Criticisms of the Threefold

[Matt Snyder]

Hmm ...

Okay, well do this for me:

Show me how you analyze your own GNS play instances *without* using intent (i.e. the knowledge of why you did what you did or what you were trying to do).

I'm not--not--not ... boy oh boy not--saying you can infer intent in someone else's actions.

And: I think the fact that you don't have clear intent with the case of other people's behavior makes any GNS-based attempt of analysis of their behavior not-very-useful.

-Marco

Marco, even if Mike does that, what's the point? GNS only becomes useful when you align (or don't align, causing problems) your preferences with other people. Sure, Mike can maybe know his own intent, and why he chooses the things he does or why he likes S over G and N, maybe. So what? You have admitted he can't know anybody else's intent.

All Mike can do is observe behaviors, not intent, in other people (probably his own gaming group, or a new group he encounters). Then, he can align himself with people whose behaviors he finds compatible. Or not, and he likely will encounter dysfunction that he'll have to deal with.

The idea that because you can't know intent and therefore GNS based analysis is invalid just doesn't fly with me. The theory never said it would analyze intent. We can't know it. Period. This has previously been discussed here and in the thread Ralph referenced.

But, we can observe behavior, and decide whether or not, regardless of the intent behind it, that we'll jive with the person we're observing. Let the good, functional, fun gaming begin!

[Mike Holmes]

First, it doesn't matter whether or not I can analyze it in terms of intent. Let's say I can't ignore my intent. That doesn't prevent one from making accurate analysis.

But as it happens, I can certainly ignore my intent. In my Hero Wars games, for example, I tend to do a lot of "Now where do you go" sort of Sim prompting. Josh prefers Narrativism, and I think that occasionally this bugs him. So I've been attempting to do more scene framing to accomodate (also because I don't think it hurts Sim much to do so).

There, GNS analysis that doesn't take into account intent in any way.

Mike

[Marco]

Hmm ...

Okay, well do this for me:

Show me how you analyze your own GNS play instances *without* using intent (i.e. the knowledge of why you did what you did or what you were trying to do).

I'm not--not--not ... boy oh boy not--saying you can infer intent in someone else's actions.

And: I think the fact that you don't have clear intent with the case of other people's behavior makes any GNS-based attempt of analysis of their behavior not-very-useful.

-Marco

Marco, even if Mike does that, what's the point? GNS only becomes useful when you align (or don't align, causing problems) your preferences with other people. Sure, Mike can maybe know his own intent, and why he chooses the things he does or why he likes S over G and N, maybe. So what? You have admitted he can't know anybody else's intent.

Matt--

I disagree abjectly.

1. To observe the behaviors you have to game with these guys or audit the group for a while, yes? Therefore throw GNS out the window. If you're having fun--you're good. If you're not--bail. No theory necessary.

2. I game with people with different preferences all over the GNS spectrum. The idea that these have to align in some way is the biggest myth perpetrated on this board (I'm sure you really meant that the GNS modes don't have to be identical--just that everyone has to get along, right? Then leave mode out of it. No theory necessary.

3. GNS can't make "Joe" more agreeable. Can't make him more mature. Can't make him more invested in cooperation than conflict. Nothing can. And that's *all* that'll help. No theory necessary.

What Mike *can* do armed with the GNS analysis is go make a game that caters to his preferences and decision making modes. It'll be a great game for him and everyone who thinks just like him (the more like him they think, the more the'll dig it).

That's the value.

-Marco

[Marco]

First, it doesn't matter whether or not I can analyze it in terms of intent. Let's say I can't ignore my intent. That doesn't prevent one from making accurate analysis.

But as it happens, I can certainly ignore my intent. In my Hero Wars games, for example, I tend to do a lot of "Now where do you go" sort of Sim prompting. Josh prefers Narrativism, and I think that occasionally this bugs him. So I've been attempting to do more scene framing to accomodate (also because I don't think it hurts Sim much to do so).

There, GNS analysis that doesn't take into account intent in any way.

Mike

That's a good example--I should have said in-character actions, since I *do* see the GM as significantly different from the players in most ways (and what you're doing is asking for an in-character action from Josh).

