Interesting Threefold Model Essay

[Wart]

There's an interesting article on the rgfa Threefold Model at http://home.earthlink.net/~bgleichman/Theory/Threefold/rgfa.htm which raises some interesting points, some of which might be applicable to the Forge GNS model.

In particular, it suggests replacing the terms "Gamist", "Narrativist" and "Simulationist", on the basis that they are slightly loaded terms at best, misleading at worst. The suggested replacements are "Skill", "Story" and "World", respectively.

I must say I like this idea, since it makes what the three terms mean much, much clearer. For example, lots of people think "Simulationism" requires hyper-realism. Under the proposed amendment, "Simulationist" players are referred to as "World-oriented" players - folk who like to explore an internally consistent campaign world. Another example: some people think "Gamists try to win at roleplaying games". Under the new terminology, we call Gamists "Skill-oriented players", and it is obvious that they are not out to win: rather, they prefer games in which they encounter problems to be solved using their own skills.

What do people think of the article?

[Le Joueur]

Wart wrote:
Here's an interesting article on the rgfa Threefold Model which raises some interesting points, some of which might be applicable to the Forge GNS model.

In particular, it suggests replacing the terms "Gamist", "Narrativist" and "Simulationist", on the basis that they are slightly loaded terms at best, misleading at worst. The suggested replacements are "Skill", "Story" and "World", respectively.

This has always been an interesting article, but I for one think that for as inclusive as Mr. Gleichman tries to be, his terms lose even more styles of play then they add.

I must say I like this idea, since it makes what the three terms mean much, much clearer. For example, lots of people think "Simulationism" requires hyper-realism. Under the proposed amendment, "Simulationist" players are referred to as "World-oriented" players - folk who like to explore an internally consistent campaign world.

I think the exact quote is, World-oriented goals "[value] the concept of game world events resolving as they would if the world had an independent and actual existence completely separate from that of th

Another example: some people think "Gamists try to win at role-playing games". Under the new terminology, we call Gamists "Skill-oriented players", and it is obvious that they are not out to win: rather, they prefer games in which they encounter problems to be solved using their own skills.the characterother articles.

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-09-21 10:26 ]

[Wart]

I think the exact quote is, World-oriented goals "[value] the concept of game world events resolving as they would if the world had an independent and actual existence completely separate from that of th

Well, we could keep the names but broaden the definitions. I for one think immersive play is a subset of World-oriented roleplaying, in that one tries one's damndest to take on the role and act like a denizen of the campaign world.

[joshua neff]

Actually, Mike Gentry had an interesting observation about Brian's insistant use of the word "skill" as it relates to gamism, being his professed style of play.
Essentially, when Brian talks about skill being the important element of gamism, he uses examples (which no longer exist, as Brian deleted every post he ever made here) which range from combat-decisions (both individual fights & mass combats) to story-decisions. That & an argument about "rules lite" versus "rules heavy" led Mike (& myself) to conclude that when Brian talks about "skill", what he really means is "what I do is skilled & what others do, particularly with light rules systems, isn't". Since Brian maintains that what he plays is gamism (even if, from his descriptions of how he plays & what his priorities are, others have argued that he isn't necessarily a gamist player), gamism is, therefore, about "skill" & not about, as others have argued, "winning". But what "skill" means exactly is pretty vague.

Disclaimer 1: Brian considers me an "enemy". I don't consider him, or anyone else, an "enemy", but we've had our fair share of arguments on-line. So, take what I say about him as you will.

Disclaimer 2: Brian no longer reads or posts on the Forge, so any argument I or anyone else makes, he can't debate.

[ This Message was edited by: joshua neff on 2001-09-21 11:14 ]

[ This Message was edited by: joshua neff on 2001-12-06 19:22 ]

[Le Joueur]

Wart wrote:

Fang wrote:
I think the exact quote is, World-oriented goals "[value] the concept of game world events resolving as they would if the world had an independent and actual existence completely separate from that of th

Well, we could keep the names but broaden the definitions. I for one think immersive play is a subset of World-oriented role-playing, in that one tries one's damndest to take on the role and act like a denizen of the campaign world.

Except that kind of broadening completely destroys the goal of making "what the three terms mean much, much clearer," to use your words.  In fact tucking immersive players under the umbrella of World-oriented goals by saying they focus on playing a single component of the world makes it a "slightly loaded [term] at best, misleading at worst."

As I have advocated before

[Gordon C. Landis]

Fang wrote:
p. s. Of course if we instead added Upstart-orientation, that would make it the WUSS model, but I don?t think we want to go there.  (What?  I can?t make a joke?)

