Clarifying GNS for the re-write

[greyorm]

I read some and I skimmed some.  I see a lot of the same complaints being recycled and I've seen some of the responses that don't seem to really address the complaint because they miss the point of it.  It is entirely possible that I've skimmed over something important.  If you want to point me to a particular thread and message, please do.  I was primarily responding to what I saw at the top of this post.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I will not do your work for you.

If you choose to come into a discussion, then you'd better be able to back up any statements you make; otherwise it is nothing more than blowing wind through an empty jug.

It is not up to me to educate you when the information necessary for development of your criticisms is freely and readily available; it is up to you to ensure you have educated yourself on the topic before you speak up for or against it (especially when you make broad claims*).

What makes this worse is that you admit you only skimmed posts, yet your statements are broad and generalized, as though you HAD studied the available topic material.
Further, though your comments are written to be perceived as directed towards the FAQ and the overall Forge itself, but you admit here you are only responding to one message in this thread.

This known, there is no reason to take your comments seriously because they are invalid in that they lack a reasonable foundation from which to derive criticism.  In this light, they could at best be considered a "knee-jerk" reaction.

Please, read the available material before you begin making comments like "no self described simulationist agrees with the description", when self-described simulationists HAVE agreed with the description.
*This was one of your broad claims, stated as fact, that no SDSs agreed with the model...I'm self-described, I do.  Mytholder is an SDS as well, but doesn't.

This is why I commented about not drawing lines in the sand.  It is not "us narrativists" vs. "them simulationists" or whomever.  It quite obviously a difference of opinion about what the categories entail.

The top article on this thread give the distinct impression that the GNS is an advocacy model.  

This thread is not the model.

The pop-psychology analysis elsewhere on this board suggesting that Simulationists have some sort of problem giving up control is similarly both laughable and insulting.

That issue, you'll note, has already been dealt with.

No problem.  Can you go back and read my comments in that context and address the other issues, as others have, instead of my clearly imperfect way of expressing them.  I don't believe that the finger-pointing or pop-psychology was important or central to what I was saying.

However, I see these as the very cornerstone of your arguments, or rather the basis for them as criticism, as per the top of this message.

How can I respond to the issues you have raised when the premises those comments were made on are false or mis/ill-prepared?  (Other than pointing such out so we can come to the same level of understanding and move forward together from common ground instead of rehashing the same issues again and again)

_________________
Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
http://www.daegmorgan.net/">http://www.daegmorgan.net/
"Homer, your growing insanity is starting to bother me."

[ This Message was edited by: greyorm on 2001-06-24 13:47 ]

[greyorm]

There is actually a fourth axis called "Social" that is rarely mentioned because most Social players don't trouble themselves with reading Internet discussions about role-playing style.

From what I hear, the actual existance of the "Social" axis is still being debated.

I don't think it is and I think the terminology is part of it.  Don't think I'm singling out the GNS for this criticism.  I think that the Threefold suffers from a similar terminology problem and see it much more clealry now that I've been discussing it with people outside of that group.

I agree with you here; I've lately been voicing that I think the terminology can be improved.  Not necessarily the GNS terms, but the descriptive terms beneath them ("story" for example is far too loaded and broad for my tastes).

[JohnMorrow]

On 2001-06-24 13:43, greyorm wrote:
Don't take this the wrong way, but I will not do your work for you.

[other comments deleted]

I disagree.  When discussions like this build up a tremendous amount of information over a long period of time, expecting everyone to read everything and understand it before they can get involed is not only unrealistic but exclusionary.  There was a major explosion on r.g.f.a about this very point, where many people have said that they don't feel they can get involved because they can't understand it.  That's why the FAQ what put together.  But you can't expect everyone to understand everything that isn't in the FAQ.

For example, I see a fairly major lack of understanding about the r.g.f.a Threefold model that comes from not being involved in those discussions and not being able to read the early messages from the origins of the model.  I don't think that someone needs to read all of that to discuss the Threefold and I'm quite willing to field questions about it from someone who badly misunderstands it only from the FAQ.  I know that it can get frustratiging having to say the same things over and over again but that's what a FAQ (i.e., Frequently Asked Questions) is for.  It is supposed to reduce the number of misunderstandings and questions that people have about the topic.  If you really want to test how good your FAQ is, you should want people to read it cold and see if they get it or not.

