GNS, Intent and Motivations

[Valamir]

From the Ying in the Yang? thread.

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

Well, you'er right (for me anyway)...I'm not understanding your point.

Specifically #1, I'm having difficulty reconciling your above comment, with the comment that started this tangent:

there's one point of phrasing I'd like to object to in your presentations, because it offers a lot of pitfalls and isn't actually part of my model at all.

At one point your objecting to the use of the phrasing, and later its "perfectly all right"

Note:  I'm not trying to catch you in a contradiction here.  Just trying to figure out where this dividing line between what's in the model vs. what's individually customized from the model is, and what the value is in making this distinction.


Specifically #2:

but the model works without motives being explicitly identified.

I'm not seeing where it does.  An extended "instance of play" allowing you to be rigorous in your analysis still boils down (it seems to me) to identifying motive.  Whether you try to do this atomically, or whether you believe (and I agree) that atomically is fine theory but practicality demands longer instances of play, GNS is still inferring motive from observed player decisions.

Can you give more detail if I'm off here?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ralph,

Aagghh!

OK, I'm better. The two statements you've quoted are not contradictory. The one is referring to a given person's understanding of GNS, and the (apparently irreversible) drive people have to link an internal "motivation" to a set of behaviors. I'm saying, "Go ahead, explain GNS in motivational terms to yourself as you see fit."

The other statement is referring to associating a given motivation with the written form of the model itself, or to turn it around, calling the GNS modes themselves motivations or intents. That's the "phrasing" that I am suggesting that people avoid. I still suggest this - the "customizing" that I'm suggesting above is not going to be compatible from person to person.

I say:

1) "Leave motivations/intents out of your direct reading of what I'm saying,"

2) "Put'em in as you see fit for your own peace of mind," and

3) "Realize that others are not going to share your outlooks when you talk about GNS (or anything else) in these terms."

All of these are complementary, not contradictory.

Everyone so far is saying, "But intentions have to be involved! Obviously you're talking about intentions!" I shrug. Feel free to think so and to interpret those intentions as you see fit; feel free even to discuss such thing among yourselves as long as no one is claiming to paraphrase or quote me in doing so.

Meanwhile, I'll be talking about what people do and say.

Best,
Ron

[deadpanbob]

Ron,

I understand that you are trying to say that you neither support nor deny the application of intent/motivation to GNS discussions, but...

Your use of "motivation" isn't the same as mine. When I see Bob the Player say, "Yeah! You suck!" and eagerly grab the dice for his turn as his fellow player laughs ruefully, gazing at his failed saving throw, then I recognize one of the many kinds of Gamism in action ... or at least I'm alerted to keep an eye on how the group reacts over the course of the whole session to this sort of behavior. Three rounds later, the two players cooperate like fiends to double-team the troll wizard and a good roll saves their bacon - they high-five each other, and Sam the Player says to the GM, "Yeah! You suck!" and they all laugh, delighted. OK, I say, point 2 for Gamism goin' on here, and keep watching.

To you, I might be talking about "motivation." As with my comments above, that's your privilege and it's OK for you to perceive that. Don't let my claim that I'm not including motivation to confuse you - it does not exclude your interpretation, it simply means that you are free to add it without any input/specs from me.

The above quote was also from the Yin and Yang thread Valamir mentions.  My confusion here stems from the fact that Ron's example seems clearly to indicate the players are leaning toward Gamisim modes of play over the course of a single Instance (as defined as one gaming session).

But, Ron, your claim that identifying this as Gamism isn't you ascribing motivation to these players confuses me.  In the exmple you created, the players don't come right out and say "I'm in a Gamist mode here with my decisions" - and yet you identify them as such.  How do you do this without ascribing intent or motivation to the players?

Are you saying "In my view, in my opinion, this is Gamism regardless of what motivations or intents the players have..."?