But even so--yes, it seems possible to usefully analyze a game-related action apart from intent (in this case you recognize a Sim question and switch to Nar-style delivery): but you can also analyze the same question ERT intent--perhaps more usefully.

Why do you pose the Sim questions even if it's annoying someone? Habit? Actual preference? Lack of narrative vision that you're looking for the players to provide?

These questions *do* hinge on intent--and the idea that that's not part of the theory (that it's all about "observed behaviors" is ignoring the vast potential of self reflection).

-Marco

[greyorm]

Marco, to the conclusions of your points above I say "Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit." And I mean that. They are bullshit points based on either-or fallacy or fictional situations -- hence the strong word.

1. Suppose you wish to continue playing with the group, rather than ditch them? Suppose one member of the group is not having fun and you and he wish they were? You ditch a group or an individual when they cause problems, not simply because they or you aren't having fun.

"Oh, you're not having fun? I'm sorry, you can't play with us, then." Otherwise, you are suggesting to me I should have dropped my group two years ago, and one player in particular, because he wasn't enjoying playing the character he had created. Such a suggestion is bullshit.

Here, the theory is necessary. WHY are you having fun? What makes the game fun? How do we maximize our fun with a particular rule-set? How can we have fun with this game?

Case in point: GNS provided the framework to repair my game so it was enjoyable to all participants. Once that was done, we had a great ride.

2. I've played in many games with people all-over the GNS spectrum. The idea that every player, including the GM, can have their own goals and still have fun is a ridiculous myth.

Perpendicular play goals do not result in fun or enjoyment; I've had far too much personal, direct experience with the dysfunction of competing styles to believe it is "just a myth."

To achieve understanding of other styles of play and cater to all of them successfully in a game, theory is necessary.

3. GNS can make "Bob" more agreeable, and hence more mature, and more interested in cooperation than causing conflict with the group -- if Bob chooses to understand the GNS theory and thus the principles behind it.

Bob is not having fun. The game is not providing enjoyment on a regular basis. He hates the gamist-munchkin nonsense of the other players. Understanding "everyone has different modes of play they enjoy" makes Bob more agreeable. He either gets into the spirit of the mode identified by the group, or finds a new group. This is also part of maturity.

Bob is not having fun. The GM is a dick who keeps short-circuiting his character's moment in the limelight with tight-assed movement rules. The GM won't listen to him, so he decides to be the asshole gamer and ruin it for everyone else, too. Understanding the intent of the GM and his own intent, and being able to clearly express those ideas to others without value-judgements, leads to cooperation: do I want to help the GM and other players out with their ideas for how the game should work, or am I playing the wrong game/in the wrong group?

Understanding GNS prevents ridiculous, noisome arguments about "the best gaming system is X because it is realistic!" and "Munchkin power-gamers suck! Quit trying to min-max!"

Despite the fact that we're using fictional characters who respond to the writer's whim like puppets on strings, this can be shown: Theory does help.

[Marco]

Raven,

Firstly: My response was to the line "GNS only becomes useful when you align (or don't align, causing problems) your preferences with other people."

I take it you agree with that--and therefore see no value in using GNS to design one's own games or to analyze one's own play? No? Okay.

Secondly (and most importantly, right, because the context of my statement wasn't what was important--it was the possible global meaning of it): look up--scroll the mouse--there you go: there's my post where I say that GNS can "provde a vocabulary and prosepctive for the theorist."

Check it out. Now, You cite examples of the vocabulary and perspective of GNS clearing things up for your puppets (but maybe not for my puppets, right?)

So either I'm internally inconsistent--or my point was addressing the idea that everyone has to be congrent in terms of GNS style to play together. Which I was. And you don't have to be.

Unyielding perpindicular play (GNS interests at extreme odds) may indeed not work together--but reality is often much more of a compromize. That's what my personal experience has shown me anyway (they say I'm sheltered).

Okay--so let's look at Bob and his dick of a GM.

Bob, armed with his vocabulary goes up to the dick and sorts things out. Right? Maybe. Maybe not. All that's gonna sort this out is if the "dick" of a GM decides not to be a dick. Now, you made him a dick--and not someone who's just unaware of what's going on--that someone's unhappy--and that's good.