I wouldn't DARE repond to this anywhere but The Forge, and maybe even here . . . I don't know Fang, haven't even exchanged posts with him . . . maybe I should just . . . must - fight - I . . . no, surrender, I cannot resist . . .

Fang wrote:
 (What?  I can?t make a joke?)

No, apparently you can't.

At least, not a good one :wink:

Gordon C. Landis

[Knight]

Immersive has been considered a part of simulationism for as long as I can remember, and I don't see a problem with that.  Any model of this type is going to have to make certain generalisations and I don't think that one is really all that big a deal.

I don't mean this in a funny way, but it seems to me that the increased focus on immersive play at this period in time may be causing it to assume a distinctiveness that it does not actually posess.

I can't say why three points seems such a good number, but I think it's better to try and collapse styles down before adding new points willy-nilly.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi all,

I've been around & about on this one more often than I care to remember, because it always comes back to one thing: by "immersive," people mean a whole range of different things. I have also decided it's a hot-button, meaning that any discussion about it tends to make people defensive and upset. But here goes ...

I want to remind everyone that the GNS notion is NOT supposed to account for any and all elements of role-playing. It's a set of generalized real-person goals, the "how to have fun" component of the activity.

For now, I'll suggest that IF by "immersive" we mean "fully identifies emotionally with the PC," then it doesn't really correspond to any aspect of GNS. It's a different issue, most likely related to stance.

However, I can also see that IF the stance that most often induces "immersion" is Actor stance, and IF Actor stance tends to be common for Simulationist goals (or a subset of them), then immersion would be ASSOCIATED with Simulationist play, at least in a "how often" sort of way.

And finally, if someone were to say to me that "immersion" is their role-playing goal, then I might say, "Well, then Simulationism of a character-driven sort would be your best bet, although certain brands of Narrativism might do well too if you don't mind a lot of metagame context to establish your immersive moments."

To name names, Jim Henley's excellent examples with Amberway II seem to me to fall into the former category, and Mike Sullivan's examples and recent work on The Framework would suggest to me the latter category.

So that means I agree with Knight in his assessment of the Simulationist connection, yet I also agree with Fang in thinking of immersion as another issue beyond GNS. How can this seeming contradiction be? Because we are seeing correspondence in multivariate space among sectors of different data-sets.

But overall, I have grown gun-shy of immersion-discussions, because the keyboard-equivalent of trembling lips and choked voices tends to override any value we get out of the time spent. I really hope this post doesn't set off another round of that.

Best,
Ron

[contracycle]

1) I don't think the GNS loses anything from ditching immersive play per se; in fact as a player stance I feel it is only tangential to big chunks of GNS.

2) Immersive play, the hardcore variety, IS different.  However, after much bumping of heads with Immersive advocates, I don't believe it has anything to do with the quality or depth of the environment; I don't think that there is any necessary association between immersive stance and simulationist GMing. [that said, I think immersive players have a more interesting time of it if their GM caters to good sim]

3) Although there were severely negative reactions to it on the one previous occassion it was mentioned, I could make a fair case that deep immersion is a psychological disorder.  Or a behaviour equivalent to a psychological disorder, which is not quite the same thing.  However, considering that roleplaying in the broad sense has served mystics well in the pursuit of altered states of consciousness, I think its worth mentioning, because all this stuff does feed back in a real sense to the real mind.

4) System does matter to immersive players, but arguably less than many.  I think that the key to immersive psychology (if there is such a thing) is that the boundaries of the box are known.  Once those boundaries are drawn, the immersive is capable of stepping out of immersion to some degree, BUT the big deal is that they should not be "thrown back" into their "real selves".

I think of it being a lot like some experiences I had as a kid; on a Sunday afternoon, if my mother mentioned that I would need to go to school next day, my mood would collapse.  While I maintained unconscious suspension of disbelief in my freedom, I was happy - once the Awful Truth was drawn to my attention, I was an unhappy boy.

For this reason, I think, Immersives can handle a certain amount of expected disruption; it is the unexpected disruption that overcomes their SOD capacity, so to speak.
I don't see the kind of conscious intervention reuired for Director stance being easily accessible.

[Ron Edwards]

Oh yeah.

As a passing note - and with respect for many aspects of Brian's essay - I think that the following associations are terrible, destructive misconceptions:
Sim = World/Setting
Nar/Drama = Plot
Game = System/Resolution

As I have said many times, ALL role-playing includes ALL of these elements: character, system, setting, color, premise, and situation. "Plot" in its most mild, neutral sense is merely what happens via play.