If so, that means that GNS correlates, again in your opinion, to certain types of observable behaviors.  So you might have an internal list of behaviors, tells if you will, that inform you that a group you are playing with may be leaning toward Gamism in play (or Narrativism or Simulationism).

Does this further mean then that one of the discussions you intended with GNS was a discussion about the behaviors that you think indicated a Gamist mode might be in play vs. the behaviors that I think indicated a Gamist mode might be in play?

Cheers,

Jason

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jason,

Yes, I am saying that observing those players leads me to say, This is Gamism, regardless of whatever intents and motivations they might have. Or rather, whatever intents and motivations they have (which are forever and ever inaccessible to me and debatable whether they exist anyway), those things are resulting in Gamism.

You guys are so used to identifying behaviors with intents that what I'm saying is confusing you - even though my ultimate point is to free you from having to worry about it.

This confusion showing up when you deduce that GNS must correlate in my mind to a set of observable behaviors ... which is exactly how I've defined "goals and modes" from the beginning. Yes, GNS refers to a bunch of behaviors - we knew that. We can talk about what those behaviors are. We can use examples from play, we can categorize principles on which the diversity of each mode is based, etc. All that stuff. It's not an internal list of criteria, hidden from all of you, known only to myself - it's exactly what the essay describes.

Interested in whether someone's playing Gamist-ly? Look for the prioritized competition, scoring, winning, and reinforcement thereof across the group.

Interested in whether someone's playing Simulationist-ly? Look for the prioritized attention and commitment to the Exploration, reinforced across the group.

Interested in whether someone's playing Narrativist-ly? Look for the prioritized commitment to addressing Premise (as defined specifically for Narrativism), reinforced across the group.

Really, it's way easier than what you're confusing yourself with.

You also wrote,
Does this further mean then that one of the discussions you intended with GNS was a discussion about the behaviors that you think indicated a Gamist mode might be in play vs. the behaviors that I think indicated a Gamist mode might be in play?

In a word, yes. This is precisely the discussion that has been occurring for almost four years now, when people haven't been flipping out over "divisiveness" or "you can't label me" or other non-issues, which fortunately has died down over the last year.

From this discussion have arisen dozens of useful terms and concepts, e.g. Illusionism, Balance of Power, Stance refinements, Protagonism, and more. Hell, Exploration itself arose from discussions like this, and it totally revolutionized my outlook (compare System Does Matter to the big essay, for instance). I also recommend Fang's essays and terminology in the Scattershot forum, which I think are highly complementary to the GNS ones.

So yes, let's talk about those observable behaviors which we ascribe or categorize in GNS terms. That's what we've been doing all along.

Best,
Ron

[deadpanbob]

Ron,

Thanks.  This adds another layer to my understanding of the GNS theory.

I appreciate the clairification.

Cheers,

Jason

[jdagna]

Ron, doesn't even the use of "prioritized" indicate a reference to motive or intent?

I'm not really disagreeing with you here.  I know that you can observe GNS modes and preferences strictly by behavior.  I just think putting a discussion of motive or intent in might help ease the confusion exhibited by some new readers - such as those who keep getting hung up on whether multiple modes can co-exist.

Let me analyze my own play as an example.  In different sessions of play, I can be observed performing a variety of Simulationist and Gamist acts.  There are instances of play that have strong Gamist tendencies, and other instances that have strong Sim tendencies.  Narritivist tendencies are right out - when I want to do that, I write a story instead.

So, looking only at observable actions, you'd have a harder time coming up with a GNS mode.  At GenCon, I got to play my own game as a player, and took the chance to show off, take some ridiculous risks and accrue a sickening body count.  Was I being Gamist by competing with other players or the GM, or was it more Simulationist-Character, using a psychopathic character with a love of high body counts and a deep psychological need to prove her own worth?  