What makes this worse is that you admit you only skimmed posts, yet your statements are broad and generalized, as though you HAD studied the available topic material.
Further, though your comments are written to be perceived as directed towards the FAQ and the overall Forge itself, but you admit here you are only responding to one message in this thread.

The top of this thread is an article that discusses the elements of the FAQ, does it not?  It speaks with some authority, does it not?

This known, there is no reason to take your comments seriously because they are invalid in that they lack a reasonable foundation from which to derive criticism.  In this light, they could at best be considered a "knee-jerk" reaction.

That's nice.  And if that's all you see in them, feel free to take them that way and ignore them.  You should judge what I say by what I say.  If what I say is useless, then ignore it.

Please, read the available material before you begin making comments like "no self described simulationist agrees with the description", when self-described simulationists HAVE agreed with the description.

That's fine.  How much of the available material do I have to read before I'm qualified to discuss this material? Especially since (A) this discussion is supposed to have been going on for two years and (B) much of the discussion was originally on GO which is problematic, at best.  What would you consider a sufficient amount of material for me to review?

*This was one of your broad claims, stated as fact, that no SDSs agreed with the model...I'm self-described, I do.  Mytholder is an SDS as well, but doesn't.

OK.  Part of the problem may be that the model fits you better than it does Mytholder, who seems to agree with my complaints.  In the r.g.f.a model, are you a Dramatist or a Simulationist?  One of the things that makes this all very confusing is that it is difficult to tell which model people are using at any point.  Where would a rules-light collaborative r.g.f.a Simulationist put themselves in this model.  Narrativist?

This is why I commented about not drawing lines in the sand.  It is not "us narrativists" vs. "them simulationists" or whomever.  It quite obviously a difference of opinion about what the categories entail.

Which suggests that they aren't clear enough, then.  It also doesn't help when people suggest that they want to use this model to promote certain styles of play, which appears in the first article in this thread.

This thread is not the model.

This thread reflects the thinking of some of the model's advocates.  Is there no authority in the first article seeking comments?

That issue, you'll note, has already been dealt with.

Dealt with or burried?

However, I see these as the very cornerstone of your arguments, or rather the basis for them as criticism, as per the top of this message.

Then I think I'm doing a poor job of communicating all of my concerns.  I'm not trying to destroy your model.  I like models and would like to see this be a useful one.  

How can I respond to the issues you have raised when the premises those comments were made on are false or mis/ill-prepared?  (Other than pointing such out so we can come to the same level of understanding and move forward together from common ground instead of rehashing the same issues again and again)

At the very least, you should take my misunderstandings as evidence that your model isn't clear if read cold.  In the longrun, unless you intend your model to be limited only to this forum, that's how people will be reading it.  They won't have the history that you have.

My specific suggestions are (A) to use terminology that is completely different from the Threefold and is suited to describing what this model describes, (B) to not limit yourself to three categories if your model needs more or less, and (C) to not confuse the "how" and "why" of decisions made during a game which still seems to be in there.  And if you keep one foot in the r.g.f.a Threefold through terminology and a residual focus "why" decisions are made, they I think you are going to have continued misunderstandings.

[JohnMorrow]

Also, for the record, I'm not saying that all of the wording in the GNS FAQ is bad.  Some of it is quite good.

[Logan]

John,

Thank you. I think I (finally) understand your viewpoint a little better. A lot of it makes sense. I think it will take time to work some of this out.

I should note, I have been using Google's search engine to check out the archives, so I'm sure there is stuff that I've missed.

Berkman was an evangelist? Not surprising. I think people should try all different styles of play just so they can see what they like and what's possible. Otherwise, we might get stuck playing D&D, only D&D, and nothing but D&D until the end of time. :roll:

Finally, I might have some tiny particle of authority in this discussion, but probably not. Mostly, I'm just a guy who wanted to see all these ideas pulled together into a cohesive document so we could show people where the discussion has been and propel the whole thing forward.