Because until the GM decides to stop being a dick no theory in the world will have any impact. I think we have to agree on that. Right? Yes, the theory will aide communication--but remember, this guy's a dick.

Now, Bob decided to be an asshole when he wasn' t happy. Bob, we think, didn't have the vocabulary so hey, naturally he's an asshole.

Huh? Since when, Raven? Not having GNS jargon is way the hell distant from not having a language to discuss what you do/don't like. The GM stealing the lime-light isn't a GNS issue at all, man--or if it is, it could be any mode so as to be so broad it might as well just be a game-rules debate.

Bob shoulda sat his mature ass down and said "I don't like it when you employ those tight-assed movement rules--it's really ruining the game for me." He needs no dobule speak for that. You know he doesn't.

Why are you even trying to sell that?

Now the GM--let's say he's not a dick--says "well, those are the rules."

At that point they can either change the rules or amend them or change Bob's character or just try to be more the hell sensitive to the situation. None of this needs any GNS jargon.

What it needs is maturity.

The idea that someone needs a vocabularity to be mature is astonishing to me.

Can it help? Sure. Is that all it's good for? Hell no. Is what's most likely to help with a dysfunctional group? You decide--but I think one bullshit would've sufficed.

-Marco
Edited opening comment that was unnecessary.

[Gordon C. Landis]

hmm - I may need to read this thread in greater detail to see just where the dispute is centered, but as a quick reaction:

When this "intent" thing comes up, Ron and others often make a point of saying it doesn't really matter.  I see Marco as getting confused because it's only in considering what he WANTS that the value of GNS kicks in (for him).   I think the reason it ("intent" vs. "observable behavior") doesn't matter is that we can label "what Marco wants" as either an "observable behavior that Marco exhibits" or an internal mental state, and except in a (important to some people in some ways, unimportant in others) very strict sense, we're talking about the exact same thing.

Think about GNS.  Think about what you actually did during the play session (and any prep, etc.)  Think about what actually happened.  Are you satisfied with that?  That's all you *need* to get value out of GNS, and it avoids debates about internal mental states and such.

Now, maybe in order to determine your satifaction, you think about what you "intended" to have happen (as an experience, not particular in-game details) vs. what actually happened.  You "wanted" to create a story and ended up arguing about rule details.  But again - that can be seen as just another observable behavior, where you indicate displeasure with one experience and a desire for something else.

At no stage does GNS *require* that you consider intent - but mostly, it doesn't matter if you do.  What one person labels intent another labels as an additional observable behavior.

Hope that helps,

Gordon

(PS - I find there to be a value in taking intent out of the equation because focusing on what you did and what actually happened can provide insights that "what I meant was" can often obscure.  Then again, I think "I wanted x" is a totally GREAT replacement for "I now indicate via the speech I am currently making that I would have had greater enjoyment if circumstances had followed x path, and in fact I now make the claim that my earlier actions were an attempt to acheive that, even though I failed in that effort.")

[contracycle]

Your extrapolation to Player B is telling: he has to impute an intent to my choice of weapon before he can get annoyed.

Sure.  And if the only thing you address is intent, then they are perfectly right to do so.  So cue the accusations - you only took the axe becuase it did the most dfamage, you're only roll playing not role-playing.  Sigh. back at square one.

INTENT IS NEXT TO USELESS.  The devil made me do it.  I only did what I thought was right.  It seemed like a good idea at the time.

But analysis of one's own mode whether as a player or designer is very valuable.

And there you will use *intent*--NOT *observed behavior.*

Fine, gloves off: only if you are an idiot.

Are you really so arrogant as to believe that the complex psychological states that affect so many people leave you alone immune?  Are you so arrogant as to assume that you, alone, have the clarity of vision to insightfully inspect your own thoughts and motives without bias or self-endorsement or self-interest.

Then I bow to you, and ask you to go out and heal the sick with the hem of your gown, because this is fucking miraculous.

If NOT, I strongly recommend that you take a step back from intent and start looking at what you actually do, rather than the explanation you came up with for yourself.

