Ying in the Yang?

[Valamir]

To put it as clearly as I can: the only "intents" that I'm interested in are those which are being expressed through actions, interactions, and statements - and hence we can focus on the latter and leave the intent out of the discussion.

I think you're unnecessarily confusing the issue by trying to focus on the visible, outward expressions of GNS modes.  After all, your stated intent for the article was to establish a lexicon in the interest of helping players have "fun" which is already an internal, subjective element.

Focusing on actions instead of motives simply forces us to look at many actions to see if there is a common thread of play.  This common thread hints at a motive - what you call an "expessed goal."  I really don't think "motive" "intent" and "expressed goal" differ substantiantially in meaning.

In any event, by trying to take motive out of the discussion, it becomes nearly impossible to use concrete examples of GNS modes because no single example is sufficient to illustrate a GNS mode without a motive behind it.  Thus, we have to look at a series of actions - and some of those actions fit different GNS modes than others, hence the confusion that seems to be very common in this forum.

For the record...as someone who always puts "Intent" into my discussions of GNS I just wanted to say, I for one, agree 100% with your sentiment above.

I understands Ron's reluctance to get into the mushy ground of Intent and Motivation, but without them, there is absolutely no way to describe GNS in any kind of succinct understandable manner.

To me, GNS is ALL about intent.  It is all about what motivated the player to make the decision he made at a given decision point.  WHY did I choose X over Y.  The answer to why (which is the very definition of motive) is how you determine the GNS position.

Now, I am completely aware of the difficulties of actually measuring motive; and I'm completely aware of the slippery slope of trying to ascribe motive to someone elses decision.  It can also be a slippery slope to even objectively define your own motivation, especially when ones actual motivation for a decision is at odds with ones own biases.

This is where Instances of Play comes in.  Instances of Play is nothing more than a sequence of player decisions (however many are required) from which Intent can be deduced with a high degree of probability.  Deducing intent from a single decision can be all but impossible.  Deducing intent after having a context of several ongoing decisions is what Instances of Play is all about.

To try and take the Intent out of GNS, might be correct in the most technical of senses.  But its completely impractical to talk GNS without talking Intent.  As Jason immediately recognized...how can you give examples without it?

Answer:  Not very easily.  Ergo: Intent--->filtered through Instances of Play--->leads us to GNS understanding.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

No one seems to be understanding my point: that "intent" as you see it is perfectly all right for you to be seeing. Thus I am not excluding it from the model - I am permitting you to customize the model in its "internal origins" or the psychology of it, if you will, as you see fit.

Best,
Ron

[John Wick]

If you get bonuses in combat for "painting" a good picutre of the combat...
Isn't that all 3 types of gameplay right there?  Dave

I think that's just good roleplaying, no G, no N, no S. Just good roleplaying. Something every type would do. Even those who aren't constrained by the Three-Sided Box. (Big wink)

In other words, don't go looking for G/N/S where it isn't. It's a compass, a guide to help the game designer keep focused. But the compass (like the map) isn't the journey.

And, by the way, it's "yin and yang." Don't worry, I made the same mistake once. And it went out on a few million L5R cards.

Take care,
John