But a Model of What?

[Jonathan Walton]

It's the new game that's thrilling millions!  "De-Contextualize the (GNS) Model!"

Starting with Ron's model for the social interactions that produce roleplaying, recently clarified in this thread, agile minds attempt to show that it either 1) applies to things that aren't roleplaying, or 2) doesn't apply to some things that are roleplaying.  Thus, by seeking out potential weaknesses or holes in the model, insights are gained and everyone benefits!

Are you ready to play?  Good!

First, take the basic Venn diagram that Ron has put forward:

[Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda --> [Techniques [Ephemera]]]]]

Now, forget everything you know about roleplaying.  Forget that it even exists.  Pretend it's 1965.  Then look at the model above, outside of the context that Ron's given it.  What does it describe?

Let's see, you've got a Social Contract among several participants, leading to Exploration of shared imaginary space, which, in turn, supports the Creative Agenda of each participant, which is enacted using various Techniques and Ephemera.  What does that look like to you?  How would you think about such an activity?

This is reverse engineering here.  If this is supposed to be an accurate description of roleplaying, you should be able to work backwards from it and always get something that is "roleplaying."

Here's the example I gave earlier:

Bob: "Why don't we go see the new Matrix movie? That'd be way cool. All those explosions and chicks in tight leather pants!"

Joe: "Yeah!"

[Bob imagines explosions and chicks in tight leather pants. Joe shares this vision, created shared imaginary space. However...]

Joe: "...But wait! The last movie had all that talking in it. Booooring! The fight scenes and computer animation were cool, but way too much talking."

Bob: "Sigh. I guess you're right."

[Joe has altered their shared vision to include lots of boring talk. Bob agrees with this alteration and they share their vision of explosions/chicks/talk, though it is not really satisfactory to either of them. Then...]

Bob: "...Hey! But if we have a few drinks before we go, we'll be tipsy enough to ignore all the talking and it'll be 100% great!"

Joe: "Totally! Let's do it!"

[Bob has altered their shared imaginary space again, adding booze and "fixing" the situation by minimalizing the effect of Joe's "talk" addition. He could have simply rejected Joe's claim that "the last film was so talky," but he instead accepted it and offered to alter it, which Joe allowed him to do.]

So what's the problem?  How is this not described by Ron's model?  Are there other, similar situations that can be reverse engineered from the model, but don't seem to be roleplaying?

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Jonathan,

Forgive me for being obtuse, but Creative Agenda, being a verb, demands the group is *creating* something.  

In the example you give, what is the group creating?

BTW, in answer to your 1965 question, what I see is a model for improvisational theater.  Not a beat went by that I didn't see that as the answer as soon as I hit your question mark.

Best,
Christopher

[Paganini]

Hey John,

I'm on the record in the past as saying that the model - in general - can be applied to many things, not just role-playing. Social Contract is, the root of all human interaction.

But, as you pennetrate through the layers of the model, I believe it does become more specific. Frex, the creative agendas, the specific techniques, ephemera, the 3 Mode of Play boxes themselves, all allign the model in the context of role-playing. After all, the model is called "GNS," not "Ron's Universal Social Contract Model." ;)

If you want to reverse engineer the model to include replacement techniques and creative agendas, you can come up with the "Football Model," or "World Politics Model" or whatever. I even find it useful to do that in some circumstances. :)

[Andrew Martin]

If you want to reverse engineer the model to include replacement techniques and creative agendas, you can come up with the "Football Model," or "World Politics Model" or whatever.

I'm fairly sure we can reverse-engineer kids playing "Cops and Robbers" out of it. :) :D

[Tomas HVM]

I'm fairly sure we can reverse-engineer kids playing "Cops and Robbers" out of it.

Of course we can! "Cops and Robbers" is roleplaying, and everyone's done that when they were young. Roleplaying games did not grow out of nothing.