Best,

Logan

[JohnMorrow]

On 2001-06-24 16:02, Logan wrote:
I should note, I have been using Google's search engine to check out the archives, so I'm sure there is stuff that I've missed.

There is a ton of stuff there.  If you've read my comments above, I don't expect people to read it all.  Some of it is terribly boring and misleading.  But I'd suggest that looking at some of the diceless threads as well as looking for the terms "world-based" and "story-based" might get you a little further back in the process.

Berkman was an evangelist? Not surprising. I think people should try all different styles of play just so they can see what they like and what's possible. Otherwise, we might get stuck playing D&D, only D&D, and nothing but D&D until the end of time. :roll:

First, there is nothing wrong with playing D&D if that suits you needs.  While I'd agree that it is useful to try out other styles of play simply to see if you are missing something better, it isn't useful to tell people to try out other styles if (A) they've tried them and don't like them or (B) they have very good reasons to not want to try them.  David Berkman presented the ideas behind Theatrix and explained the benefits of Theatrix.  Some people had tried role-playing styles similar to Theatrix and others had no interest in the benefits of Theatrix.  But that didn't seem to be good enough and it quickly degenerated into "you aren't doing it right" or "keep trying until you get it right".  That's not useful.  It's annoying.

Finally, I might have some tiny particle of authority in this discussion, but probably not. Mostly, I'm just a guy who wanted to see all these ideas pulled together into a cohesive document so we could show people where the discussion has been and propel the whole thing forward.

Fair enough.  It is difficult for me to discern some of the voices in the GNS because I'm a latecomer to looking at this and it still seems a little confused over exactly what it wants to be.  Your ideas seem to push more in the direction of focus on how situations are resolved while the existing model seems to still have a foot in the r.g.f.a Threefold.  I don't think the Threefold terminology is good for what you are describing.  I'd suggest terms dealing with who is empowered to make decisions and how they go about making them as a good starting point.

[greyorm]

I disagree.  When discussions like this build up a tremendous amount of information over a long period of time,

This is the last I'll say on this, hopefully to clarify.  I suggest we take any further discussion of this issue to the private mail provided here on the Forge or e-mail.

You came in strongly stating certain "facts" which were provably not facts.  Again, the example: your claim that no self-identified simulationists would claim the definition provided in the 101 FAQ.

How you can make such strong, authoratative claims knowing that you have not read the available materials to verify whether or not your claim is valid is why I called it "knee-jerk" and took exception to it.

You are correct in stating that in a high volume discussion, it is up to the current contributors to update those who are not as updated on materials, I agree fully.

In this case, however, that was not the problem.  The problem was that you did no research but still made claims based on assumption, not fact or study.  You stated things as fact because it was convenient for your argument to assume them to be true.

This is what I found disagreeable.

In this vein, I've also detected a continued seperation of individuals here into camps throughout your arguments.  You seem to place anyone who agrees with the GNS FAQ into the "Narrativist" category, even if they describe themselves as something else.

An example of this is "sweeping everything that they don't like under the Simulationist and Gamist rugs."

This is just silly: from this, any of us on the Forge who are not Narrativist must assume you are telling us that we are deliberately putting things we don't like into our styles?  

Why?  I don't know, perhaps because we're really "confused" Narrativists or some foolish thing like that.

I hope you can see more clearly why I brought up the problem I did.  Certainly many of your points are valid, though equally some are far-fetched claims.

OK.  Part of the problem may be that the model fits you better than it does Mytholder, who seems to agree with my complaints.  In the r.g.f.a model, are you a Dramatist or a Simulationist?  

I don't see a big enough difference between the two to move myself from one into the other between the models.  Simulationist in both.

Dealt with or burried?

Dealt with in the appropriate manner.  Numerous complaints were lodged privately (or publically, mine among them), and the thread was left alone to die (this has been mentioned in other threads).  Your insinuation is unbecoming in intellectual debate in my opinion.

