pondering further preferences

[ThreeGee]

Hey all,

This is an idea that I have been playing with for some time, but I want to run it past everyone here. I will be talking about something that, to the best of my knowledge, has not been brought up here, before. I lack fancy terminology, so bear with me, please.

In addition to G/N/S, D/F/K, and A/A/D, I feel that players have another preference in play. For lack of better words, I will use Physical, Mental, and Social. Conflict is the heart of story, and role-playing games produce story, if only incidentally. These three markers indicate the sort of challenge that a player prefers.

A Physical player prefers physical challenges. In a boff-larp, this would be actually going out and beating one's friends with foam weapons. In tabletop or other abstract play, this would be combat, acrobatics, and the like. Physical challenges are typically personal, but could easily be impersonal.

A Mental player prefers mental challenges. These are generally puzzles such as magic, investigation, traps, unmapped dungeons, etc. Mental challenges are typically impersonal.

A Social player prefers social challenges. These include both free-form talking (sometimes called 'role-playing' or 'personal interaction') and social mechanics. Social challenges are typically personal.

My impression of the hobby is that the first two dominated the early games, but Mental challenges have gone out of style and have been replaced by Social challenges. Many people have advanced the idea that Physical challenges should be put on the back-burner or discarded entirely in favor of non-preferential mechanics.

That's all for the moment, because I want reactions to this initial idea before I go ahead into my own conclusions.

Later,
Grant

[JMendes]

Hey, :)

Hrm... From where I stand, these simply look like variations of Gamism. Then again, I might be wrong.

One thought occurs to me, though. This relates rather neatly to an off-hand description of RPGers I picked up a loooong time ago, and discussed a not so long time ago in the forge, specifically here.

Hope that is at all useful.

Cheers,

J.

[ThreeGee]

Hey J,

Thanks for the link. I missed that thread, and I think we are on the same page. Your model seems to be somewhere between Fang's Approach model and my own.

Heh. It could very well be gamism, given my preferences. However, even people who are definitely sim-preferred talk about such things, just as I might talk about setting or color. I think the concept could use a little more hashing out.

Later,
Grant

[Mike Holmes]

I think that it's interesting that we can talk about each of these in terms of the player and character. That is, a player prefering a physical challenge is not the same as the player prefering that the charcter has a physical challenge (which in most RPGs becomes a mental challenge for the player).

Perhaps to not set off Gamism alarms we can call them activities. Sometimes these things are enjoyed outside of the realm of competition that the term challenge would provide.

I think these terms are already in use, really, and there isn't much reason to "jargonize" them. Is there some particular application of the terms that requires them to be re-defined?

But it is interesting, certainly, to discuss about the differences in each sort of challenge.

Mike

[ThreeGee]

Hey Mike,

Activities is a great word. You can see how deeply entrenched are my gamist tendencies.

The reason I bring it up is that different players definitely have different preferences concerning what they like to prioritize in play. Just as Ron developed GNS to explain disfunctional play, I developed my theory in response to a different form of disfunctional play at the table.

Using myself as an example, I very much miss mental activities in roleplaying games. Once upon a time, there was a game called Dungeons & Dragons. This game was a lot of fun because it combined the mental thrill of playing (keeping alive) a character in an immediate, physical challenge, but also because it focused upon exploring (mapping) unknown mazes, puzzling out mysteries, and generally understanding the logic behind the scene.

I find today that not only do my fellow players not care about thinking heavy puzzles through, but that few games even acknowledge this mode of play. Generally, only overtly gamist-facilitating games mention, much less encourage, investigating, puzzling, and generally thinking as a player.

To use another example, Vampire is overtly about social situations, but successive editions have focused increasingly upon resolving physical situations in a definitively gamist fashion, strongly favoring a one-dimentionally physical character for any situation.

In conclusion, I feel that games encourage/reward more axes than just those covered by GNS, and that different players enjoy different styles of play in a way that is not covered by GNS. The lack of response to this thread implies I am very much in the minority, but I did want to propose an alternate way of looking at play.

Later,
Grant

[clehrich]

Grant,

In conclusion, I feel that games encourage/reward more axes than just those covered by GNS, and that different players enjoy different styles of play in a way that is not covered by GNS. The lack of response to this thread implies I am very much in the minority, but I did want to propose an alternate way of looking at play.

If you're saying that GNS is an incomplete model, you've got one strong vote here.  I just started a thread on the GNS forum proposing theory as like art-theory, and part of my interest is in our recognizing that (1) GNS is incomplete, and (2) GNS is inherently insufficient.

So I think what you're proposing here makes logical sense to me.  But I have to think hard about exactly what you are proposing.  With respect to D&D, I agree entirely.  Fashions have changed, and now it's given rather short shrift.  But why?  It was fun!  And there were all sorts of things about it that have indeed dropped out of the gaming repertoire.  Let me think about what you're suggesting, but I think in the abstract that looking to classic, successful games (however out-of-fashion) for aspects of gaming that ought to be part of a Grand Model is not only an interesting idea, but an entirely necessary one.