When defining RPGs you should try to leave the definition open and simple, not "perfect" as such. The form is so young and unexplored that you need to leave space for future developments. The form is more complex in it's fundamentals than any other form of art, especially when you consider it's dependency on amateur participants. This dependency place certain demands on how we may understand and explain RPGs. In my view we need to be careful not defining RPGs towards a theoretical backwater, in relation to the practise of it.

This is a simple set of criteria which a roleplaying game must include:
- Players and characters
- A method of interaction
- An interactive setting
- The creation of a drama

We define content all the time, and we should never stop to think on and around our definitions. This is a set of criteria to base your RPG-definition on, or to check if a game is a roleplaying game. It is not a definition in itself. It is also a set of criteria quite simple, and willed to be so, enabling all of us to read it and use it (I've read the GNS-model once, but it was an effort, and not rewarding all the way). I do perceive a need to have some criteria, and to define RPGs along the road. I also perceive a need for tools to help us discuss RPGs, and these criteria includes all known forms of RPGs, thus leaving us free to discuss the essentials, escaping the "this-is-not-VS-yes-it-is-a-RPG"-discussions.

Given the condition that these criteria are read with a sound mind, I think they will function quite as well as the GNS-model, as a tool for defining roleplaying games. As a theoretical analysis however; this list is insignificant when compared to the GNS-model, of course.

I consider the GNS-model to be on the verge of becoming unwieldly as a tool for discussing RPGs, but it is still a constructive contribution to the analysis of the form. However; when reading it I saw some weak points, but did not want to comment on it until I had read it again (and I have not, yet). It's quite an effort to write such an analysis, and I respect it too much to give it anything but a thorough and well-thought answer.

However; Jonathan Walton seems to be a man of sound mind. I consider him to have placed his thumb on a weak spot in the GNS-model.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Tomas ... either there's a language issue at work, or you have presented a contradiction.

1. I agree with all of your post regarding how to define role-playing, which is to say, let's not define it too distinctly or real-world data will leave us trapped in too-limited ideas.

2. But then you state that my model is somehow "weakened" by Jonathan's proposal (or point, or whatever it is). At this point, I am staring at you strangely. Your points about definition support my model, in full.

I think what's happened is that you're buying into the same mistake Jonathan has made. Because my model is not presented as a definition of role-playing.

Jonathan, when you say:

If this is supposed to be an accurate description of roleplaying, you should be able to work backwards from it and always get something that is "roleplaying."

... you are doing violence to my ideas and to their point. It's aggravating, to say the least. I completely disavow any such quality to the model that you are using as the basis for your point.

Whether the model applies to other human activities is irrelevant to me; the point to me is that it does apply to role-playing. Since the vast, vast majority of practices and texts for the hobby are apparently devoted to the opposite notions (that such a model is horribly wrong), I think it's an important point.

Which, if I'm not mistaken, completely undercuts this thread. I literally don't see any new insight to saying "Hey, role-playing has to accord with similar constraints and presents similar opportunities as other human creative stuff!" Although I agree with Christopher that you seem to be missing the intercommunicative qualities of role-playing, which I tried to express as well in the thread you raised the topic in, I don't see any reason to try to dissect that out with you, either - the fundamentals are wrong, so why quibble about nuances.

Best,
Ron

[Tomas HVM]

1. I agree with all of your post regarding how to define role-playing, which is to say, let's not define it too distinctly or real-world data will leave us trapped in too-limited ideas.

OK.

2. But then you state that my model is somehow "weakened" by Jonathan's proposal (or point, or whatever it is). At this point, I am staring at you strangely. Your points about definition support my model, in full.

To a certain extent I do support your model, yes, but I have not made a commentary on the model as such, but on the form that makes Jonathan rasie his hand. I read his post as a sign that your model, however well formed; is a bit too heavy into theoretics, making it a bit hard to use. It's not a weakness of analysis, but a possible weakness in form, in my view.

You may oogle me because of it, but I maintain that Jonathan place his thumb on a weak spot.

Because my model is not presented as a definition of role-playing.

OK. I have not said that it were, and will not be made responsible for the writings of others.

