Play outside of either G, N or S modes

[Bankuei]

Hi Mendel,

Not sure if you caught this:

If Alice is present in the room and never performs any Explorative interaction - just reinforces Bob about social stuff, kind of like a cheerleader - then GNS isn't going to apply to her.  It's hard to imagine such a situation that concerns just one person, but I have played in many games in which a person was present whose only job was to provide cookies or otherwise be a host, but not to play.

(emphasis mine)

If Alice is just there to hang out, but not play, she's not engaging in any explorative action whatsoever.

As far as stuff like folks showing up to play for social approval, attention, to get their mack on, etc, yeah that happens, but that would still result in GNS happening.  One thing that GNS doesn't do is map WHY people choose what they choose.  So one person may choose to submit to the groups' GNS styles for approval, or perhaps matches up with one or two particular individuals they are trying to impress.  GNS is a "how to play" not a "why to play" sort of thing.

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hello Mendel,

I have such difficulty understanding your posts that I think I'll have to take a day or two to review the thread. At this point, either I'm being very dense or you're presenting arguments about stuff that I haven't said, so I have to figure out which.

Best,
Ron

[Stuart DJ Purdie]

Hi folks, a few directed points first.

Christopher, yep, I dig you there, was just offering a direct pedigree, redundantly it appears.  Oh, and it's Stuart - DJ are my middle initials, not some prefered handle.

There is a significant difference to someone intending to help someone have fun as a Gamist, than someone playing gamist.

Mendel, that's one of the points I was groping around for, and I think quite key.

If Alice is present in the room and never performs any Explorative interaction - just reinforces Bob about social stuff, kind of like a cheerleader - then GNS isn't going to apply to her.

Ron, yeah I was meandering around, looking for a (mythical) 4th mode.  This example isn't it - that's clear, it's too narrow and technical.  On that point, I'm happy to end up with it put away as an ultimatly irrelvent point.  However, I think that there is something interesting going on.

Mendel put it quite clearly, I think.  Alice is taking part in Exploration.  I mentioned Alice having a character linked (somehow) to Bob's as possibility - that's definity an Exploritory construct, yet I can't see which of the modes applies to her behaviour.

Justin, Alan and MJ are all talking about when Alice is operating primarily at a social level, in keeping Bob aligned with the social contract.  That's an important task in many groups - but quite different from the intended example.  Consider that Bob is fully aware of the group consensus, and never strays from it.  Alice is supporting Bob's goals of play fully.  That's not doing the same thing as him nessecerily, nor is she trying to get Bob to play her way.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

OK, I think I'm seeing it, but then again, there's a piece that makes no sense to me.

Bob is playing in some kind of GNS way. Alice is present and facilitating Bob - and my question is whether she is or isn't contributing to the Exploration at the table.

If she is, and if (as it seems) whatever she's doing only reinforces Bob's play, than whatever she's doing is defined, in GNS terms, as whatever Bob's doing. Bob plays X-wise. Alice helps Bob (and more than just delivering cookies or petting him when he rolls well, or stuff like that). Alice is, therefore, playing X-wise too. Stuart, why you and Mendel seem convinced that she's obviously not doing that is completely beyond me.

Conversely, if what she's doing is not about the Exploration at all (maybe she answers Bob's cell phone and screens his calls, I dunno), then she's not actually playing (even at one step removed) and the GNS issue is moot, as I pointed out above and which Stuart acknowledges.

So I'm seeing a no-brainer here and you guys seem excited about some weird new thing or phenomenon.

Tell you what - let's get practical. Give me Alice, Bob, and three other people in the room. Tell me what game they're playing. Tell me what is happening in terms of the game-events, the system as it's used, and how the real people are interacting. Then I can help. At this present level of abstraction, I'm beginning to lose the very notion of what you (or anyone) is actually seeing in their mind regarding your example.

Best,
Ron

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Stuart,

Yes.  I missed that until I'd posted.  Sorry.  

As for the thread: I'm leaning forward waiting to find out how it ends.