[Ron Edwards]

Oh for pity's sake.

GNS isn't the be-all and end-all of role-playing, people. It's a layer within a multi-layered model. I'm beginning to get very concerned that people are identifying some aspect of role-playing that is patently not addressed by the GNS layer and then jumping up and down to shout, "Incomplete! Incomplete!" I'd rather identify the layer or part of the model that does apply to the topic at hand (and I'm confident that the full model can do this), rather than explain this over and over.

Grant, this is a great thread, but I have to inform you that you're not breaking new ground. You're addressing something called challenge, which is to say, Situation in terms of players' competence, or of characters' competence as a function of the players'.

We've talked about challenge a lot in threads about Gamism. It's a big part of my upcoming essay. And yes, puzzle or intellectual content to the challenge seems thin on the ground these days. I agree with you wholeheartedly about that. I also think that, because most of the computer games (of various sorts, multi-user, single-user, etc) do this so much better than any historical RPG has, that the dearth isn't surprising.

Chris, we've also talked quite a bit about successful and/or classical games, and many of them have provided mechanics or intellectual potential for RPG design. Do a search on Jengaa in the RPG Theory forum ...

Best,
Ron

[clehrich]

Ron,

GNS isn't the be-all and end-all of role-playing, people. It's a layer within a multi-layered model. I'm beginning to get very concerned that people are identifying some aspect of role-playing that is patently not addressed by the GNS layer and then jumping up and down to shout, "Incomplete! Incomplete!" I'd rather identify the layer or part of the model that does apply to the topic at hand (and I'm confident that the full model can do this), rather than explain this over and over.

I can't speak for others, but my own point was hardly to denounce GNS as incomplete.  On the contrary, I think we both know and accept that it's incomplete.  The question, as far as GNS is concerned, is whether it can be made more complete.  The alternative question, which I think is the focus here, is whether there are other models which can intersect with it to get at a more general model of gaming --- your "multi-layered model" or "full model."  Differentiation from GNS, even by distinguishing absences in that model, may be very helpful for developing and theorizing other "layers."

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Chris,

The use of the term "incomplete" is causing problems for me. The term is an indictment, especially in the internet medium, and your post clarifies to me that it's not what you mean.

You're using it to talk about role-playing theory, not GNS. As far as I can tell (and am willing to argue), GNS is extremely complete regarding the aesthetic priorities of actual play. I also think that the Exploration "box" which contains GNS is in good shape as well, although I think the general understanding of it is poor, especially Situation. I'd like to think that if anyone has a better framework for these levels, I'd be influenced by it rather than dogmatic; this has already happened, in fact, more than once.

To remind everyone:

- Biggest Box = Social Contract
- Within that = Exploration (five things)
- Within that = GNS priorities/behaviors
- Within that = System (the real one in use, not necessarily text/rules)
- Within that = Techniques, interacting with System
- Within that = Stance

Note that experientially, a Social Contract action ("pass the chips," "good one!" "hey, what an attractive perfume ...") is not usually distinguished from, say, a Stance action. They look similar and feel alike during play itself. Or, more accurately, anything that happens in an inner box is also an expression of the outer boxes that contain it.

What's not complete, or rather, remains as a work in progress for all of us here in this forum, is to clarify connections down through and up through the boxes. Game design is one way to address that. On the social and aesthetic levels, just above and just below the GNS-one, Fang's material provides a more formal parallel of the kinds of things I've been doing and talking about for a long time, especially regarding Champions, which is why I have never seen his ideas as threatening or contradictory to mine.

I'm all for discussing these connections and influences up and down the scale of these levels. However, I'd like to emphasize that, so far, when someone proposes some new framework of variables - especially when they tag it as something that I've "missed" - that it fits nicely into establishing connections among the levels that I have already specified, and thus cannot be treated as a correction to my incompleteness.

If someone wants to try to falsify the entire model (meaning the layers relative to one another), they're free to do so, but so far, nothing like that has arisen at all.

Best,
Ron

[ThreeGee]

Hey Chris and Ron,

Time-Out! Geez, I step out of the room for five minutes and you two are fighting again. Do I have to send you to opposite corners of the room?

Chris, I only mentioned GNS in terms of being a formal theory that attempts to explain aspects of gameplay. Whether or not it is incomplete depends on your definition of 'incomplete.' I like GNS just fine, now that I have wrapped my head around it.

Ron, you have been very defensive lately. Take a break or something. No one is attacking you. I like GNS just fine, now that I have wrapped my head around it.

Anyway, Gamism is not a cut-and-dry situation, and as I have stated, I feel that my point still stands. The type of character situations that players like to explore cuts across all GNS modes, just like exploration of anything else. If someone would like to point me towards relevent threads, I would appreciate it. If not, either leave this thread alone, or contribute something positive.