... you are doing violence to my ideas and to their point. It's aggravating, to say the least. I completely disavow any such quality to the model that you are using as the basis for your point.

My point is valid, and quite independent of the writings of Jonathan. There's no need to have heated feelings over this.

I have stated what I perceive the GNS-model to be; a not-so-good tool for discussion, and a better analysis. At the same time I have said that this is not a commentary on the many significant points within your presentation of the model. Such a commentary will have to wait until I have read it once or twice more. I hope to be able to do that during the winter.

Whether the model applies to other human activities is irrelevant to me; the point to me is that it does apply to role-playing. Since the vast, vast majority of practices and texts for the hobby are apparently devoted to the opposite notions (that such a model is horribly wrong), I think it's an important point.

Quite so.

However; such a viewpoint must be applied with care, not to muddy the water too much for the idea to surface. I've been in this kind of discussion too many times, not to take heed to the many voices shouting that this and that is not roleplaying (or roleplaying as they see it).

As I see it Jonathan has a point, even if it's another point than the one he argues. The GNS-model has strong sides, and many qualities, but it certainly has a number of weaknesses too. As it is a central document, on a quite important forum for roleplaying discussion and design, it should be possible to address these weaknesses (construed or concret) without the fear of angering the writer...

Please put "violence" and "aggravation" aside, and refute the arguments or clear up the misunderstandings. That will do.

[Jonathan Walton]

I think what's happened is that you're buying into the same mistake Jonathan has made. Because my model is not presented as a definition of role-playing.

If I've made a mistake, I don't think this is it.  I know that your model isn't presented as a definition of roleplaying.  But it is presented as a description of the interactions that produce roleplaying.  Is that incorrect?

... you are doing violence to my ideas and to their point. It's aggravating, to say the least. I completely disavow any such quality to the model that you are using as the basis for your point.

I admit that I'm using your ideas for purposes outside of your intentions, but that doesn't seem to be violence to me.  I'm not allowed to extrapolate?  I'm not saying "Ron claims X, but that means he's also claiming A, B, and C."  I'm not trying to muddle people's understanding of what you are saying.  I'm trying to say something else, using what you've said as a starting point.

Whether the model applies to other human activities is irrelevant to me; the point to me is that it does apply to role-playing. ...Which, if I'm not mistaken, completely undercuts this thread. I literally don't see any new insight to saying "Hey, role-playing has to accord with similar constraints and presents similar opportunities as other human creative stuff!"

Ron, while this thread is about your model, I don't see how the discussion has to be relevant to you or your point.  I recognize that you can be protective of your ideas, especially when you feel like people are abusing or misunderstanding them, and I really appreciate your attempts to clarify your thoughts because, try as I might, they often remain opaque to me.  However, I'm trying to take your model and manipulate it in ways that seem helpful and educational, at least from my point of view.

In the example you give, what is the group creating?

What does the group create in roleplaying?  An imaginative experience.  In this case, imagining what their evening could potentially be like.  The two participants are imagining things together, interacting and manipulating the shared imagined experience by adapting to each other's input.  It's like the very beginning of a game of Universalis, the one which begins to form the shared imagined space.

But, as you pennetrate through the layers of the model, I believe it does become more specific. Frex, the creative agendas, the specific techniques, ephemera, the 3 Mode of Play boxes themselves, all allign the model in the context of role-playing.

True, and I agree here.  But with all the "decontextualizing" talk, my purpose was to take the boxes at face value, ignoring the content that usually goes in there.  After all, roleplaying could potentially use tons of Techniques and Epherma that it isn't currently familiar with.  What's in the boxes isn't what I'm as interested in.  I was just looking at the overall structure and seeing what else it could describe, to provide new insights into experiences that people don't normally view as paralleling roleplaying.  Improvizational Theater and Cops & Robbers aren't exactly big surprises.  However, I was struck by how similar this model seemed to people simply imagining the possibilities in a situation, in order to pick the proper course of action.  That wasn't obivous to me before.  So I was seeking other insights of a similar nature.