Then I think I'm doing a poor job of communicating all of my concerns.  I'm not trying to destroy your model.  I like models and would like to see this be a useful one.

Simply this: avoid making strong statements of fact for which you have no backing evidence.

At the very least, you should take my misunderstandings as evidence that your model isn't clear if read cold.  

Ahh...but some of your misunderstandings were not based on reading the model.  There is no weaseling out of this...you made comments about "facts" that were untrue, facts that could not have been arrived at through mis-perception of the model...you villified, to some extent, the writers of the FAQ and the residents of the Forge as a whole.

My specific suggestions are (A) to use terminology that is completely different from the Threefold and is suited to describing what this model describes, (B) to not limit yourself to three categories if your model needs more or less, and (C) to not confuse the "how" and "why" of decisions made during a game which still seems to be in there.

Good suggestions.  Don't weight them with hyperbole, however, as you did previously.

I believe I've responded to the first previously, to the second, I am still undecided, and to the third: these are intimately connected in my mind (much as it is in ethics: ends and means are closely linked).

Also, I have to say that much of the reverse advocacy for simulationism going on here is doing exactly the same as the narrativist advocacy is being accused of: narrowing the definition to one specific subset of the style.

In this case, "realism" is being argued as the necessary component for simulationism, entirely ignoring a fantasy simulationist game with dragons, monsters, gods, magic and weird shit from beyond space time.  Any of that is supposed to be "real"?  So the immediate response that springs to mind for me is: "What do you mean you can't have a non-real-world simulation?"
I can't simulate Arthurian fantasy?  Bull.  "Realism" and "the real world" has nothing to do with Simulationism as a big category, only as a subset of it.

[greyorm]

place anyone who agrees with the GNS FAQ into the "Narrativist" category, even if they describe themselves as something else."

John is not the only person to make that suggestion.

That viewpoint is commonly stated outside this forum when people talk about G/N/S. Intended or not, I think you have to live with the fact that this is indeed its appearance.

You and I both know that perception does not reality make, otherwise, the rgfa Threefold is a pile of horse-hockey (according to perception) or gamists are all munchkins (according to perception).

Just because someone or a number of people suggest something to be true does not make it so.
(Otherwise, please explain to me what you find so appealing about being a power-gaming munchkin?  And why we're discussing the Threefold, since the only ones who do so are non-gamers who drag discussions into intellectual cesspits.
Ah, just live with it!)

In fact, simply because a number of individuals have stated it does not make it any more true...anyone who does state such is still making the same insulting mistake John did, by calling anyone who accepts the GNS a Narrativist, or a confused-Narrativist.

This sort of statement is rather akin to me judging you to be a confused homosexual even when you identify yourself as a heterosexual, because you support queer rights.  Or you making the same judgement about me.  (I don't know if you do/are whatever...it's an illustrative example) Even if you have a whole club of people who make the same claim, it doesn't make it true.

Apparently, according to these people, I'm REALLY a Narrativist, and Clinton is REALLY a Narrativist, and everyone else here is REALLY a Narrativist, no matter what we think we are, because we're all apparently too stupid see the truth and utterly lack objectivity...apparently we are raving fundamentalists of some stripe.

Considering, I'm actually surprised you even brought this up as a point, since you seem to pride yourself on your critical thinking.  The suggestion that underlies this is honestly just ridiculous.  There's no defense for it, it's bandwagon.

So, really, enough of this, let's get back to discussing the model itself.
_________________
Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
http://www.daegmorgan.net/">http://www.daegmorgan.net/
"Homer, your growing insanity is starting to bother me."

[ This Message was edited by: greyorm on 2001-06-25 13:36 ]

[Logan]

Brian, Raven,

You both make good points. There is no sense tearing each other up about it. I think we (meaning people working on the GNS model at this site) pretty much have to ignore what people are saying on other sites. I understand people will talk about it, but the people who have real interest in what we're doing have all been generous enough to post here. That is as it should be. I'm still very happy with the overall quantity and quality of responses we've seen, and I'm confident that the presentation of the faq and the impressions people have of our debate will evolve and improve over time.

