Cr.Ag., GNS, BV, and Other Acronyms

[clehrich]

In a lengthy series of recent threads, there has been debate about various possible "new" models and, among other things, their relationship to GNS.

I could quote extensively; instead I'm just going to point backwards to:

Confused Agendas and Practicality
Aesthetics and Conveying Reality
Aesthetics and Reality
Elegance and Deliberateness
Creative Agenda == Explorative Agenda?

All but the last of these became contentious, something I'd like to avoid here.  There are also a stack of others on Creative Agenda, but I still get lost.  At any rate, I have a question, and I think it's a GNS And the Big Model question, first and foremost.

Now in the second of these threads, Ron posted this schema, apparently from the soon-to-be-posted Gamism essay:

[Social Contract [Exploration [GNS [rules [techniques [Stances]]]]]]

Now in a series of exchanges with Mike Holmes, I've found myself increasingly confused.  Here's the question:

Creative Agenda, which used to be called Premise but isn't now (mostly, I believe, because of confusions about Egri's idea of Premise), must fit in here somewhere.  If I understand correctly, Mike places it either at the Exploration level (that is, Exploration is Exploration of Creative Agenda), or between Exploration and GNS.  I believe the latter is a correct assessment of his reading; Mike, please correct me if I'm still wrong about this.

Now as I understand it, Creative Agenda is the "what do you do?" of the game.  Shifting one place to the right (GNS) and dividing up, we might find a Narrativist Creative Agenda: "what will you sacrifice to gain power?" just as an example.

Most of the debates referenced were about what came to be called Baseline and Vision, a tensive relationship which originated out of concerns about Realism and something resembling Genre.  Thus this was a discussion primarily of such issues as Setting, Color, and so forth.

By one interpretation, this relationship between Realism and Genre is the same as Creative Agenda.  If that's correct, I don't see how "what will you sacrifice to gain power?" is a Creative Agenda.  If on the contrary "what will you sacrifice to gain power?" is a Creative Agenda, I don't see how Realism and Genre are identical to Creative Agenda.

Thus it seems to me that Creative Agenda, if the "what will you sacrifice?" thing is Creative Agenda, should fall extremely close to GNS, but on the right in the system of boxes.  Alternatively, I guess I could see it falling exceedingly close to GNS on the left.

Then, by my reading, there should be some other object here, which I suppose falls immediately to the right or left of Exploration.

To sum up, I know that Ron dislikes the use of Genre in analysis of gaming.  At the same time, it seems that many games do play off of genre expectations.  My questions, then, are:

1. If you'll allow the term genre for the moment (I'd prefer Vision, but that's the whole debate in a nutshell), where does Genre fall in that scheme?

2. Is Creative Agenda a question, as posed above, or something else?

3. Is Creative Agenda identical to Genre?

4. Where does Creative Agenda fall in the model?

I have stated my understanding, not my fixed opinion of the matter.  I'm looking for correction and clarification of something I don't get, or am not sure I do.

Ideally, I'd love to hear from Ron on this.  At one point in the last cited thread he said

All GNS is is a bridge between #1 and #2: the creative agenda

which sounds like GNS is Creative Agenda, and if that's the case then I really need some clarification here.  On the other hand, that remark was, I think, relatively off-the-cuff, so I don't want to lean on it as an "aha!" sort of thing.

Chris

[lumpley]

I understand Premise to be Narrativism's Creative Agenda.  That is, this:

[Social Contract [Exploration [GNS [rules [techniques [Stances]]]]]]

Instantiates to this:

[Social Contract [Exploration [What would you do for power? [Sorcerer's rules [techniques [Stances]]]]]]

or this:

[Social Cotract [Exploration [What's it like to be a Hermetic Wizard in Mythic Europe? [Ars Magica's rules [techniques [Stances]]]]]]

or whatever game you're playing.

-Vincent

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I think some of these points might help out.

The remark you quote is not off-the-cuff at all. I did not pose "Creative agenda" as a new category or level of classification, but rather as a blanket term for the GNS modes, which is to say, "Now that I'm Exploring, what does my Exploration seem to be 'for'?" Hence the name: Creative (Explorative) Agenda (Goal). It's a terminological replacement, not a new concept at all. You can call the brackets for the GNS category Creative Agenda, I suppose.

That's why you're right in saying that "What will you sacrifice to gain power?" is not a Creative Agenda. It isn't. It's one of many potential Narrativist Premises (now the only use for the term "Premise," I think), which is "deeper" than Creative Agenda in the model.