To repeat: Gamist play utilizes and cares about all of these things. Narrativist play utilizes and cares about all of these things. Simulationist play utilizes and cares about all of these things. The degree of emphasis among these things can vary widely within each of G, N, or S.

To associate any one of these things directly with any one of G, N, or S is a horrible absurdity.

Best,
Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Gareth (contracyle),

Brilliant post. I agree with every word.

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

Before I go into this, I should mention the epiphany I had this morning.  Traditionally, I have heard both the GDS and the GNS models referred to as of use in categorizing gamemaster motivation for what can be literally identical acts.  As far as that goes, I believe they serve well enough.

The problem is, again and again I hear the proponents of these models say that gamemasters should be in the business of facilitating play.  How is that a problem?  Simple, by categorizing the motivations of the gamemaster into Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist, you immediately turn away from their role as facilitator.

I realize now the main problem with trying to inject immersive into these models is by most definitions a gamemaster has no motive or need to immerse themselves.  I also realize that because of all this it was rather foolish of me to liken the model I created in Get Emotional! to anything related to either the GDS or GNS model.

You see, what I attempted to capture in Get Emotional! was the styles of the players.  To me, if you are truly going to facilitate play, your goal(s) should be to conform to the players (especially if that means seeking players you are good at conforming to).

A gamemaster cannot be immersive, but Simulationism is one way to facilitate immersive play (and not the only one).

contracycle wrote:

2) Immersive play, the hardcore variety, IS different.  However, after much bumping of heads with Immersive advocates, I don't believe it has anything to do with the quality or depth of the environment; I don't think that there is any necessary association between immersive stance and Simulationist [gamemastering]. (That said, I think immersive players have a more interesting time of it if their [gamemaster] caters to good [Simulationism].)

I am not sure about what you mean with this last parenthetical remark, but if you are talking about providing verisimilitude, I am right there with you.

I don't see the kind of conscious intervention required for Director stance being easily accessible.Quote

Ron Edwards wrote:

I've been around & about on this one more often than I care to remember, because it always comes back to one thing: by "immersive," people mean a whole range of different things. I have also decided it's a hot-button, meaning that any discussion about it tends to make people defensive and upset. But here goes....Quote

I want to remind everyone that the GNS notion is NOT supposed to account for any and all elements of role-playing. It's a set of generalized real-person goals, the "how to have fun" component of the activity.

I seem to remember it being generated from a usage primarily for gamemastering goals, but that could be apocryphal.

For now, I'll suggest that IF by "immersive" we mean "fully identifies emotionally with the PC," then it doesn't really correspond to any aspect of GNS. It's a different issue, most likely related to stance.

Making it of primary interest to how one plays (juxtaposed with how one gamemasters), the root of the scheme in my Get Emotional! article.

However, I can also see that IF the stance that most often induces "immersion" is Actor stance, and IF Actor stance tends to be common for Simulationist goals (or a subset of them), then immersion would be ASSOCIATED with Simulationist play, at least in a "how often" sort of way.Actor without immersion.  I realize this is your pet usage, but now with over two hundred participants in this forum, many quite new, I think you either need to be more clear about the difference between the way you define Actor Stance as opposed to real-world acting whenever you use it (you could, just through in links like this one<

And finally, if someone were to say to me that "immersion" is their role-playing goal, then I might say, "Well, then Simulationism of a character-driven sort would be your best bet, although certain brands of Narrativism might do well too if you don't mind a lot of metagame context to establish your immersive moments."Quote

So that means I agree with Knight in his assessment of the Simulationist connection, yet I also agree with Fang in thinking of immersion as another issue beyond GNS. How can this seeming contradiction be?

This is because GNS over-inflates gamemaster importance (my obviously loaded opinion) by ignoring the facilitation principle.  As previously mentioned, Simulationism is a good approach to satisfying immersive players, but immersion, of any stripe, does not belong in a gamemaster-centric model like the GNS.

What do I mean when I say immersive?  While I do skew towards "[identifying] emotionally with thGet Emotional!

[Ron Edwards]

Hey Fang,

Where'd the perception that GNS has any sort of specific GM focus come from? That ain't it, man, not even anywhere near it.

It's about people. Real people; I don't care if they are GMs or players or switch between those or what. Just the real people and what they call "fun" or "worthwhile" from a role-playing experience. Specifically, it's about DECISIONS and GOALS as expressed through play.