From the observable evidence, I'm not sure you could tell because both are quite close.  From my own examination of myself, I can easily tell you: that was Gamist, pure and simple.  I was kicking back, showing off and not going to bog myself down with anything but Author stance.  In fact, I said something to myself before playing that essentially boiled down to "I'm going to be Gamist today" even though I hadn't read the GNS essay yet.

In cases like this, looking at motive as well as observable action gives us a much more complete and definitive picture.  It may not be as rigorous as looking at actions only (because motivation comes from the player, who is potentially unreliable).

So, I will definitely continue to think in terms of motivation because I feel it to be the core of GNS, even though I recognize that your "instances of play" does not need to use or address motivation.

[Mike Holmes]

Ron, doesn't even the use of "prioritized" indicate a reference to motive or intent?

Presumably there is a motive or intent behind everything that humans do. GNS just doesn't say what.

GNS says people make these certain categories of decisions. It does not say why they make these decisions.

Mike

[Marco]

I think the urge to ascribe intentions comes from using GNS to analyze someone else's game, scenario, or play.

I'm not saying that an observable behavior doesn't exist, but as jdagna points out, without a known motivation it's often unclear to an observer what a given instance of play is.

Subsequently, I don't think GNS is that useful as a tool for describing or analyzing someone else's play ("My players are a bunch of gamists.") It is a good tool for analyzing your own behavior and preferences.

-Marco

[M. J. Young]

Ron is an excellent biologist, I believe; my strengths are in theology, philosophy, and law, primarily. That probably gives us very different vocabularies right up front, and very different approaches to certain concepts.

That said, I'm having trouble with his distinction between action and intent, particularly given the nature of the taxonomy.  In law, the words intent and motive are extremely close in meaning, and difficult to distinguish. I might stumble into confusing them here, but will try to keep them distinct.

It has been observed that GNS "decisions" are identified by observing actions. This would be the scientific approach; it also strikes me as the only workable approach. However, I don't see how you can escape motives and intents in the process.

Several examples have already been adduced in which the actions of the players might or might not point to a particular mode of play. Our players giving each other the high-five after a particularly clever move resulting in a success looks gamist to us; but it could reflect any mode of play if it is accompanied by close character identification (immersive play) and the belief that this is expressive either of the present actions or the present emotions of the characters. Thus the action alone tells us nothing.

But, we are told, if we continue to watch play we will see additional actions which similarly could be gamist; or which equally could be narrativist or simulationist. Thus again each of these actions, in themselves, tell us nothing. And the sum of all we have learned from actions is nothing.

The only way any of these actions have any value in the question is by inference. We see the players congratulate each other, and we infer from that action a reason; that is, we create a hypothesis as to why they are acting in this manner. But this why is not inherent to the action; as we have seen, the same action could be based on any of several why's of which this is in our estimation the most likely.

Further, when we are inferring why the players did something, we are imputing intent or imputing motive.  At least in the fields of law and theology, intent and motive are the ordinary answers to the question "why" when attached to human actions. Reasons and causes are also possible answers to that question; but in this context, they do not seem to be the sorts of answers we are seeking. That is, we could answer the question Why did George have his character attack the orcs in any of these ways:
--because the game rules suggest that attacking the orcs is the appropriate move to make at this time.
--because his anger at his mother needed to be vented and this was an acceptable outlet for that.
--because he enjoys beating the odds in the game.
Of those, the first would be a reason, the second a cause, and the third a motive.  It is that motive that matters in the consideration of GNS. It is not exactly what the players and characters do in the game that informs us, but what we infer from what they do; and we are inferring why they do it, which is intent or motivation.

So, where am I missing it?

--M. J. Young

[Ron Edwards]

Hi M.J.,

All of your post, it seems to me, is a fine example of how you consider "intent" and "motive" to be intertwined with discussing GNS. None of your interpretation is going to cause trouble - it's yours and I'm happy you look at it that way.