If I may be permitted a certain cattiness, just for a moment, I think a number of people saw a Kewl New Term in "creative agenda" and instantly went searching for a Kewl New Notion that it "must" be talking about.

Now, you're right in thinking that Genre is associated with Exploration. From my essay,

A "genre" is some combination of specific setting elements, plot elements, situation elements, character elements, and sometimes premise elements, such that by hearing the term, we are informed what to expect, or in role-playing terms, what to do. On the face of it, the concept would seem to be useful.

The problem is that genres are continually being deconstructed and re-formed, with elements of one being re-combined with others. This is occurring as a non-planned or non-managed historical phenomenon throughout all media. Therefore "genre" may be a fine descriptive label for what is or has been done, but it's not much help in terms of what to do or what can be done.

In many cases, a given genre label will convey to a close group of people a fairly tight combination of values for these variables. However, the same genre label loses its power to inform as you add more people to the mix, especially since most labels have switched meanings radically more than once. And even more importantly, new combinations of values for the key variables may be perfectly functional, even when they do not correspond to any recognized genre label.

Therefore when someone tells me that a game (or story, or whatever) is based on a certain genre, I have to ask a few more questions - and sooner or later, I get real answers in terms of Character, Setting, Situation, or Color. Only then can an initial Premise be identified, and then the next step toward functional, enjoyable role-playing may occur.

I'm not sure why people persist in thinking that I "don't like" the word genre in some kind of aesthetic or arbitrary way. I also want to point out that Fang's term "Genre Expectations" has been very carefully defined so that it means more than the loose term that's subject to my criticism in the second paragraph quoted. I wholly endorse Fang's term and usage.

The two bolded phrases are very important, especially if you pop out the word "Premise" in the final sentence and replace it with "Creative Agenda," in accord with my current thinking. The relationship between these phrases is direct. The one in the first paragraph would be wonderful if it really happened reliably, but the one in the second is what happens when we demand, upon hearing a "genre label," more detail and specifications.

So, to sum up: we have imagined Characters + Setting = Situation, reinforced by Color. Here we are, looking at System. What do we do? Some cognitive interaction among these five things sparks a Creative Agenda, and in play, that Agenda is identifiable as G, N, or S or a viable hybrid thereof. I'm using the plural in this paragraph for a reason, due to the social and communicative medium in which all this takes place.

Certain synergies or feedbacks are available as well. I might, for instance, have a strong Creative Agenda firing before I make up the character, for example. In such a case, I suggest that I was working with example characters in my head in order to come up with the Agenda and hence with the actual, applied character for actual use. So the 1-2-3 sequence in the above paragraph is admittedly simplistic and the five elements can be variably prioritized or cause one another in different directions.

Best,
Ron

[clehrich]

Thanks, Ron & Vincent.

Let me see if I've got this straight:

1. Social Contract  --> folks get together
Q. "What are we going to do, guys?"
A. "Role-play by the following basic rules of sociality."

2. Exploration --> Characters + Setting = Situation, with Color
Q. "What are we going to explore?"
A. Characters + Setting, spun the following Colorful way

3. Creative Agenda --> G/N/S/Hybrid
Q. "What's that exploration going to be for?"
A. GNS answer (super-roughly-and-horribly-distortingly Winning/Ethics/What-if)

4. Premise
Q. "Why are we going to do that?"
A. Not just Winning, but beating the GM; not just ethics, but issues of power; etc.

5. Rules
Q. "How are we going to do that?"
A. Specific mechanics

6. Techniques (I'm not sure about this)

7. Stances
Q. "How will we look upon ourselves and our characters as we do so?"
A. Mostly Author, or Director, or Actor, or whatever

Is that about right?  Would I be more or less on the money if I said that the hierarchy happens because when the gang gets together, it goes through these steps; if they go through out of order, they end up having to go back and fill in, then go back through in order, or else they end up in incoherent no-fun hell?  That is, if they skip over Creative Agenda and go straight to rules, they either have to go back and do Creative Agenda and then re-check that the rules are OK, or they end up with rules that don't serve any Creative Agenda well.

So "Creative Agenda" is more or less equivalent to that ugly term GNS preference/priority/emphasis, yes?

As a final check, all GNS modes do lead to Premises, but they're of radically different sorts; thus Vincent's "What would you do for power?" and "What's it like to be a Hermetic Wizard in Mythic Europe."  Is that right?