[Marco]

Your extrapolation to Player B is telling: he has to impute an intent to my choice of weapon before he can get annoyed.

Sure.  And if the only thing you address is intent, then they are perfectly right to do so.  So cue the accusations - you only took the axe becuase it did the most dfamage, you're only roll playing not role-playing.  Sigh. back at square one.

INTENT IS NEXT TO USELESS.  The devil made me do it.  I only did what I thought was right.  It seemed like a good idea at the time.

But analysis of one's own mode whether as a player or designer is very valuable.

And there you will use *intent*--NOT *observed behavior.*

Fine, gloves off: only if you are an idiot.

Are you really so arrogant as to believe that the complex psychological states that affect so many people leave you alone immune?  Are you so arrogant as to assume that you, alone, have the clarity of vision to insightfully inspect your own thoughts and motives without bias or self-endorsement or self-interest.

Then I bow to you, and ask you to go out and heal the sick with the hem of your gown, because this is fucking miraculous.

If NOT, I strongly recommend that you take a step back from intent and start looking at what you actually do, rather than the explanation you came up with for yourself.

Just a second Gareth,

It wasn't *I* who stipulated that player B got annoyed--it was Mike. Player B in *his* example has already addressed the issue of intent. In my examples I take responsibility for my own interpertations other than to stipulate that the choice seems out of character (i.e. the character in question is a musketeer who has chosen a battle axe). Read carefully. Especially before getting upset.

Since I think, with you, I'd better be *real* clear:

IFF you postulate a player becoming mad because "I'm playing Gamist when he wants Sim."

THEN *you* are the one dealing with intent and motive (either giving me mine or at least stating that the player has already imputed a motive to me).

ELSE you can either cite observable behavior ("I choose the axe and Bill got nasty")

OR if speaking for yourself you can offer your real motives ("The axe is the best weapon--until that changes, it's always mine.")

In the example above the guy who postulated the whole situation was breaking those rules--and I pointed it out.

I am not suggesting you use only imputed intent: I am saying when you make the decision you can bring your intent into the picture. And that you can do that with atomic decisions--something you can't do when discussing other people's actions.

And secondly, I think that when I make an in-game decision I'm the number-one authority on why I did it. We're kinda discussing "why I chose to see the movie Pirates of the Carribean instead of Seabiscuit" here rather than "why I got in an argument with my wife."

If 'teh drama' is high and tempers are raised then yeah, it might be good to take a step back. But, you know, one can be anylytical of one's own play without being in a heated dysfunctional situation--and the theory's good and interesting *there* too.

Maybe the problem is this: I find GNS valuable without having to experience major dysfunction first. It's a valuable insight as to why I play the way I do (functionally)--it's a good vocabulary to discuss with *willing* and *interested* fellows. And yes, it's even a good way to form perspective about how I deal with *my own* game design.

So, no, I don't think I have to be an idiot to be using that data.

And you know--if you let yourself admit it--that observable behavior is exactly subject to all the same biases and self-deceiptions that exist in self-analysis. The idea that being honest with one's self is a miracle on order of healing the sick is ... overly dramatic?

-Marco

[contracycle]

Marco's, there's a whole cottage industry of hokey medicine and astrological mumbo jumbo all based on "being honest with yourself".  Thats not to say that introspection is not worthwhile, but frankly having other people observe you would be more reliable than self assesment.

IFF you postulate a player becoming mad because "I'm playing Gamist when he wants Sim." [/quote[]

But I'm NOT.  If they were able to articulate the fact that they had different desires, there would be no problem.  But if its a slanging match based on who is playing "reponsibly" or "properly", without any extenral referrent for what 'properly' means, then all it can be is finger pointing and a sense of persecution. "Bob's cheating" "No you just don't know how to play".

THEN *you* are the one dealing with intent and motive (either giving me mine or at least stating that the player has already imputed a motive to me).

Not really.  I donlt care if you  make a given decision becuase your cat told you to do it ort not; all I care about is whether there is a discernable pattern to your choices.  And if your expressed intent and your behaviour do not coincide. then I take the behaviour as a more relaibale guide.  Becuase that is, after all, how you are actually behaving.

