Name That Style

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Fang Langford broke down his arguments into points thusly:

   * Actors don't explore.
   * Jesse's exemplars are not acting.
   * They are 'Exploring.'
   * Thus they are definitely role-playing gaming.
   * They are not applying GNS goals consciously or unconsciously.
   * They are having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion.
   * They are not unique or rare in this practice.
   * Therefore something is missing from the GNS model.
   * Most arguments about this missing element(s) fail because they have to use proprietary terminology (that by natural design supports GNS).

Fang,

Here's my take, from someone who's had a long-standing interaction with the GNS model, and finds it good.

Let me quote from Jesse first, for a little source background:

There's a style of role-playing that I've found to be far more common among gamers than I originally thought. Personally, I'm having trouble understanding it mainly because I don't understand what the "point" of it is. So, from a GNS stand point what exactly is this:

1) The style I'm thinking about is highly improvisational. The GM basically comes to the table with little more than a situation. "You've been sent out to find the Widget of Something or other." The players are expected to show up and just play their characters in whatever manner they see fit.

2) The rules are usually ignored or improperly employed. Usually, character creation is either intact or left looser than the rules suggest. Only the core resolution mechanic is used and most other elements of the system that would other wise faciliate some kind of GNS style are simply left out or are often not even known by the participants. In other words the rule system is ... used as just a randomizer to say Yes or No to disputes with little care for the actual outcome. ...

3) These games generally devolve into silliness with most of the roleplaying consisting of the players laughing at their characters slapsticky antics. As such these games usually take place with games that already have some element of this ... which wouldn't baffle me so much if it weren't for #2 and the fact that I have seen this style done with slightly more serious games such as In Nomine or Changling.

Notes: I hesitate to call this style dysfunctional because those who engage in it seem to be having a good time. ...

What is this style of gaming and why is it so prevalent among gamers? Or is it not as prevalent as I think it is and I'm just hallucinating?

I would first take issue with the fact these players are 'Exploring,' in the Edwards definition of the term (The best term for the imagination in action, or perhaps for the attention given the imagined elements, is Exploration. Initially, it is an individual concern, although it will move into the social, communicative realm, and the commitment to imagine the listed elements becomes an issue of its own.)
These players are using their imagination to make a humorous situation, however, they are not imagining the listed elements, where the listed elements are the context of the RPG. They are, in Jesse's words, "laughing at their characters slapsticky antics."

This does not fit into the GNS model, because the point is not roleplaying. The point is social joking, in an RPG context. This may seem contradictory. Consider a parallel activity, spoofing, or "MST3K"ing, a movie. The movie watched is usually considered bad, and the point is not actually to watch the movie, but to make jokes, in the context of watching a movie. (I find that often the people that enjoy the activity described in Jesse's post enjoy MST3king movies.)
---

That said, if we ignore this point and consider that they are roleplaying, do they fit in the GNS model, and how do they? You point out:
   * They are not applying GNS goals consciously or unconsciously.
   * They are having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion.

They obviously are not applying GNS goals to the RPG experience. That is an acceptable given in this situation. Are they having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion, however? Jesse mentioned that this activity wouldn't bother him, if it weren't extended to more serious games, like Changeling or In Nomine.

While it has become fashionable for RPGs to say, "Ignore the rules if they get in the way," I think we can follow this logic:
* RPG rules should be written to facilitate a game's premise or goal, whatever that may be, GNS or otherwise.
* If a rule does not facilitate that goal, it is dysfunctional.
* Therefore, removing rules because they 'get in the way' is a sign of dysfunction.

I would say that the question "are they having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion" has multiple answers.
- They are having fun.
- Their goal is obviously to laugh, and in that, they are not dys-functional.
- They are not fulfilling the game's goal. This may be their fault, or the game's, but it is dysfunctional.

To your last points:
   * They are not unique or rare in this practice.
   * Therefore something is missing from the GNS model.

It is fully admitted by Edwards that "GNS is the central concept of my theorizing about role-playing ... However, it is not sufficient, and the three modes themselves do not address any and all points about role-playing." He speaks specifically about the social aspects of roleplaying here.
Your argument that this is not included in the GNS model has already been agreed to. I think you mean this to prove that the GNS model is flawed, however, from the adversarial tone of your last posts.

I don't think it proves that. A lot of effort has gone to prove that the GNS model is flawed in some way, and I think they all miss a few points:

* The GNS model is a way to model games. It is not the way.
* If a game cannot be categorized in the GNS model, it is considered flawed according to the model. That does not mean that it is flawed, but that it does not fulfill a goal in GNS.
* Arguing with defined terms in a model, is, to be blunt, moronic. The terms are defined in the context of that particular model. If you define them differently, you are speaking outside that context.