Sorry, I just want to get this straight in my head.  Thanks.

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Chris,

So far so good, except for one thing: eliminate your #4. The way I'm looking at things now, I'm not calling anything Premise except the Egri-style Premise, and that's just down there in Narrativism.

Really, once you get the Creative Agenda understood, it all becomes way easier.

In Narrativism, you do that by finding the Premise (sensu stricto, Egri only). In focusing on that, you do "Story Now." Now dive down into your steps #5-7.

In Simulationism, you do that by specifying the relationship among the five element, which is to say, validating one another's "Right to Dream." Now dive down into your steps #5-7.

In Gamism, you do that by caring about what's at stake at two levels, most importantly the personal-esteem one, hence, you "Step On Up." Now dive down into your steps #5-7.

[hybrids eliminated from the above list just for brevity's sake; fill in as you see fit]

Here's a news flash: I am very greatly tempted, and have been for a few months, simply to drop the terms Gamism, Simulationism, and Narrativism entirely and to replace them with the catch-phrases above. Everyone, please don't enter into a debate about that. Just letting you know where my head's at.

Oh yeah, final point: Techniques refers to all manner of rules-interpretations and interactions which get things done during play. Illusionism is a technique. Narration-trading is a technique. "One caller per party" is a techique. And so on; there're many of them, perhaps hundreds.

Best,
Ron

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

I think Creative Agenda simply made a lot of sense to me(even when it was called premise with a small "p"), just because in the broadest sense its "What this game is about", which, I think is really the point where players and designers have to meet, if no where else.  I just wanted to thank Chris for bringing up good questions, and Ron for clarifying.  On a side-note, Ron, those taglines have done wonders for me in terms of "nailing it down" or encapsulating the GNS ideas in soundbites(granted, you have to look deeper, but when you pull your head out of the theory, you know you got it right when they make sense).   Story Now blew me away, and is what I consider the most important message out of Sorcerer and Sword.

Chris

[John Kim]

[Social Contract [Exploration [GNS [rules [techniques [Stances]]]]]]

While I don't have any problem with this as one representation, my experience has been that the ordering of hierarchies like this depends strongly on your viewpoint.  i.e. Take several people, present them with concepts on their own terms in random order, and people will put them in different order in the hierarchy.  For example, I would consider techniques closer to social contract than rules, but that probably has to do with how I use rules.  (Since I don't really think of myself as a game designer, I'm not trying to get my rules perfect, and I may have techniques which span and override rules.)  

Anyhow, that's my caveat.  For example, Daniel Mackay in his book "The Fantasy Role-Playing Game" had a four-level heirarchy which seemed quite bizarre.  He put [ Player [ Character [ Narrative [ Game ] ] ] ] ...
where the "Game" frame is the game system and setting, the "Narrative" frame is the GM preparation and the defined characters, the "Character" frame is the set of imaginary events experienced by the characters, and the "Player" frame is the set of all events witnessed by the GM and players.  

My take on this is that the arrangement of the hierarchy can change depending on your point of view.  I think its good to make a hierarchy, but then you should reflect on what it means compared to other arrangements.  An interesting point is that there is a place for "rules" in the heirarchy of (Social Contract ... Stances), but there is no place for "setting" or "character".

[Valamir]

That's actually not a bad idea John.  I believe the intent is to draw upon the idea of Venn diagrams to get these concepts and their interrelations accross...very difficult to draw in ascii...but I think its entirely possible that some of these overlap 2 or several rather than being strictly nested.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

John, in the essay from which the schema was drawn, and I believe in the section that I posted earlier, but *not* quoted here by Chris, I specify that techniques' position is not fixed where they're placed.

Best,
Ron

[Jason Lee]

From my point of view:

With Baseline and Vision you are going to have a fundamental disconnect with Exploration and GNS (which I'm not saying is bad).

Baseline and Vision both contain elements of System, Setting, Character and Color (genre and how mechanics express genre), but not all the elements.  Realism and genre divide things up differently than Exploration, they include things it does not, and vice versa (good reasons why neither term belongs anywhere near the GNS model).  BV and Exploration just don't mesh in my mind.

GNS expresses how System Does Matter by defining the priorities of the players.  Baseline and Vision expresses how System Does Matter by defining how a game can properly convey its intended play experience.  GNS matters because it's about what the players want.  Baseline and Vision matter because it's about expressing the game's concept.  They just don't mix because they are coming from completely different angles.