ELSE you can either cite observable behavior ("I choose the axe and Bill got nasty")

Only after seeing the behaviour for some time.  Isolated decisions out of context are just as difficult to assess as intent; therefore patterns of behaviour are more reliable.

OR if speaking for yourself you can offer your real motives ("The axe is the best weapon--until that changes, it's always mine.")

Well can you?  You obviously have some insight thats going to put the entire field of psychiatry out of business.  Not to mentiona revolutionise politics.

And secondly, I think that when I make an in-game decision I'm the number-one authority on why I did it.

You may think that, I dont.  Human behaviour is very complex and full of ratiobnalisations, self-decpetions, and subtle dishonesties.  So no, your self-report is not authoritative in my eyes.

And you know--if you let yourself admit it--that observable behavior is exactly subject to all the same biases and self-deceiptions that exist in self-analysis. The idea that being honest with one's self is a miracle on order of healing the sick is ... overly dramatic?

Obviously the process of observation is susceptible to bias; thats why it has to be carried  out over a period so that you have some basis for thinking your observations are reliable, that the observed symptom recurs.  But at least thats external - in self-assesment, both the assessor and the assessed are subjective and indeed the same being - so yes, it is less reliable.

[greyorm]

Weird...I recall writing a response to this, but I don't see it...so, here we go (again?).

Firstly: My response was to the line "GNS only becomes useful when you align (or don't align, causing problems) your preferences with other people."

You addressed some fairly broad ideas in your response, so I guess I didn't see that as the only thing you were responding to.

I take it you agree with that--and therefore see no value in using GNS to design one's own games or to analyze one's own play? No? Okay.

I'm sorry, for some reason I'm not parsing your full statement (specifically the "No? Okay."), so I'll ignore everything but the question. I do, in fact, see value in using GNS to design games and analyze one's own play. I'm also aware that GNS is not designed to support such, so I'm being a heretic.

I say that GNS can "provde a vocabulary and prosepctive for the theorist."

But not the gamer -- and I disagree with that emphatically.

Check it out. Now, You cite examples of the vocabulary and perspective of GNS clearing things up for your puppets (but maybe not for my puppets, right?)

Actually, I'll come clean, my puppets are all actual people with the serial numbers filed off. Bob is, in fact, me.

So either I'm internally inconsistent--or my point was addressing the idea that everyone has to be congrent in terms of GNS style to play together. Which I was. And you don't have to be.

I'll agree. But you have to be able to understand your differences and talk about them with a shared vocabulary in order for this to work effectively. Hence why I stated "theory is not necessary" is bullshit.

Okay--so let's look at Bob and his dick of a GM.

Now, you made him a dick

Actually, Bob made him a dick. I should have been clearer, but the first points were spoken from Bob's POV without understanding theory. Bob's GM is not really a dick; Bob's actually being the dick from his GM's POV. Open lines of communication where the two individuals can understand the other's POV reveal this (ie: neither is a dick) -- but in order for that to happen, you need a common ground of understanding. That's where theory comes in.

You're right that if Bob's GM is honestly a dick -- theory or no -- nothing's going to be worked out. However, Bob's GM will have less chance of being a dick if he understands theory because the understanding of it carries with it some degree of empathy for your fellow players, and the desire to understand their POV.

Obviously, this also means that both sides need to be able communicate from the same base understanding, even if their preferences differ. Most people, however, don't. Most people speak from their preferences as the base understanding, rather than shared ground, and thus even polite, mature conversation results in the utterly unsatisfying "We'll just have to agree to disagree." (ie: no resolution)

Huh? Since when, Raven?

Go back and read that again,  Marco. Bob decides to be a dick because he either doesn't have the understanding of what is wrong with the game for him to present why he isn't having fun, or the GM tells him he's out of luck. So he reacts by doing everything he can to annoy the GM -- either consciously or unconsciously -- choosing to force his play-style for his character into the game, and being a jerk when he can't (consider: Overbearing Munchkins, Rules-Lawyers, and similars).