Radical changes in terminology or huge shifts in the model itself shouldn't happen over night. For better or worse, people are used to the terms we're using. If we change them all and completely rework everything, then it won't be GNS or the Edwards model any more. That might sound good to some people, but it's not a great idea in practice. It would really piss people off.

I think this first draft of the faq has done what it was supposed to do. I think we've made some progress with it, and no one has any reason to feel bad about it. So now, unless people have new proposals or fresh thoughts about it, we should relax. Everything is just fine.

Best,

Logan

[JohnMorrow]

On 2001-06-25 00:14, greyorm wrote:
This is the last I'll say on this, hopefully to clarify.  I suggest we take any further discussion of this issue to the private mail provided here on the Forge or e-mail.

I'm going to leave this here because I think it is useful.  I'm cutting out all the comments about my style of making my point here.  I'll simply say that it is clear that how I approached this subject bothered you a great deal so I won't take that approach again.  The only thing I'll say in my defense is that I was not so off base that no one agreed with me.

Also, I have to say that much of the reverse advocacy for simulationism going on here is doing exactly the same as the narrativist advocacy is being accused of: narrowing the definition to one specific subset of the style.

And if you had more styles, this wouldn't be a problem.  You'd probably also address a big part of S. John Ross' complaint is that the Threefold and GNS pigeonhold gamers
into too few categories.  

In this case, "realism" is being argued as the necessary component for simulationism, entirely ignoring a fantasy simulationist game with dragons, monsters, gods, magic and weird shit from beyond space time.  Any of that is supposed to be "real"?  So the immediate response that springs to mind for me is: "What do you mean you can't have a non-real-world simulation?"

Well I'm not arguing that "realism" is necessary for Simulationism.  I don't think it is.  What is necessary for the r.g.f.a Simulationism is that the world make sense for the characters inside of the setting.  If decisions are made for metagame reasons (e.g., the monster always goes for someone who is wearing a red shirt first) or details are determined by metagame rasons (e.g., a hero's gun has just as many bullets as he needs it to have), then it the game isn't Simulationist in the r.g.f.a sense.  That also means that some genres are difficult or impossible to "simulate" in the Simulationist sense.

I can't simulate Arthurian fantasy?  Bull.  "Realism" and "the real world" has nothing to do with Simulationism as a big category, only as a subset of it.

Can you simulate Arthurian Fantasy and be Simulationist in the r.g.f.a senese?  It depends on what you mean by "simulating" Arthurian fantasy, and this is why "simulate" is such an unfortunate term.  Do you mean simulating the elements of the setting such as Arthur, the Knights, Camelot, the Round Table or something that feels like it?  Or do you mean simulating the type of adventures that the Arthurian Knights experienced?  There is a difference there and the difference is important.  A Simulationist works to simulate the setting while the Dramatist works to simulate the stories.

The r.g.f.a Threefold developed out of an opposition model between world-based and story-based games.  A world-based Arthurian game would have all the trappings of Arthurian fantasy but would not guarantee any sort of outcome.  The knights might never find the Grail in a Simulationist game.  In a Dramatist game, finding the Grail might be the whole purpose of the game so the GM will fudge and help make sure that someone finds the Grail at an appropriate moment.  In one case, there is an expectation that events will be played out without the intrusion of story logic and, in the other, the use of story logic will be assumed.  One is process-oriented while the other is outcome-oriented.  If you put people with those styles in the game game together, they are likely to be very unhappy.  Indeed, the whole foundation of the Threefold lies in people explaining to David Berkman why they wouldn't find a Theatrix-style game much fun.

If there is one important reason for these models to exist, it is to help people understand what sorts of games they will have the most fun in and to help them diagnose the problems they are having in their games.  If your model puts two styles together into a single category that don't work well together, I think it loses value as a predictive and diagnostic tool.  That problem doesn't have to be solved by putting Dramatism and Narrativism together.  It can be solved by making more categories.