I don't think this proves the GNS model is flawed because, as I stated in the beginning, these players do not have the goal of roleplaying. Their goal seems to be purely social, and in that, they succeed. As GNS tries to model roleplaying behaviors, and not social behaviors, it cannot be validly used to characterize this activity.

---

With all that said, I have an aside. No one will have a civil argument with you, Fang, if you do not return civility. I read your post, and found it purposefully argumentative and hostile, thereby proving charges of sophomoric-ness. Do as you like, but I suggest asking probing questions instead of foot-stamping. These will get answers much like above.

As for the thread locking, that was my decision. I felt that each side had ample discussion, and a point was not being reached. I also delete duplicate posts. I consider it my job to clean up and maintain forum quality. If you think I have been remiss, please e-mail me, or start a thread in "Site Discussion."
_________________
Clinton R. Nixon
http://www.heartburngames.com">Heartburn Games
indie-rpgs.com webmaster
http://www.acid-reflex.com">www.acid-reflex.com

[ This Message was edited by: Clinton R Nixon on 2001-12-06 19:59 ]

[James Holloway]

Apologies in advance to everyone - I'm writing this post at work in between doing other things, and it may jump around. Please bear with me.

I think we might be able to argue that there are, in some sense, two distinct activities going on round the table here.

1) The players are participating in a role-playing game (which they definitely are).
2) The players are laughing and joking, deriving some or all of their enjoyment from the fact that they're roleplaying in what even they themselves perceive to be kind of a crap manner.

I would argue that any GNS application, conscious or unconscious, goes on in 1). So player X may bring his mild gamist leanings to the table, while player Y brings her desire to be part of the creation of a good story. But while the players may have these inclinations, little or nothing is done to apply them. The game system's default position (and I'm guessing it's Gamist or Simulationist) and the GM's are expressed a little, probably... even if the rules are, in general, being ignored.

I don't know - are we seeing some kind of "next level of removal" in the enjoyment of RPGs, like those people who come to LARPs and don't play but just sit around and watch? (Is this "audience" behavior? Hell if I know.) But let me say one thing...

I always kind of assumed, (from an early age...) that it was understood that most RPG play was hard to categorize, because it was a mish-mash of priorities from the different players and the system. In this case, I'd say that we're probably seeing that, but at a very low priority. The social dynamic (or meta-enjoyment of the game by poking fun at it) is seen as more important than any GNS priority, because the players derive more enjoyment from the heckling than they do the gameplay itself. * And I think this is particularly interesting because this isn't some unrelated social activity like random chit-chat or flirting, but is a game-related social activity, like flexing character nuts (another popular gamer pastime).

So what GNS category does this fall into? Well, we'd have to look at the gameplay itself to understand that, but I think it's more significant that the gameplay is so deprioritized. I think analysis of this kind of player behavior may fall outside the categories of GNS.**

Now, I'd like to propose a very tenuous, almost tongue-in-cheek method of analyzing the GNS priorities of the players. I think that humor in these situations derives from deviation from the norm. Spot what each player is most amused by, and you may figure out what he or she considers to be normal or "desirable" gameplay... and you're off and running.

But I guess my main point is that this is confusing because while the enjoyment doesn't seem to be what you or I might call gameplay, it's definitely an activity that's involved with and interconnects with gameplay.

I think this merits further discussion. And I think this post makes no sense, or not very much anyway. Sorry.

* Man, I wish I knew how to do them cool footnotes Fang does. Anyway, I'd like to say here that we've been running on the assumption that mish-mashy, no-clear-GNS-priority gameplay is bad and makes players unhappy. And I think that's true for some players: I'd argue that it made Jesse Burneko unhappy. But I think it makes you unhappy only if gameplay is a high priority for you. Then somewhere in the middle we've got that guy Ron keeps ragging on, the guy who says "this game sucks, but I stick around because these people are my friends." And then at the far end of that priority is the guy for whom gameplay is actually a low priority and heckling (or whatever other social activity) is the highest one.

** Although maybe an essay on this might make sense, since it's an ancient and accepted gamer behavior - in fact, I distinctly remember someone (was it Greg Costikyan? I think it was, but cussit, his site seems to be down) writing an article back in the day in which he advocated doing things like naming your character stupid names and deliberately acting like your character was aware of his own nature as a game character, all in the name of humor.  Man, that was a long runon sentence. In fact, I guess that's Narrativism, huh - total disregard for competitive gameplay or immersion or whatever, since the point is to make a funny story, specifically one which relates to gaming in some way. I don't know if Jesse's example kids are doing that, though.