So to call a person "Gamist" is shorthand for saying, "This person tends to make Gamist-type decisions and promote Gamist-type priorities during play."

In most of my experience, we've mainly discussed players (as opposed to GMs), but since the theory is about PEOPLE, any people, then GMs are included too. The differing role of GM and player will then influence the SPHERES of the decisions, but not alter the GNS stuff one bit.

Discussions about my System essay have spun off in all manner of crazy directions - for instance, there was a while when people insisted GNS was about classifying the games themselves. It's not, directly, just via system-facilitation components. Thus, calling Hero Wars a Narrativist game is shorthand for, "Hero Wars' system and other features consistently facilitate Narrativist play."

This "GM as opposed to players" thing seems equally odd to me.

Best,
Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Whew! OK, on to other aspects of Fang's post, or some of them anyway.

[Here is a folded note which Fang is to read after his sense of humor has been implanted; it says, "Damn, bud, can't you present just one explosive idea at a time?" But he hasn't read that yet.]

Stance & terminology - yeesh, I am still resistant to replace "Actor" or any of the other stance terms at this time. I agree with you that perhaps the topic can merely be left to cool.

My "seeming contradiction" with you and Knight - I was under the impression that I had answered my own question in the rest of that paragraph. That is, it was rhetorical.

Your take on immersion - seems to fit the XYZ thing referred to by me as Actor stance.

I'm time-constrained, at the moment, so my apologies for the one-liners. Your posts deserve more time & consideration than that, so I promise to follow up tomorrow.

Best,
Ron

[contracycle]

Fang wrote:

What do I mean when I say immersive? While I do skew towards "[identifying] emotionally with th

That is what I would expect from the term too, but I don't think it is what Immersives themselves are trying to describe.  I think a much greater portion of the players consciousness is invested in the character, there is a much greater submission of the "host" personality.  I am reminded of Bruce Stirlings (IIRC) book Aristoi, which examined a notional society in which the privileged, the Aristoi, had a kind of psychological technique for swapping "shards" of their own personality in and out.  A shard is analogous to the "personalities" experienced in Multiple Personality Disorder, in that it may have a totally different experience and analysis of the world, different morals, different gender, age, etc.  

It's interesting to speculate how all of this comes about given that there are in almost all cases the normal mix gender-related hormones and the like in the bloodstream.  One might venture to argue that the physical brain is not in fact capable of "being" a person of radically different experience and physicality and thus MPD must in fact be some form of roleplaying (in the broad sense); occuring at an unconscious and indeed uncontrollable level.

One of the themes explored in Aristoi is that this switching of shards might be useful/beneficial in that shards subordinate to the core personality may exhibit features that the core personality does not such as artistic aptitude, a capacity or incapacity for violence, certain skills like languages.  It is also suggested that sociopathy might be the result of the "capture" of the mind by a subordinate shard which, not possessing ALL the human features of the core personality is incapable of relating to other humans on a genuine emotional level.  Now, this is of course a work of fiction, I hasten to reiterate, but a fascinating thought experiment.

In most discussions on Immersive play in which I have participated, there has been mention of players who are not routinely immersive but who have experienced immersion from time to time.  I think I have only experienced it once, in one of those eye opener games; an almost totally conversational game in which my character was framed for a murder.  The pressure imposed by impending arrest heightened the tension and one might say the pitch of my in-character stance.  Once I "came out" of character I realised that for several hours I had been incapable of distinguishing my characters personality from my own; for all intents and purposes I had been functioning as a shard whose properties were detailed by the character sheet.

Part of the point is that this was substantially different from my normal In Character stance.  I routinely employ Actor, flipping in to others; during what I think was an immersive experience I would not have been able to do this (unless, perversley, the character had been aware of thesae ideas.  I think it would be quite possible for an Immersed player to play a character who was themselves roleplaying, and to maintain the secondary character in a shell defined by the primary character).  Also, although in my normal stance I can be angry or happy on behalf of the character, during this experience I felt emotions immediately and uncontrollably rather than by proxy; there was no capacity for editorial control.  As I say, I don't routinely play like this, so I don't have that much data to work from, but I suspect one of my regular players is Immersive more frequently than I am; the short version of how I deal with him when he is in immersive mode is to simply never address the player but only the character until he "comes down".  He can function in author and other stances too, but not when in full flight.

Anyway, as I say I think the phenomenon described by Immersion is substantially different from simply assuming a first person viewpoint; it is the extinguishing of the distinction between player and character on a temporary basis.  As such it is a very, umm, profound behaviour, and I don't think it can be boxed with the more conventional player stances.