Christopher

[Wormwood]

Ron,

I think the idea of Alice not actually involved in Exploration is something of a communal mental burp, as it's essentially tangential to the main point.

Simply put, where we disagree is that key idea: if Bob is playing mode X can Alice be playing mode Y, a different mode. Or to put it more generally: if Bob is playing mode X, can Alice be supporting him by playing something other than mode X? (It's reasonable to require Alice to be not playing any of the three modes, otherwise, well she is playing one of the three modes, which kind of negates the point)

My answer is an emphatic yes, and the example are easily found, but typically in the "wilds" of GNS, namely functional incoherence.  I've seen cases where one player will play towards simulationist, while another player will attempt to expedite the unfriendly elements of the game to that  player's approach by leaning much further towards gamist than is normal. Then if the first player decides to get involved in more challenge related elements, the second player will often relax her mode, and maintain the simulationist elements that the first player may have dropped. Rarely are two players so well coordinated, but this does happen. In particular this is the effect of mode crossing, players developing synergy by playing two different modes between each other. In fact this effect is one of the key observable elements of much functional incoherence.

O.k., for an example - I'll relate a game which occured last night.

Four Players: myself, J, K, N, and the DM, L. Of all of these people, I'm the only one actively familiar with GNS. The game is D&D 3rd ed, the setting is a magical version of paris before the launch of a spelljammer ship. At the present scene, I am writting up J's followers, so I'm not directly involved with the action. J and K are dating, and L is an experienced player who has never run a game before (and we're all aware of this), K has played one game before, under a different system, so is learning the game as things go on.

J is in control of an NPC follower, Koba, who has a decent information gathering skil, as well as his main character Marcus, a weaponsmaster. K is in control of a priestess of Bast, who also happens to be the combat "heavy" of the party.

At this point these characters are searching for another character, who lobbed a bomb at their ship. First they visit a shop (mechant run by L), where Naiobi (K's character) buys a prism, and some information. She is distracted by the opportunity of several cat shaped glasswares, but is told by Marcus that they are running short on time (which comes from no where and is subsequently dropped). Then they follow the merchant's lead and speak with a one legged beggar (run by L), J permits both Koba and Marcus to stand back as Naiobi mends the beggar's cup and fills it with stew (magically). At this point K is enchanted by the fact that she need not roll anything to cast spells.

The beggar then relates a fairly protracted story, and all the players listen to L relate it (in my opinion she does a good job at this). Then the three characters follow the beggar's lead to find a prostitute in a red dress. On the way, they encounter a flower girl and Marcus buys five flowers for Naiobi. When they read the "red light" district, where they are immediately accousted by a variety of prostitutes, especially Koba, with his charisma of 18. One such prostitute manages to strongly catches Marcus' eye, and he makes plans to meet her later. K decides not to have Naiobi take significant askence at this, and play continues through a scene where Naiobi is offered one of the male prostitutes at the brothel. Eventually Marcus uses his mercenary experience to bribe the madam to get them up to the room where the prostitute they are looking for is working. J's haste on this matter, seems directly related to the discomfort of K's character.

Once up at the room they interrupt the prostitute with the cloaked man that they suspected was the bomber. At this point I took control of Koba, and so was no longer able to simply observe the play.

To my mind, it is clear that J was supporting K through play, and that this support crossed GNS lines at various point during this action. At times J uses a simulationist approach, at times a gamist one, and in one case offers K a narrative hook to build on. J also discourages a later hook, but in this case to prevent K's discomfort.

I could probably provide more direct example, but this one is fresh in my mind, and evidences my suspicioun that this is a common occurence in functional incoherence.

I hope that helps,

   -Mendel S.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Mendel,

OK, I do see all that, but I think your perception of a variety of GNS modes in this example is questionable. I wasn't in the group or at the session, obviously, but I don't see any evidence of Narrativist or Gamist play in your account at all. The characters encounter some NPCs and follow up on some clues, and as they do, they gain some information: plain ol' Exploration of Situation. I also don't see any interesting distinction between J playing the NPC-follower vs. his "own" character, if that is supposed to be the case-example of the "supportive" play.