Not having GNS jargon is way the hell distant from not having a language to discuss what you do/don't like. The GM stealing the lime-light isn't a GNS issue at all, man--or if it is, it could be any mode so as to be so broad it might as well just be a game-rules debate.

I think you've misunderstood the example. The GM isn't "stealing the limelight." The GM is preventing the player from achieving his play goals by insistence upon the use of different play goals for the game.

This is a GNS conflict. In this case, we have a conflict between Narrativism and Simulationism -- the rules used by the group aren't supporting the player's desired mode, but they are supporting the GM's desired mode.

Also consider: the GM might be completely unhappy switching modes, so it isn't simply a case of "let's change the rules so you can have fun, Bob" and everyone going on their merry way -- because then Bob's GM is unhappy.

Bob shoulda sat his mature ass down and said "I don't like it when you employ those tight-assed movement rules--it's really ruining the game for me." He needs no dobule speak for that. You know he doesn't.

Bob's GM replies: "I'm just following the rules, and they're realistic. I'm sorry, but what would you have me do? Just let you move whevever you want whenever you want?"
Bob says: "No, but let me get into the action so I can do those cool things my character can do!"
Bob's GM says: "Sorry, you'll just have to plan better so you can make it there in time, or try to role-play the effects not getting there and being cool is having on your character."

This is a pleasant, mature conversation, no shouting or name-calling, logic is being used, people are trying to communicate, and Bob's GM sounds eminently reasonable with the above suggestions. It doesn't matter. BOB STILL ISN'T HAPPY. If he keeps arguing, he'll be seen as a dick since the GM has presented a reasonable solution (two, in fact) for him.

That's where theory comes in. Shared understanding and the vocabulary to discuss it to the satisfaction of all participants.

[Marco]

Raven,

The coversation outlined is a great one.

Haven't much time now--I'm curious what GNS insights gave/would've given you by way of solution?

-Marco
[Before reading any GNS, my solve wouldve been to either play Exalted where you can leap like a rocket-propelled monkey at will or to simply run combats so that when the action started players got to say more or less where they were ... within some kind of reason.]

[greyorm]

A message from Larry (crkdface) that he's asked me to pass on, since his ability to communicate via the Forge is currently technologically hampered:

I created Uncle Larry's Open Forum in the general role
playing section of Yahoo! groups. Anybody who wants to respond to my
articles there is welcome. I apologize for the inconvenience this
involves for Forge regulars.

Larry

The URL for the group is here http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UL_Forum/

[contracycle]

[Before reading any GNS, my solve wouldve been to either play Exalted where you can leap like a rocket-propelled monkey at will or to simply run combats so that when the action started players got to say more or less where they were ... within some kind of reason.]

Which would put you in danger of:  

consider: the GM might be completely unhappy switching modes, so it isn't simply a case of "let's change the rules so you can have fun, Bob" and everyone going on their merry way -- because then Bob's GM is unhappy.

[Marco]

[Before reading any GNS, my solve wouldve been to either play Exalted where you can leap like a rocket-propelled monkey at will or to simply run combats so that when the action started players got to say more or less where they were ... within some kind of reason.]

Which would put you in danger of:  

consider: the GM might be completely unhappy switching modes, so it isn't simply a case of "let's change the rules so you can have fun, Bob" and everyone going on their merry way -- because then Bob's GM is unhappy.

But Contra,

I was speaking as though I *were* Bob's GM--and that would've been one of my first solutions. Nothing Raven's said so far looks like a GNS mode issue. Certainly not the movement thing. The idea that you see playing Exalted as a mode-change speaks volumes of your mind-set.

And anyway, since you seem to honestly believe that my own internal monologue is so distorted as to be entirely irrelevant, how would I even know what I like? Or what about it I like?

I imagine you standing in a grocery store and looking at two comparable foods, one brand you like more, the other which costs less. Suddenly you make a decision and in a fit of victory you whip out your cell phone to call the university's psychology department "I just made a decision," you yell "and I know why!"

If that seems a little over-the-top, the idea that it's arrogance to know why I chose a long-bow for my elf instead of a crossbow just amazes me.

-Marco