useful for your actual play out of GNS it would be best to ignore Sim." Do you mean my play, or anyone's actual play? Either way, that's a very interesting comment. Do you think it also applies to analysis of game design?

[Bankuei]

Hi Elliot,

I'm sorry, I'm a little confused- are you asking how to identify GNS preferences at all or if it's possible to identify them without conflict?  If the question is the latter- that's what my posts have been addressing.  If you're asking the former, then that's pretty much the entire basis of all the model.

It's not really a matter of "experience" it's a matter of looking at the right thing- the color of the ice cream as it were.  That's why a lot of people make it into something much harder than it really is.

Chris

[xenopulse]

Elliot,

You're right, I guess there was a conflict there with regards to the leveling. That said, now that I recognized that, I could easily pose the question to a player even outside a game: How do you decide how to level your character? The answer can give great clues as to their style of play.

Then again, many people are being trained to think a certain way (I call this the preconceived notions of how RPGs are supposed to be played), without ever reflecting that there are other ways as well. So while they may act in accordance with a certain CA, it's possible that they just haven't been exposed to other options.

[Jason Lee]

You write, "I think if you want to get analysis useful for your actual play out of GNS it would be best to ignore Sim." Do you mean my play, or anyone's actual play? Either way, that's a very interesting comment. Do you think it also applies to analysis of game design?

Anyone's play.  And especially analysis of game design, because if Sim exists then it's likely rare enough that labeling any game Sim is going to be an inaccurate representation of how people interpret the mechanics.  The definition of Sim is a moving target as people try to reconcile its logical impossibility within the model, then question whether a logically possible alternative actually exists in play, then question whether an alternative that exists meets the criteria for a creative agenda.  I'm pretty squarely in the "it doesn't exist" camp, so that's why my opinion is to skip it.

The most recent thread on the topic seems to be this one:  One of these things is REALLY not like the others. . .

Anyway, if it's specifically identifying Sim conflicts that's troubling, then it might help to look at the different definitions of Sim and see if one of them seems like it could be identified via conflict.

[ewilen]

Thanks, cruciel. I think I understand where you're coming from. I have looked at that thread, and it touches on a good number of issues related to this topic; however, what I get from it is that the definitions of several fundamental concepts are very much in contention. In fact you seem to have rejected GNS qua GNS, at least for the moment.

Everyone, I've noticed that in other threads, "conflict" has been tentatively put forward as a criterion for determining GNS in the sense of "how you handle conflict inside the imaginative space", as opposed to clash between GNS modes. I realize I've already used "conflict" in the former sense but for the sake of clarity perhaps we can switch to "clash"?

xenopulse, I understand what you're saying. Thanks.

Bankuei, I've zeroed in on the question of Vanilla Narrativism vs. Simulationism. Now, this may be an old issue that is no longer represented in current conceptions of GNS. However, Vanilla Narrativism seems to be a case of people playing in a Narrativist mode without "doing anything" that looks Narrativist (especially to them). If so, why should the model distinguish between Vanilla Nar and Sim? It seems to invite the identity politics which were decried in the parent thread, for no benefit. Would it be less problematic to leave the issue of play-mode-categorization aside, until someone either says, "I don't want to play that way", or "I am experiencing a clash of priorities X and Y which interferes with my enjoyment. Please pick one."

There are two questions here: (1) What benefit do we get by defining play modes outside of clashes (or potential clashes, e.g. when designing). (2) If there is a benefit, how do we go about assigning observed play to one mode or another?