Also, and more importantly, none of what you describe is relevant to what I understood Stuart to be discussing in the first place. He was talking about another mode of play entirely, which is to say, either a GNS-level mode that was not G, N, or S, or social-contract interactions that were not themselves a creative agenda. That's what I'm trying to sort out with the Alice and non-Exploration issue - which isn't at all what you're talking about, apparently.

Stuart, can you sort this out a bit?

Best,
Ron

[Wormwood]

Ron,

From Stuart's last post he indicates that the point we are both attempting to make, (he is, possibly making other points as well) is that in the Alice and Bob example, Alice is not playing in any existing mode, regardless of what Bob is doing. Whether this is a different mode in the same sense that the GNS modes exist is not the immediate concern. The real issue is whether this form of play is within an existing mode, or even reliably within a mode based on the player being supported.

Evidently my example from last night was not convincing, I worried as much when I wrote it, but I have two difficulties giving you direct evidence of this point, (1) I did not take notes sufficient to make these things clear during the play, and (2) I am assuming internally experienced play is not reasonable evidence due to experimentor's bias. I have significant experience of using this form of interactive mode in real play, primarilly as my own mode of play. I am loath to place that as an example, since that requires a perceptive interpretation on several levels.

Consider instead the other offered example, Player 1 leans towards gamism, removing challenges in play from affecting Player 2, who can then proceed uninhibited in an immersive manner. This form of mode insulation can be seen in many levels, often involving a polarization of modes. This particular example is actually fairly common for functional introduction of a player into a game which does not match their typical preferences. Over time the polarization may diminish, as the new player takes interest in new agendas, and hence will begin to lean back into the supported mode of the game.  
Stuart, I apologize if I'm causing this to drift off topic and misreading your earlier remarks.

Well, I hope that helps,

  -Mendel S.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Let me get this straight - Alice is not playing in any existing mode? Why not? Tellin' you, man, this is extremely opaque to me. Especially when in your last paragraph, the "helpful" player is identified as playing in a given mode, just a different one from the "helped" player.

Your overall point, if I'm not mistaken, seems to confuse Coherence with "everyone plays the same mode." That's not the case - Coherence just means fun play, especially not marred by constant negotiation over agendas. If play is proceeding with several or shifting GNS modes going on, and it's Coherent (fun), then groovy.

However, that point doesn't disagree with any aspect of my essay or model at all. Which is why I'm confused.

Best,
Ron

[Wormwood]

Ron,

The key distinction is the meta-game elements that help comprise the GNS modes. At first glance, Player 1 may be said to be a gamist, or at least being playing in that mode. However this is not supported by the metagame evidence. In fact that player is not interacting with the metagame elements of the gamist mode, i.e. is not Stepping up, but is participating in the challenge, this is because the metagame componants for Player 1 is the insulation of Player 2. If Player 2 is sufficiently insulated, Player 1 steps back, regardless of prestige loss. This is most definitely not a gamist mode of play. Essentially, while Player 1 leans towards gamism, she is not necessarilly a gamist, and rather fails several key features of being a gamist.

As far as coherence, I apologize, I've been in too many threads where it was used as homogeneity. And alas I don't memorize definitions so I need to pick them up from context.

I don't think the purpose of this thread is to dispute any of the major points of your theory, but rather to extend the idea of creative agenda to a class of modes which, tend to be under-valued, but have a key effect on game play. (Technical Play digression - from the mindset that play is learning directed, social modes provide a distinct material to learn, that is different from the other modes, because it is ultimately learning about players.)
Well, I hope that helps,

   -Mendel S.

[Ron Edwards]

Oh - well, it strikes me that Social Contract is extraordinarily nuanced, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. If all we're saying is that it's full of layers, then that's peachy. Not really a windfall concept, though.