Guys, it's painful, but you're going to have to live with it ... odd as it may seem, where you see obvious intent and motivation implied in identifying a set of consistent/coherent behaviors, I just shrug. It's OK. It's not a big deal, because it doesn't affect how we are able to speak about the actual stuff in action.

Just chalk it up to me being weird about something-or-other, and recognize that bringing these terms into discourse will cause more problems than it's worth (which no one has argued with, so I guess that's not a problem, I hope), and all is well.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

Its not that we're trying to debate you or change your mind Ron.

In point of fact, I couldn't debate you if I wanted to, because I can't even fathom your statements.  

From my perspective what you are saying isn't wrong...it isn't even possible.  But since you aren't prone to making statements such as that, I have to assume that there is some reason you are saying something which on the surface seems like utter nonsense to me.

So, since your explanation up to this point has been to shrug and say it isn't necessary for me to understand (why do I get this image of a Vorlon encounter suit with a big grinning face on it...) I can only wait until you are feeling in an more explanatory mood, or have sufficient time, or get over whatever other hurdle is causing the shrugging.

Until then as far as I'm concerned GNS decisions remain entirely about identifying (or as MJ puts it impuning) player intent from observed behavior...because that's the only explaination that even remotely makes sense to me.

[contracycle]

I'm not saying that an observable behavior doesn't exist, but as jdagna points out, without a known motivation it's often unclear to an observer what a given instance of play is.

Why?  I suggest it is effectively impossible, under most circumstances, to understand the motivation.  What we are able to observe are the actions carried out by the physical person; and on that basis we can start to analyse the range of observed actions and develop a model of their relationship.  I say again: trying to comprehend something based on a notional state-of-mind is meaningless.

[contracycle]

Several examples have already been adduced in which the actions of the players might or might not point to a particular mode of play. Our players giving each other the high-five after a particularly clever move resulting in a success looks gamist to us; but it could reflect any mode of play if it is accompanied by close character identification (immersive play) and the belief that this is expressive either of the present actions or the present emotions of the characters. Thus the action alone tells us nothing.

Quite correct.  Only after building up a picture of a sequence of actions, the intentionally fuzzy instance of play, would we be in a position to make a confident analysis.

But, we are told, if we continue to watch play we will see additional actions which similarly could be gamist; or which equally could be narrativist or simulationist. Thus again each of these actions, in themselves, tell us nothing. And the sum of all we have learned from actions is nothing.

Nope, you're falling into the trap of abtraction.  To say that it is possible - IN THE MODEL - that the next decision will reinforce or challenge our perspetion of mode preference X is not to say that they are indistinguishable in the real world.  The equal weight granted to these potential outcomes in the abstract model should NOT be projected back on to material reality.

The only way any of these actions have any value in the question is by inference. We see the players congratulate each other, and we infer from that action a reason; that is, we create a hypothesis as to why they are acting in this manner. But this why is not inherent to the action; as we have seen, the same action could be based on any of several why's of which this is in our estimation the most likely.

Again, you are using the abstracted nature of the model as an excuse to lump what would almost certainly, in practive, be very distinct behaviours into a single category.  If we were to FAIL to come up with at least a tentative "why" from the "what" we saw, then the only answer would be that we do not know.  But how probable is it that these two behaviours are really, over time, indistinguishable?  About nil I'd say.  And if we did find players whose decision pattern consistently refused to be categorised, then it might suggest that the categorisation is wrong.

Of those, the first would be a reason, the second a cause, and the third a motive.  It is that motive that matters in the consideration of GNS. It is not exactly what the players and characters do in the game that informs us, but what we infer from what they do; and we are inferring why they do it, which is intent or motivation.

This might hold on the assumption that the behaviours are indistinguishable; unfortunately you gave us a list of potential motivations instead of a list of observed behaviours.  Let us say in condition A, we have a player who makes their decisions after poring over the tables of modifiers, and shriek with joy at their lucky roll, and dance around the room beating their chest and yelling "I'm the greatest", then it seems reasonable to me to conclude that their motivation was probably gamist.  In condition B, the mod tables are still consulted but the player responds entirely in character; attributes credit and luck to the character rather than the player.  Again, it seems reasonable to me that these behaviours and their apparently implied motivations are indeed observable and useful.

