GNS, Intent and Motivations

[Valamir]

Hi Ralph,

Gareth and I have been rock-steady on our points throughout the thread. I think that you (and everyone else on the thread) might do well to read it over from the beginning - the phrases that you are finding reasonable now are not very much like the ones you were using back then.

Ok.  I was pretty much done with this thread as I had reached a level of comfort that what Jason, MJ, and myself have been saying for the last 5 pages was completely correct, and that it was unneccessary for me to understand the reasoning behind opposing claims in order to continue to use the information.

However, as I feel the above paragraph unfairly mischaracterizes my position, I feel the need to address it only to set the record straight.

At your suggestion I did reread this thread in its entirety, and my position on this issue has not budged a single jot since post one.  That being the following:

GNS is about determining the intent behind decisions.
"Gamism" is an intent
"Simulationism" is an intent
"Narrativism" is an intent
Conciously, or unconciously these are intents.

Or Motives.  Contrary to your statement that a dictionary isn't very helpful, I find dictionaries to be enormously helpful.  And since I'm sure more people have access to a dictionary than what ever definitional source you use to define Behavior and Motive, I'm perfectly comfortable with making sure my use of the terms matches the dictionary definition.  Since a Motive according to the dictionary (as I quoted above) refers to something which incites to action, I'm quite comfortable applying that definition here.


They are Intents which cannot be identified directly through observation, so we are left to observe a sequence of decisions and to infer from those decisions which G N or S intent lay behind them.

Saying that a player has made a Narrativist decision really means that the player made a decision that supported his intent to promote premise and story now (again a concious or unconcious intent).

Saying that a player has made a Gamist decision really means that the player has made a decision in line with his intent to "win" (etc).

This is what I've said a dozen different ways since the beginning.  That Intent is an undeniable unseperable factor of the model since the beginning.  To say that I have somehow changed my position is completely incorrect and somewhat disingenuous.

Now if you have a problem with this interpretation of GNS, I can only presume it comes from you ascribing a different meaning to the words behavior, intent, and motive than does Webster's dictionary, and not liking what THOSE definitions are in reference to the model.

If that's the case, I'm fine with that.  You avoid using the words because to you they mean something else.  I'll embrace the words because the definition I use (provided to me by good old pedestrian Mr Webster)perfectly describes what is going on.


I am not attempting, nor interested in getting into a "he said this" "he said that" discussion.  But I felt the need to set the record straight regarding the implication that my views have shifted.  They have not.  It is your statement in the prior thread being at odds with my view that spawned this thread to begin with.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

My apologies for riling you. Clearly our mutual interpretations of the very "what we said" have been incompatible from the beginning, which is only to be expected when discussing motives.

Right then. As I've said, your interpretation (as just stated) is yours to bring to the essay. If it strikes you that the essay makes no sense without it, then all the better that you do that.

As for this thread, it stands as is for whatever it's worth, and let the reader decide for himself, from now on. Unless anyone wants to keep going (I don't see why, but ...).

I think the benefit is that we are all agreed regarding the courtroom method being the right "what mode is that" investigation model.

Best,
Ron