Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Valamir, September 23, 2002, 11:21:42 AM
Quote from: deadpanbobExcept 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.
Quote from: Mike Holmes...the important thing with GNS theory is not to identify why players do what they do. It' is only to say that they do three different things. And to the extent that they do these things one can say that the player doing them likely (note, likely) prefers this sort of decision making for some reason. It does not matter for the purposes of he theory what that reason is (or reasons are). Only that they seem to have one.
Quote from: Mike HolmesThat would be just great. But as all of us here seem to agree, no model is likely able to do that.
Quote from: Mike HolmesIf I see a player kill the baby kobolds, because they aren't worth any EXP alive, then I will assume that this is a Gamist decision.Mike
Quote 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.
Quote from: contracycleI tried to avoid this previously but really, the simplest example is politics. Almost everyone who engages in politics - please not not necessarily the party machine - does so to Make The World Better. Radically opposed Democrats and Republicans are motivated by the SAME GOAL; what they disagree on is the METHODOLOGY by which that goal is achieved.
Quote from: deadpanbobOf course, no one gets into politics to further a personal agenda beyond making the world a better place. It's all about that call to serve. The lure of power, for instance, plays no part in anyone's motivation to become a politician. [/sarcasm].You missed my point.Voter A opposes racism, and therefore votes for a Democrat who advocates affirmative action.Voter B opposes racism, and therfefore votes for a Republican who opposes affirmative action.How are we to tell them apart based on motivation? And if there motivations are identical, should not their decision be?"Lust for power" is precisely an imputation made of someone elses state of mind. It is unverifiable speculation and almost totally meaningless- - if asked if they "luisted for power", they would say no.Equally, the REASON that someone thinks that G or N or S is "the best way to have fun" is much less unimportant than the fact that they DO think that G or N or S is the best way to have fun. To challenge the observation that behaviour is broken into these three categories you would have to depart from motivation and cite something observable.
Quote from: contracycleYou missed my point.Voter A opposes racism, and therefore votes for a Democrat who advocates affirmative action.Voter B opposes racism, and therfefore votes for a Republican who opposes affirmative action.
Quote from: Ron EdwardsJason,Don't forget that you can apply the concept of "motives/intent" as you see fit to the model. Once you've done that, its utility to you as a designer re-appears.