The only rider is that A single gamist-type decision does not NECESSARILY imply a gamist mode for that player all the time; it may have been an aberration.

[Marco]

Why?  I suggest it is effectively impossible, under most circumstances, to understand the motivation.  What we are able to observe are the actions carried out by the physical person; and on that basis we can start to analyse the range of observed actions and develop a model of their relationship.  I say again: trying to comprehend something based on a notional state-of-mind is meaningless.

I also suggest that it is impossible, under most circumstances, to understand the motivation. I suspect that if one tries, one projects their own motivations over the person's ... leading to mis-reading the objectively observed facts (a player is rabidly acquiring power in AD&D ... his motivation is to win the upcoming dramatic showdown of good vs. evil which is what he feels must happen for Narrativist satisfaction with the story ... the GM recognizes the behavior as Gamist character building because that's how he'd play it).

-Marco

[deadpanbob]

This might hold on the assumption that the behaviours are indistinguishable; unfortunately you gave us a list of potential motivations instead of a list of observed behaviours.  Let us say in condition A, we have a player who makes their decisions after poring over the tables of modifiers, and shriek with joy at their lucky roll, and dance around the room beating their chest and yelling "I'm the greatest", then it seems reasonable to me to conclude that their motivation was probably gamist.  In condition B, the mod tables are still consulted but the player responds entirely in character; attributes credit and luck to the character rather than the player.  Again, it seems reasonable to me that these behaviours and their apparently implied motivations are indeed observable and useful.

Well, I agree that some behaviors exhibited by gamers will be as extreme as your example - but in the real world, in my experience gaming, finding people who pour over charts and jump up and down hooting and hollering after a lucky roll is rare.  The behaviors that might indicate a G/N/S mode during play are, again in my experience, quite subtle.  Especially hard for me in my own observations is ferreting out the difference between certain behaviors that could be either Gamist or Narrativist.

And of course, I'll point out that in your example you also say that once we see such definitive behavior, we can ascribe a gamist motivation to the player for that instance of play.

Again and again it seems that motivation must enter into the discussion - largely because we are talking about human nature.

I would agree that observance of the behavior in the abscense of ascribing intent/motivation would be great - if we were talking about machines or natural processes or chemical reactions.  Because as far as I know, none of these things is capable of motivation/intent.

Humans, however, have motivations and intentions - and because we at least have this illusion in our brains (the illusion that we have free will and that we can actually make a choice in any given situation), its natural for us to try and figure out the motivations of our fellow men.

I get what Ron is saying - he's saying that there is a rigorous model or rubrick if you will that correlates certain specific behaviors with certain favored modes of play - and that through observation alone the G/N/S taxonomy can be mapped to these behaviors.

Except that G/N/S is a taxonomy that screams motivation - that answers the question "Why did he jump up and down and tell the GM he sucked when he made that role?"  "Because he preffered to make a Gamist decision during that instance of play"

If we then go on to define Gamist play as being only those behaviors that model Gamist play, well then we've succeeded in creating a definition that has no use to me other than creating a layer of obscure jargon that doesn't have any meaning.

In my mind, the definition of Gamism et.al. must be about more than just the observable behavior that might or might not indicate Gamism.

I suppose that this will remain one of those things that we as a wider community must agree to disagree about.

And just to re-iterate I understand that Ron is not saying that motivation is bad, just that he prefers to leave any and all non tangible elements at the door for his own personal use of GNS.  Ron is not arguing that motivation/intent can't or shouldn't be used in conjunction with GNS discussions and observations - just that he won't be delving into that arena himself..


Cheers,

Jason