Actually, your point about Football and World Politics is interesting to.  Kinda gets back to this being a possible model for "collaborative creative processes" (which I stated before, and Ron disagreed with).  It seems to me like the model could apply to almost any case where a group of individuals was imagining possible courses of action together (trying to decide on the right play, in Football, or trying to enact any kind of policy, in World Politics or Economics).  They explore shared imagined space, and manipulate that space collectively, based on the input of the participants.

[This, to me, Ron, was a helpful insight that I can get some milage out of.  This will make me a better designer.  This is why I created this thread.]

- Players and characters
- A method of interaction
- An interactive setting
- The creation of a drama

...However; Jonathan Walton seems to be a man of sound mind. I consider him to have placed his thumb on a weak spot in the GNS-model.

Actually, I disagree with some (or maybe even all) of the bullet points in your list of roleplaying "basics," and consider Ron's Venn diagram model (which is related to GNS, but really isn't the same thing) to be superior in many ways, mostly because your list assumes a great deal about the content of roleplaying, while Ron only talks about the structures.  Personally, I don't see why roleplaying has to involve characters, a setting, or drama, but that's a discussion for another time.  I have this thread about "Brecht & Roleplaying" that will happen at some point, but I'm not quite ready to write it yet.

Additionally, I'm not really interested in poking holes in Ron's model for the fun of poking holes.  The point of finding any "weaknesses" was to understand the model better, not to say "Ron, this part is wrong."  I'm really interested in discovering the limitations of models, how far they can be extended and still apply.  That's what I was intending to do here.

EDIT: Cross-posted with Tomas, who's not really on the same wavelength as me on this issue.  Tomas, if you want to criticise the GNS model as "unweildy," might you do it in another thread?

[Matt Snyder]

In the example you give, what is the group creating?

What does the group create in roleplaying?  An imaginative experience.  In this case, imagining what their evening could potentially be like.  The two participants are imagining things together, interacting and manipulating the shared imagined experience by adapting to each other's input.  It's like the very beginning of a game of Universalis, the one which begins to form the shared imagined space.

It may start like a game of Universalis, but it certainly does not end like one. They're going to watch a movie. The "game" they're partaking is how they will watch it -- sober or drunk. But the VERB here is watch. It isn't create. As you've stated it, it isn't even interpret. It is watch. That they watch it together drunk doesn't change the watching any more than it would if they decided to run marathon together before watching it together. You're focusing on the togetherness (the collaboration) and not the creation (the creative stuff, the verb). I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how watching an already-created creative thing is at all like role-playing or how Ron's model applies to it. There is no creation going on here!

The key to my point is seeing where "imagining together" becomes "actually doing somethng together." So, does the "game of Universalis" here end after we're drunk? That seems to me then end, because then we walk into the theater to watch the movie. You're emphasizing the "meta-stuff" before watching the movie, but I don't see that as creating anything, well, creative. What am I missing? Is the movie irrelevant to your point?

I think I see where you might be going with this approach, but I really think this example is horribly misleading and not helpful to your point. Use a improv example. Use a jazz example. Use a collaborative writers workshop or group pottery or whatever. Just make sure we're not only collaborating but also creating.

[The GM]

, but I don't see that as creating anything, well, creative. What am I missing? Is the movie irrelevant to your point?

You could say that they are 'creating' a good time in their shared experience. That's a very tangible thing.
Just my 2 pennies.

[Matt Snyder]

But isn't anyone who watches a movie with someone "creating" a good time, whether they made a game out of it or not?

I think it's misleading to characterize one's enjoyment as the result of being an audience member / reader / onlooker of art / listener / etc. as "creation" equivalent to the thing being watched / listened to / looked at, etc.

I just don't see those things as equivalent, nor do I find any way in which Ron's model is helpful for "creating enjoyment" by partaking, passively, in another's created thing (movie, jazz, whatever).