A creative agenda (note the non-caps) defined for Exploration/GNS will have a different focus than one defined for Baseline and Vision. Or, to put it more simply:  I agree with the following quote:

By one interpretation, this relationship between Realism and Genre is the same as Creative Agenda.  If that's correct, I don't see how "what will you sacrifice to gain power?" is a Creative Agenda.  If on the contrary "what will you sacrifice to gain power?" is a Creative Agenda, I don't see how Realism and Genre are identical to Creative Agenda.

[Eric J-D]

This thread has been useful in clarifying some issues that seemed less clear to me in the earlier threads that Chris cites.  But as cruciel observes, there are still some unresolved issues about where or whether Baseline-Vision enters in to the present hierarchy.  I appreciate what cruciel has pointed out, but I have a slightly different take on where B-V fits in (or doesn't fit in as the case may be).

Here's my thinking.  As I understand what the B-V folks were articulating in prior threads, on one level B-V would seem to enter into the hierarchy at #2



 

2. Exploration --> Characters + Setting = Situation, with Color
Q. "What are we going to explore?"
A. Characters + Setting, spun the following Colorful way

where the tension between some aspects of the setting and the players' expectations of that setting encounter the visionary aspects of the game.  In the Ars Magica example this would be the tension created by a) the medieval setting and the players' expectations of the level of realism entailed by this setting and b) the presence of real magic and orders of mages as well as the game's assumption that the players will create characters who are mages or who frequently encounter the presence of magic in an otherwise "realistic" historical setting.  Another example of this is the Victorian setting of SiTF, where play occurs in a Victorian setting where the occult is real and where tension is created both by the juxtaposition of these two elements as well as the players' experience of how different Victorian sensibilities are from their preconceived notions of same.  So far so good?

Elsewhere, however, the B-V folks suggest that B-V is not simply about the articulation of a set of tensions but a set of tensions with a particular purpose.  I believe it was Fang who first suggested that the tension between B-V was for the purpose of generating "interest," and one particular aplication of this interest can be found in a post by Chris in which the hypothetical setting was one of low-powered superheroes and the specific example was as follows:

 

At any rate, the point is that the game exists in a state of tension between Baseline and Vision. When a dramatic situation comes up, it's dramatic because it's unclear which side is going to win out. For example, suppose our superhero character is Very Tough -- that's his power, it seems. So when he runs across that highway to save that baby, we've got a dramatic situation: (1) does he make it alive, unhurt, etc.? (2) does he save the baby?

Baseline is pulling toward (1) no, and thus (2) no.
Vision is pulling toward (1) yes, though maybe dinged a bit, and (2) probably yes.

Like Fang's focus on the interest produced by the tension between B-V, Chris' example suggests to me that here the B-V discussion would enter the hierarchy at #3 as one response to the question posed in #3

3. Creative Agenda --> G/N/S/Hybrid
Q. "What's that exploration going to be for?"
A. GNS answer (super-roughly-and-horribly-distortingly Winning/Ethics/What-if)

In other words, a response to why we are exploring the tension in B-V present at #2 (e.g. medieval setting but with real magic, or present day saying but with low-powered superheroes) is resolved by one of (or even some combination of) the GNS answers.  Now here's where I'm likely to anger some people--and if I do I apologize in advance--but it seems to me that running throughout most of the posts about the "interest" generated by exploring the B-V tension are largely Sim priorities.  In Chris' example, the  drama (interest) created by the B-V tension inheres in an exploration of a feature of setting as well as the mechanical or otherwise in-game resolution of a particular conflict that highlights this tension within the setting.  From my view, these all seem like Sim priorities to me.

The problem this presents for B-V, as I see it, is that unless B-V can articulate the ways in which other GNS reponses to the tensions presented by B-V at the #2 level are possible, then it seems to me either just another way of saying, "I think that some real interest can be generated by prioritizing Sim exploration of a set of particular tensions (magic in a medieval setting, low-powered superheroes acting in a "real world" setting) or useful only as a slightly more detailed description of what you have already at #2.  If B-V can propose other GNS responses to the tension presented by B-V, then I still wonder what it is doing that isn't already being addressed by the various GNS modes/responses at #3.  Why can't we just make B-V a subset of #2?

Is this at all clear?  Is this understanding of what the B-V folks are trying to accomplish too reductive?