Later,
Grant

[Ron Edwards]

That's fair, Grant. I stand moderated.

Back on topic, I agree with your point about the "venue of challenge." Do you think that the computer medium has pretty much covered the intellectual or puzzle aspect of the possible venues, or do you think that role-playing (in the sense most used around here) might venture there again to some specific, unique effect? If so, what would that look like.

Best,
Ron

[ThreeGee]

Hey Ron,

Sorry to sound cranky, but I think you understand.

That is a good question. Please keep in mind that all of this is 'in general,' but I feel that the same drift is occuring in the electronic games industry. Tetris was a pure puzzle game (mental-gamist), and it is hard to find a modern equivalent. Some adventure games (mental-sim) are being made, but that style is becoming increasingly fringe. We have Tomb Raider, but even that series has drifted amongst my three modes from game to game.

I do feel that 'old-school' crpgs retain the puzzle element so common to old rpg modules. Unfortunately, I also feel that combat elements often dilute the games too much for my complete enjoyment. For example, Summoner is a lot of fun because it presents both quests (puzzles) and npc interaction of sorts. However, towards the end of the game, it starts to grind when there is nothing left but hacking through hordes of identical monsters. Final Fantasy has this problem in spades. On the other hand, I feel that Metal Gear is tightly focused in a way that I appreciate.

Following up on your second question, I think the answer is to increase the enjoyment of role-playing for people who want something different. Without GNS, many of us are left with the vague feeling that GURPS is better than D&D or vice versa. With GNS we understand that the former game supports Sim play while the latter supports Gamist play and that neither game easily support Narrativist play. Without terms to describe the sorts of situations that characters find themselves in, we are left saying I like D&D but Spycraft leaves me cold, etc. With formal terms, we can say we like Physical: combat/stunts, Mental: puzzles/investigation, or Social: politics/investigation. (Oops, two different meanings for investigation. How did that happen?)

Therefore, using this additional perspective, I can say that I want to make a game that realistically simulates American politics. Clearly I want sim-facilitating mechanics, but I also need mechanics that focus on persuasion and debating. Including combat mechanics or rules for falling would be completely wrong. Maybe I am a bit cynical, but I think Mental-facilitating mechanics would also be out of the question. Thus, I have a more focused game this way than I would by simply writing the equivalent of GURPS and tacking on special rules for politics.

Something I want to clarify is that I am not talking specifically about what the player is doing. A combat LARP includes elements of all three, but I am specifically talking about the character's situation. If the player rolls dice without using any of his own ability in any way, that is still the same as if the player acted the situation out and the character retroactively performs in exactly the same way.

Does this help? I have tried to include theory and examples in equal measure, but this is still a rough idea that needs polishing. If you honestly feel that I am reinventing the wheel, please point me to the correct threads and/or articles that go over this stuff.

Later,
Grant

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Grant,

You're not re-inventing the wheel, but rather bringing a candle into an acknowledged, but darkened area.

I think you're really going to like my breakdown of the role-playing element called Situation, especially as it pertains to Gamist play, in the upcoming essay. If you're interested, I'll put you on the pre-read list.

Best,
Ron

[ThreeGee]

Hey Ron,

Great. That was my intent.

You bet I am interested in the Gamist essay. Maybe I jumped the gun bringing this topic up at this time.

On a different note, I am considering whether using the terms Action/Thought/Interaction would be more clear than the generic terms imported from an afore-mentioned game.

Later,
Grant

p.s.
Another reason for this topic that I have been holding back lies in analysis of game designs in terms of promise and delivery. Please allow me to give an example: GURPS gives us three Physical/Acting stats, one Mental/Thinking stat, and zero Social/Interacting stats. Overtly, the game must therefore be about exploring different types of action (ie, combat), with thinking (mostly technical skills and magic) playing a supporting role and with interacting (persuasion, etc) playing no part in the game. Covertly, however, we see that building a physical character requires spreading points across three attributes, while building a mental character requires only one stat. The social characters have points spread between the mental stat and a specific physical stat (HT), plus an advantage that adds to these unrelated (in terms of interacting) stats before applying skills. In this light, GURPS is very incoherent. Delivery is radically different from promise.

[clehrich]

Sorry --- things have moved quite rapidly while I was off teaching class.

Grant, I too stand moderated, as Ron so neatly put it.

Ron, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that I'm a bit misunderstanding what the term "incomplete" is usually used to mean in Forge/web contexts, where it is often taken as a term of reproach.  I assume you're right -- you certainly know more about it than I.  If so, I see why you were pissed, and I apologize.  In your post, you accurately picked out what I intended by the term, and responded thoroughly to my concerns (not that I entirely agree with you, but that's an entirely different issue for another thread and another time).  So I'm just going to go back quietly and think about Gamism and puzzles.  Sorry to pour gasoline on warm waters, as it were.  :)