Now, I've already hinted that once you start interpreting, and certainly once you start creating your own thing then creation is probably happening. (For example, you and said drunk pal create, vocally, your own "better ending" for the Matrix flick as you stumble out the door. Now you're creating something.) But I don't see how and why agreeing, together, to watch an action movie BUT DRUNK! is a creative. If indeed "Watch" is the key word of that sentence, then I just don't see it. If watching the movie is irrelevant -- if it's all about DRINK or something like that, then maybe (but still it's a stretch for my ol' brainpan).

[The GM]

Matt says:
>>I think it's misleading to characterize one's enjoyment as the result of being an audience member / reader / onlooker of art / listener / etc. as "creation" equivalent to the thing being watched / listened to / looked at, etc. <<

I didn't say that is was equivilant, just that it was 'creation'. Something did happen as a result of said actions in the example, it was tangible, it was created. Now, if we have a threshold as to what the minimum amount is required for 'creation' to be valid, that changes things.
Really, I'm being slightly contenscious, but I very well see the other poster's POV. I'm bowing out of this one, but I really don't think that the original poster's view is a wrong one in theory.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Tomas, all of the phrases you are objecting to are directed to Jonathan, not to you.

Jonathan, I get it, but I don't get much out of it. So let the thread continue, and best of luck to everyone who wants to participate.

Best,
Ron

[pete_darby]

Speaking as someone who has tried to apply bits of the Creative Agenda Model to computer games, made small noises about it's application to toher collaborative media, and who regularly muddies discussions by bringing goddamn Star Trek into everything, I have to say my response to this thread has been a raise of an eybrow while waiting for the big revalation.

The model is descriptive of a range of collaborative creative processes that have historically been grouped together as role playing games. The fact that it approximates a description of collaborative creative processes in general shouldn't come as a surprise, no more than the fact that some dramatic, filmic, literary or ludic theories and models have an interesting relationship to the practice of role playing.

That the model suggests some modes of play that I've not considered before is something I find interesting: whether the model can be stretched to include guys choosing whether to get drunk before watching a mediocre film is frankly uninteresting on about as many levels as I can think of.

It's kind of like my reaction to Fritjof Capra's Tao of Physics. It's a great book... for anyone who doesn't know much about Taoism or quantum physics. To Taoists and quantum physicists, it's deeply annoying and obfuscatory.

Oh well, if I must join in... The matrix guys aren't creating a good time, they're selecting and consuming one.

[Jonathan Walton]

Matt, I agree with you 100%, but you're missing my point completely.  The two guy going to the movie is not, in my view, creation or modeled by Ron's description.  It's EVERYTHING BEFORE THEY DECIDE TO GO THE MOVIE.  All that negotiating.  All that imagining.  That's the creative process.  Going to the Matrix drunk is not necessarily creation (though Lisa does have a few good points), but imagining what it would be like to go to the Matrix drunk IS.  That's my point.

How about this example:

There's a meeting of the UN.  World leaders are trying to decide how to deal with crisis X.  The United States suggests declaring war on crisis X and goes into a detailed description of how this would be carried out.

Every member of the UN imagines the US solution, including the positive and negative side effects.  In turn, they each share their thoughts, creating a shared imagined space in which all possible outcomes of the US plan are explored (or, even, Explored).  Members float alternative suggestions.  Members condemn aspects of the US plan which are then changed or dropped.  Everybody has their own Creative Agenda, wanting to create a plan that best suits their own desires and needs.  

I imagine that the UN has a rather disfuctional style of play, but that doesn't matter.  The point is that everything they do, all this imagining that predates any real vote or decision, is all described by Ron's model.  And here's the part that people don't seem to be getting.  THIS IS INDEPENDENT OF ANY DECISION OR ACTION.

They don't have to actually DO anything about the crisis.  Exploration of shared imaginary space is all that's required.  They're creating plans in their heads within the shared imaginary environment.  They're exploring the possibilities.  And that can be described, according to this model, in the same terms as roleplaying.

Is that clearer, Matt?  Pete?