Cheers,

Eric

[clehrich]

Eric,

As long as this seems to have turned into a B/V discussion, which wasn't particularly my intent, let me respond to your points.

Here's my thinking.  As I understand what the B-V folks were articulating in prior threads, on one level B-V would seem to enter into the hierarchy at #2

I'm with you thus far.  I agree that B/V would seem to enter at #2, and I think your examples work well.  I particularly like:

In the Ars Magica example this would be the tension created by a) the medieval setting and the players' expectations of the level of realism entailed by this setting and b) the presence of real magic and orders of mages as well as the game's assumption that the players will create characters who are mages or who frequently encounter the presence of magic in an otherwise "realistic" historical setting.

Now we get to the heart of the matter:

Now here's where I'm likely to anger some people--and if I do I apologize in advance--but it seems to me that running throughout most of the posts about the "interest" generated by exploring the B-V tension are largely Sim priorities.  In Chris' example, the  drama (interest) created by the B-V tension inheres in an exploration of a feature of setting as well as the mechanical or otherwise in-game resolution of a particular conflict that highlights this tension within the setting.  From my view, these all seem like Sim priorities to me.

The example given, as you say, is rather Sim.  But it seems to me that the tension here could be swung in other directions:

[*]What is the moral use of magic in the context of a Christian society where most assume that all magic is dubious or even demonic?
[*]Using my magic, can I "beat" the system, that is acquire riches/power/wealth etc. without being seen to have a vast advantage?[/list:u]These are intended to be Narrativist and Gamist approaches, respectively; I'm weak on Gamism, so please feel free to revise the Agenda appropriately.

If B-V can propose other GNS responses to the tension presented by B-V, then I still wonder what it is doing that isn't already being addressed by the various GNS modes/responses at #3.  Why can't we just make B-V a subset of #2?

I think that ultimately there is a tension between #2 and #3, and I think that same tension occurs or is found between Baseline and Vision.  At the same time, I think (and you seem to agree) that Baseline is not #2 and Vision is not #3.  So if we keep the hierarchy strict, it appears that in getting from 2 --> 3, we have Baseline and Vision at right-angles to that connecting line.  (I'd provide a chart, with Exploration on the left, Baseline on the bottom, Creative Agenda on the right, and Vision on the top, but I don't know how to do that in HTML.)

Now one potential critique is that this is a completist's theory.  That is, it takes something not terribly problematic -- the "spark" lying between 2 and 3 -- and makes a theory out of it.  I think this is probably what Matt Snyder meant when he asked about art and mystery (Matt, correct me if I'm off-base here).  And I think for the most part, that's true.

First of all I admit to being a completist.

But more importantly, I am quite interested by the idea of a true hybrid game, in which all GNS preferences (Creative Agendas) are possible simultaneously.  This is different from the Driftable game, being discussed as a challenge in this thread, because it permits simultaneous Creative Agendas without dysfunction or incoherence.

I don't believe such a thing can be formulated as a design goal without having some other way of thinking about getting from #2 to #3.  The way things are currently formulated -- and the way the vast majority of games preferentially function -- you want a straight, direct line between the two, leading to a clear, unambiguous Creative Agenda, and thus no incoherence.

But a hybrid game requires us to consider other ways of doing things.  I think that one could design a game such that the decision of Creative Agenda is processual, arising out of continuous tensions and dynamics of the scenario or Situation, i.e. out of the black box that is #2.  And I think one way of doing this is to think about how #2 necessarily shifts into a divided situation, a binary, of Baseline and Vision.  From the constant dynamism of that structure, one can move among Creative Agendas without incoherence.

You've brought up Ars Magica, and I think that can serve as a good example.  I see no reason that we can't deal with all of these issues simultaneously; that is, in principle we ought to be able to have an Ars Magica game in which examining moral choice about magic and propriety, seeking success and domination through magic, and exploring the nature and meaning of magic in medieval Europe are simultaneous objectives.

The trick is that everything here hinges on the "instance."  If we accept that Creative Agenda occurs on an instantive level, not that of a whole game or a momentary choice, then it seems inherently possible that any game can be designed to encourage all Creative Agendas as discrete instances.  But most game design here at the Forge, at least from my reading, tends to focus on encouraging a single Creative Agenda for all instances.  This makes for a functional game, to be sure, and a coherent one.  But is it really necessary?

I don't think this undermines GNS in any way, nor breaks the model.  My hope is simply that this is a way of looking at design that encourages greater flexibility of design without falling into all the pitfalls of incoherence that GNS so neatly identifies.