[JohnMorrow]

On 2001-06-25 14:38, Logan wrote:
Radical changes in terminology or huge shifts in the model itself shouldn't happen over night. For better or worse, people are used to the terms we're using. If we change them all and completely rework everything, then it won't be GNS or the Edwards model any more. That might sound good to some people, but it's not a great idea in practice. It would really piss people off.

I was heavily involved in the discussions that led to the Threefold creation on r.g.f.a.  I've learned a few things from my conversations with others and quite a bit from my short exchange here.  Ignore my comments if you don't like them.

First, I learned that the terminology of the Threefold is more confusing that enlightening.  The GNS model seems to be inheriting that confusion.  As one person I was discussing the r.g.f.a Threefold put it, a jargon that is incomprehensible to anyone other than the creators is useless.  I tried to argue against that point but now I'm forced to agree.

From this group, I learned how the outsiders to r.g.f.a must have felt trying to comment on that model and I think I understand all the hostility that these discussions generate.  But I've also come to realize that a critical turning point on r.g.f.a was the creation of their FAQ.  Before the r.g.f.a FAQ, a lot of the terminology and theory was fluid.  It evolved.  The Threefold terminology isn't the first terminology used for those concepts but the second or third.  Once the FAQ was written, that all stopped and everything became fixed.  I'm not sure that was a good thing.

When you say, "If we change them all and completely rework everything, then it won't be GNS or the Edwards model any more." and "It would really piss people off.", what that tells me is that you have more important goals than making this model a sound model that describes something useful.  The more important goals are preserving the model and not pissing people off.  That seems rather like the tail wagging the dog to me.

[greyorm]

And if you had more styles, this wouldn't be a problem.  You'd probably also address a big part of S. John Ross' complaint is that the Threefold and GNS pigeonhold gamers
into too few categories.  

Considering SJR's typical commentary (if the infantile spewage I've found he generally releases about it can be called such), I don't find this very convincing.

Can you simulate Arthurian Fantasy and be Simulationist in the r.g.f.a senese?

A Simulationist works to simulate the setting while the Dramatist works to simulate the stories.

Apparently we also disagree strongly about what the rgfa model states and supports as the definition of Simulationism.  I would also point out that other rgfa regulars have agreed with me that rgfa Simulationism encompasses metaplot issues if they are part of the Simulation (genre simulation)...this without prompting from me, and with me on the other side of the argument.

Considering this, I don't know if there's any common ground here to discuss this between us.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Wow - I went away for a long weekend, came back to see this massive thread, and started reading.  People making good points, misunderstandings, near flames . . . ah, the very essence of internet conversation :wink:

Seriously, there's a lot of thought and effort here, and I'll start by thanking everyone for that.  I selfishly see this whole discussion as the background which can help me understand better how to 1) pick games I and my friends will like, and 2) play them in a manner that we'll find fun.  Number 2) definetely includes such things as "scenario" design and GM tips, but I'm not sure if I'm ready/want to take the plunge into "game design" - maybe that makes me an oddity here.

So, what I really want to communicate to John and Brian  (as representives of the "you're all Narrativists" opinion) is this: I identify as a Simulationist under this model - I might be a bit "tainted" by Narrativism, because I see where I've really enjoyed it when bit's and pieces of that crept into my games, and I'm very interested in exploring it further.  I'm not sure if I would identify as a Simulationist under rgfa - it comes close, but I'm not sure I really identify as anything under rgfa.  I confess to a very light skim of the "original" material on rgfa, but based on references in the debate here and at other rpg sites, nothing really seems to fit that well.  Simulationism, as defined here, matches well what I've done over the last 10 years or so.  Gamism fits (mostly) what I did back in the late 70's-early 80's (best as I can remember).

Note the "mostly" and the "matches well".  Those are meant to indicate I'm not COMPLETELY happy with the GNS model, but it feels like the right direction to me.

Anyway - I guess that's it.  Oh, and I understand the frustration around this (GNS) definition of Simulation, 'cause it is non-intuitive in many ways, but as (I hope) my posts elsewhere supporting the GNS definition indicate, I've come to believe it really is a "better" description of a set of gaming styles/behaviors that share a common base.  It is quite different from the rgfa definition, and certainly can be critized on those terms - but I've not yet seen it (or my afore-mentioned posts) challenged on its' (their) own basis in a substantive way.