I do think that identifying the GNS stuff involved isn't as hard as folks seem to think, though. As far as I can tell, there isn't any reason to think that Player 1 or 2 were playing Gamist in the first place, so I don't see where the "surprise" factor lies. Instant conclusion: no Step-On-Up = not Gamist.

Best,
Ron

[Emily Care]

Hello all,

Bob plays X-wise. Alice helps Bob (and more than just delivering cookies or petting him when he rolls well, or stuff like that). Alice is, therefore, playing X-wise too.

Is it the nature of the decision, or the motivation for an action decision that makes a given instance of play g, n or s?  

If it's the motivation, then Alice may be playing x-wise but that's not her mode; she's basing her actions on social pressures.  At that moment, social interaction is over-riding her choice of creative agenda.

However, if her motivation doesn't matter, and it's the choice made and the priority given, then what you're saying makes sense, Ron.  Any dysfunctional (or functional, as in this example) play based on social interaction is a break-down (or the working) of the contract of play, not an expression of a different mode.

--Emily Care

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Thanks, Emily. I've written pretty extensively about how motive isn't an issue when discussing GNS stuff. It's about behavior.

I'm feeling a bit like a broken record, but talking about GNS always means talking about social stuff - the former is a manifestation of the latter.

Best,
Ron

[Wormwood]

Ron,

Certainly the Social Contract contains nuances. Some of these are creative agendas. Many people on this site might argue that these nuances are quite an important concept. I am suggesting that in this domain of the Social Contract, other elements exist which behave equivalently to the accepted creative agendas, but are clearly distinct via play observation. As a result it is natural to call these creative agendas as well.

I have argued that at least one of these social creative agendas exists in the following ways:

1) as a motive

2) as a meta-game element observable from actual play

3) as a in-game element observable from actual play

Yes, this implies the social modes are related to the Social Contract layer, but I've yet to see any way in which they relate to that level differently than the personal (standard) modes.

I don't believe this is a new idea, rather I believe that it is an undervalued one, and will provide significant utility in the analysis of games which do not lie within well determined standard modes. By treating the social modes as actual creative agendas, albeit second tier ones, their application to play can be expanded, and the analysis and modelling of these arenas can be increased.

I apologize for my apparent denseness, but I feel much like a broken record on this issue as well. I suspect that there is some perceptual disjunction between our positions, but I've yet to locate it's source.

I hope that helps,

  -Mendel S.

[M. J. Young]

I think I see something that might help clarify this. Let me quote what

Bob is playing in some kind of GNS way. Alice is present and facilitating Bob - and my question is whether she is or isn't contributing to the Exploration at the table.

If she is, and if (as it seems) whatever she's doing only reinforces Bob's play, than whatever she's doing is defined, in GNS terms, as whatever Bob's doing. Bob plays X-wise. Alice helps Bob (and more than just delivering cookies or petting him when he rolls well, or stuff like that). Alice is, therefore, playing X-wise too.

and also what

Or to put it more generally: if Bob is playing mode X, can Alice be supporting him by playing something other than mode X? (It's reasonable to require Alice to be not playing any of the three modes, otherwise, well she is playing one of the three modes, which kind of negates the point)

Let me suggest this.

If Bob, as a player, is trying to face the challenges, risk losing, and so gain the respect of the group for his success, he's playing in a gamist mode.

If the referee is presenting challenges for Bob and the others to face, and making them sufficiently difficult that overcoming them will have the effect of impressing the others in the group, the referee is also playing in a gamist mode, even though he is not making any effort to overcome any obstacles or in the usual sense to impress the group with his strategic play abilities.

In exactly the same way, if Alice, another player, is helping set Bob up to succeed in impressing the group, she too is playing in a gamist mode, even though she is not herself attempting to impress the group. She is recognizing that the game is about gaining respect through victory in this way, and choosing to facilitate that.

It may be that there are both active and facilitative aspects of all three modes, and that players (including the referee) may switch between them during play, but the fact that the referee is being facilitative and still gamist when one of the players is being active and gamist seems to me to suggest that players can be facilitative and still within that mode.

--M. J. Young