Does that clarify matters?

[M. J. Young]

I will confess that much of the Baseline/Vision stuff was dense and boggling and that I skimmed quite a bit of it; but as Eric "Zhlubb" clarifies it, I think that he's right to put it at the level of exploration, and as such it has no more to do with Creative Agenda than anything else that exists at that level--which is to say it is indeed the foundation on which creative agenda builds, but it is not in any way determinative of what the creative agenda is.

Chris, you propose a gamist and a narrativist direction that could be taken from the same foundation which Eric uses for his clearly simulationist one. Yet I think in doing so you demonstrate exactly what I'm saying: that baseline/vision has nothing to do with creative agenda beyond that established for the exporation level generally. I'm inclined to think that B/V is little more than a way to envision settings. Situation and color may be influenced by this (I wouldn't say incorporated), but that's always the case. If you do a medieval fantasy setting, you can have a range of situation and color, but the setting itself does set some limits on what is possible.

So you suggest the Ars Magica B/V, and we draw from it three directions:

[*]"exploration of a feature of setting as well as the mechanical or otherwise in-game resolution of a particular conflict that highlights this tension within the setting"[*]"the moral use of magic in the context of a Christian society where most assume that all magic is dubious or even demonic"[*]"acquire riches/power/wealth etc. without being seen to have a vast advantage".[/list:u]You've agreed that these are, respectively, simulationist, narrativist, and gamist agendae.

The simulationist one amounts to "let's explore this setting."

The narrativist one amounts to "this setting provides an opportunity to explore this issue."

The gamist one amounts to "can we beat the game given the restrictions imposed on us by this setting."

In that sense, B/V may be a very useful tool for helping to define and devise settings, but it has no more relation to GNS/Creative Agenda than any other tool which helps devise settings. Yes, you can set up tensions within the setting itself, which then may be explored (simulationism) or ignored, used as the foundation for moral issues (narrativism) or ignored (as so many do with alignment in D&D), regarded as the strictures within which the character must struggle (gamism) or, again, ignored. I'm sure many people have played Ars Magica in all three of the modes you've identified, but perhaps many more have played it without ever giving a thought to the fact that "this isn't real"--whether because they took the description of the book as both baseline and vision, or they found it close enough to the baseline they drew from other fantasy that there was no significant vision involved.

That's where I think we are with it at this point.

--M. J. Young

[clehrich]

M.J.,

In that sense, B/V may be a very useful tool for helping to define and devise settings, but it has no more relation to GNS/Creative Agenda than any other tool which helps devise settings. Yes, you can set up tensions within the setting itself, which then may be explored (simulationism) or ignored, used as the foundation for moral issues (narrativism) or ignored (as so many do with alignment in D&D), regarded as the strictures within which the character must struggle (gamism) or, again, ignored.

That's sort of what I said at the outset of B/V: that it has little or nothing to do with GNS (Creative Agenda).  Walt neatly described this as a way of cracking open the "black box" of Exploration (i.e. level #2), and the more I think about it, the more I think that's correct.

[Edited to add:
I do think that B/V assists in seeing ways of getting from the general concerns of Exploration (setting, character, situation, color, etc.) toward the formulation of a Creative Agenda.  But I don't think it overlaps significantly with the domain of Creative Agenda itself.]

If you are seeing it this way as well, then I think we're starting to come to some sort of consensus.  Hooray!

Chris

[Eric J-D]

Thanks Chris and M.J. for our thoughtful responses.

In my original post I never intended to make this a thread about B/V, so please feel free to return to the other issues raised in Chris' original thread.  My only point was that given the hierarchy that Chris elaborated, B/V appeared to enter in at #2.  Only when the B/V folks started to talk bout the "purpose" of the B/V tension (i.e. that it could generate "interest") did it start to get muddled for me.  From my view, all the varieties of "interest" generated by B/V seem adequately covered by the familiar GNS terms.

As a cracking open of the black box of Exploration, B/V would seem to have a useful application as a design tool.  Not being a designer myself, I can't really speak to Chris' intriguing suggestion that perhaps more possibilites exist for hybrid games that deliberately seek to incorporate all three GNS modes while remaining coherent and functional.  I know Fang's Scattershot sought to be a hybrid of Sim and Narr priorities, but this is the first post I have read that suggests a hybrid of all three.  Very ambitious and certainly worth the attempt.

Eric