Technical Play and the one word GNS

[Wormwood]

In an earlier thread I suggested that the three GNS modes seem describably by what questions are asked by the player making the decision. I find however, that while this seems a compact idea, it's not very accesible.

Then I started thinking about play decisions in terms of a more technical definition of play, namely practiced behaviors which promote the learning of something. In this context, there are several objectives in the playing of a game, one of these is the material learned, another is the social effect of the game. In the context of the GNS modes, it seems that gamist, simulationist, and narrativist nicely maps to catagories of material. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, these are the same catagories that seem to fit the play description.
In particular:

Narrative play is play in which "whys" are learned.

Simulationist play is play in which "whats" are learned.

Gamist play is play in which "hows" are learned.

Incoherence is simply the interference of different matter making learning less worthwhile, much like cramming for an exam.

Many features of the theory which are non-trivial appear easily from this model, including the different explorative goals of simulation, the ease by which simulation adjoins gamism and narrativism, the disjunction between intended and actually learned material.

So, the question is, does this act as an alternative description of the theory? Or are there discrepancies. And if there are discrepancies, where do they lie?

Note: it is important to distinguish between technical play, and play as common parlance. Also the basic assumption of this theory is that all players have a technical play goal, i.e. intend to practice something / learn something. This goal may be significantly masked, or only mildly so, but it is necessarilly present given their use of technical play in the context of an RPG.

I look forward to any suggestions or ideas,

   -Mendel S.

[jdagna]

Your descriptions may not be too far from the original intent of GNS, but I'm not sure if they clarify anything.

For example, I prefer Sim play, but my interest is always a "Why" question.  Why is the Thieves' Guild feuding with the new mayor?  Why are the troglodytes venturing out of their caves?  Why does the refined lady have a scar on her throat?

Now... all of these can be rephrased in terms of a What question (What made the thieve's feud with the new mayor?).  Maybe they're even what you were thinking of in terms of a asking what, but to my mind, a campaign that focuses on what is shallow and mechanical.  I want to know why, but not in the thematic sense of a Narrativist.  I just don't think you can get much Exploring done on the basis of what.

As for the gamist how, I think that depends on the nature of the competition.  If it's all combat, then asking how works fine.  How do a beat him?  How can I get a higher hit bonus?  But what if the competition is to figure out a mystory?  Aren't they asking What or Why questions then?

Likewise, I can see a Narrativist learning How questions.  How do you balance loyalty to your family when they're doing the wrong thing?  How can good triumph when evil is willing to do anything to win?

[Mike Holmes]

I agree with Justin. In trying to simpify, you lose most of the meaning that makes it useful.

Mike

[Wormwood]

Justin,

I'm not really talking about questions asked in game. While I know I mentioned that as how I arrived at this idea, it's not precisely what I'm suggesting. I'm talking about learned material in the game. The actual grammar of the question's asked in play is largely irrelevant, what is important is the essential goals of the play involved.

For example, your interest in the causes of different events eventually boils down to an interest in "what is happening in this town." The limits on learning in this case are based on the available details, which can be why's, how's, or what's. But this does demonstrate the importance of a detailed context for Simulationism.

Likewise if you are finding out a mystery as a challenge, you are learning not the answer, but the best way to find out a mystery in that context. This indicates, also, that a gamist is more willing to fail to find out the answer than a simulationist, who wants to learn what happened. After all, failure teaches the gamist something, the simulationist doesn't meet any goals in that occurance.

Lastly, sure the narrativist asks "how", but if you're learning about methods for balancing loyalty and morality, you're really not investigating either as a theme, nor learning their deeper features. And in practice there's not much there to learn, except for questions like, "Why does morality conflict with family loyalty?"

Don't get caught up in grammar, the important part is the material that is acquired during the play (of both forms), that's where the real distinction seems to occur.

I hope that helps,

    -Mendel S.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Mendel,

It seems to me that explaining what you mean, really, by "why," "what," and "how," requires just as much focus and care as explaining G, N, or S. In other words, it might be a good teaching device in a particular venue, in which your explanations have room to be communicated and to take root, but I don't see it as necessarily clearer or more easy to grasp than any other shorthand-to-GNS out there.

Best,
Ron

[Wormwood]

Ron,

I'm currently working on refining the use of question words in this way. I'm attempting to find good replacements, at the moment methods, details, and reasons seem apt.

Besides, I'm not even attempting a better reformulation, simply an effective one that will be fairly accessible. After all the advantage to multiple formulations in a theory is to make more aspects of the theory directly accesible. This is why, for example, there are several dozen equivalent descriptions of what a computer is.

  -Mendel S.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Mendel,

Right! I fully endorse you working on these terms. The more "angles of attack" we generate to help people understand the concepts, the better. However, my concern is to avoid thinking that any one-word explanations (as indicated by your title for this thread) will be sufficient as single words.

Best,
Ron

[Wormwood]

Ron,

I concur, the central idea, I'm attempting to develop is that of technical play as a foundation to describe the theory. The single word descriptions simply provide a starting point to develop the different catagories of material. Looking over it this seems to be a very interesting question. When I get the free chance, I'd like to look into some theories of human learning to develop this idea. I think there is a definite synergy between well established results in that field and at least some parts of the theory. However, I'm still working on figuring those out.

   -Mendel S.

[jdagna]

If you have to get at the heart of GNS in one word for each mode, why not:

competitive
explorative
thematic

Instead of developing totally new words, you're just picking up the most important one from the GNS descriptions.

[Wormwood]

Justin,

The one word GNS was an inspiration, not the objective of the investigation. Also, the things I'm really looking for are arenas of learning. At the moment it seems that procedural, declarative, and cultural learning are close to the meanings I'm looking for.

This is really not meant to be a summary of the theory, it's intended as a reformulation, in order to provide new perspectives of it.

  -Mendel S.