Love to see someone do that, as I figure it can only help me understand more/better . . .

Gorodn C. Landis

[Logan]

John,

I think somehow you and I speak different languages. I say something that I intend to mean one thing, but that's not what you hear. Changes won't happen over night. That doesn't mean changes won't happen. I expect changes will happen, but slowly and without pissing people off.

I think you want a revolutionary approach, but we take an evolutionary approach. That is a big source of friction. If you condemn GNS for that... Oh, well. You strike me as a guy with a lot of ideas about how things should be done. Maybe you should write your own model. That's what Scarlet Jester did. He didn't agree with us or rgfa, so he went on his own journey. You could do that. Just remember 2 things:

It's easy to criticize, far more difficult to actually do something.

-and-

Everyone's a critic, so make sure you've grown a very thick skin.

Best,

Logan

[ This Message was edited by: Logan on 2001-06-26 08:46 ]

[Blake Hutchins]

I prefer to look at the G, N, and S as the vertices of a triangle (kudos to James and Ron for this idea) that represents the possible range of RP gaming behavior and design. As quasi-Aristotalian points, the "pure" -isms probably describe very few people and very few actual games. Dramatism, for example, falls somewhere between the N and S poles. I suggest most of us would find ourselves at a point in the triangle that corresponds with our particular mix of styles and preferences. Worried about game balance? That to me is a Gamist concern. Stressed about whether the world's verisimilitude has been breached? Simulationist. Has the dramatic tension of a scene fizzled? Narrativist. In nearly every game I've participated in, I've had all three of these concerns. Though I describe myself as Narrativist, I'm quite the adulterated version and thus am somewhat closer to the center of the triangle than to any one vertice (maybe a tad nearer the N-S side).

The process versus outcome dichotomy Brian mentions is interesting, but I see it as a behavior watershed that can be found within each "ism." Story-oriented goals aren't necessarily outcome-oriented, in my opinion. They are all about conflict resolution and try-fail sequences. If the GM fudges to permit a rigidly predetermined outcome, it's railroading, pure and simple. Railroading isn't confined to Narrativism -- it's not even a necessary component. I'll go further and suggest all RP games are primarily process-oriented. Some may have a more defined reward structure built into the rules, but experience systems or the like don't make a game outcome-oriented. Some GM styles may be to chain the players to a fixed plotline, but again, that choice is not a necessary component of any of the model's vertices.

What does seem to be a necessary component of the model is a determination of the relationship dynamic between GM and players for each vertice, i.e., what level of centralized direction comes from the GM versus decentralized direction from the players. Direction versus collaboration might be a more concise way of explaining this dynamic. Another issue certainly is the degree to which the rules affect the direction-collaboration balance.

Yet another issue is the emphasis of the rules themselves. I'm still thinking this through, so it's very unformed, but here's an interesting question (interesting to me, at any rate): What do the rules at each vertice protect?

Let me explain. In Gamist games, rules should presumeably be fair in order to protect game balance, to ensure players face a challenge measured to their capabilities. In Simulationist games, the rules strive to reflect the reality and credibility (which could be genre-specific) of the game setting. In Narrativist games, the rules aim at encouraging colorful event description and maximizing dramatic tension.

I've thrown out these ideas because I see the argument as having become a comparison between the rgfa model and the GNS model. I agree we need to clarify our definitions, but I like the basic structure of the GNS model. Three poles work for me. As I've said, human beings are cognitively wired to think in threes. Subdividing RP behavior and design ideals into more and more boxes seems to add unnecessary complexity to a model that has a lot in it already. In terms of the triangle, I submit we can find any of our behaviors or design goals in that triangle.

The only behavior I've heard that doesn't necessarily fit is the social gamer. However, I'm not convinced social gaming is an RP concern. Social gamers, if I've understood correctly, are not there for the game. They're there for the group. Therefore, I don't think their inclusion adds anything useful to the model.

My ten cents.

Best,

Blake