[Le Joueur]

Let me preface this by saying I tire of problems called upon the GNS model always collapsing into "Why should we change what works?" with the response of "Because it's too confusing to the rest of us." and then silence.

On no occasion have I seen has anyone ever substantiated a case where sticking with terminology that has proven confusing is good for any reason outside of tradition and familiarity.  I do not accept those reasons when, because of the terminology, time and again people come to the Forge and launch arguments out of that confusion.

As has been said (yet not effectively responded to), if terminology causes confusion, change it.

Anyway, on to my response.

Clinton R Nixon wrote:

Fang broke down his arguments into points thusly:

• Actors don't explore.
  
• Jesse's exemplars are not acting.
  
• They are 'Exploring.'
  
• Thus they are definitely role-playing gaming.
  
• They are not applying GNS goals consciously or unconsciously.
  
• They are having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion.
  
• They are not unique or rare in this practice.
  
• Therefore something is missing from the GNS model.
  
• Most arguments about this missing element(s) fail because they have to use proprietary terminology (that by natural design supports GNS).[/list:u]

Here's my take, from someone who's had a long-standing interaction with the GNS model, and finds it good.

Okay, now you are making incorrect assumptive implications.  I do not believe GNS is bad (or for that matter, even 'not good').  Can you understand how I can like something passionately and yet see it wanting?  I am no longer a fan (as in fanatic) of the GNS, but neither am I an extremist who goes straight from love to hate.  I am rather fond of GNS, but as Gordon mentions in another recent thread, it fails as a 'theory of everything' (yet most 'fans' fall back to using it that way, at least unconsciously).

Let me quote from Jesse first, for a little source background:

There's a style of role-playing that I've found to be far more common among gamers than I originally thought. Personally, I'm having trouble understanding it mainly because I don't understand what the "point" of it is. So, from a GNS stand point what exactly is this:

1) The style I'm thinking about is highly improvisational. The GM basically comes to the table with little more than a situation. "You've been sent out to find the Widget of Something or other." The players are expected to show up and just play their characters in whatever manner they see fit.

2) The rules are usually ignored or improperly employed. Usually, character creation is either intact or left looser than the rules suggest. Only the core resolution mechanic is used and most other elements of the system that would other wise facilitate some kind of GNS style are simply left out or are often not even known by the participants. In other words the rule system is ... used as just a randomizer to say Yes or No to disputes with little care for the actual outcome. ...

3) These games generally devolve into silliness with most of the role-playing consisting of the players laughing at their characters slapsticky antics. As such these games usually take place with games that already have some element of this ... which wouldn't baffle me so much if it weren't for #2 and the fact that I have seen this style done with slightly more serious games such as In Nomine or Changelings.

Notes: I hesitate to call this style dysfunctional because those who engage in it seem to be having a good time. ...

What is this style of gaming and why is it so prevalent among gamers? Or is it not as prevalent as I think it is and I'm just hallucinating?

I would first take issue with the fact these players are 'Exploring,' in the Edwards definition of the term ("The best term for the imagination in action, or perhaps for the attention given the imagined elements, is Exploration. Initially, it is an individual concern, although it will move into the social, communicative realm, and the commitment to imagine the listed elements becomes an issue of its own.")

Hold on!  Are you saying that not one of Jesse's exemplars is using his "imagination?"  Where in "highly improvisational" or "play their characters" do you see a lack in "imagination?"  That sounds clearly like "imagination" to me.  Perhaps you have a problem with them not being "social" or "communicative?"

No?  Then perhaps it's the "commitment to imagine the listed elements" (being "Character, System, Setting, Situation, and Color").  Well, since they "just play their characters" it can't be "Character."  "Only the core resolution mechanic is used" means they have a "commitment" to "System" (and I might point out that because "System Does Matter" and there are no systems - apparently - that support things like this, outside of GNS, it goes without saying that "most other elements of the system that would otherwise facilitate some kind of GNS style are simply left out").  Maybe it's "Setting," except the use of "In Nomine or Changelings" means there must be some kind of "commitment" to "Setting," because they're certainly not playing those games for the rules.  That leaves "Situation and Color;" if I read Ron correctly, you do not have to emphasize all five "elements" in every game, so three out of five sounds sufficient to me to qualify for "Exploration."

But perhaps you are reading something into Jesse's post that I'm not seeing.

These players are using their imagination to make a humorous situation, however, they are not imagining the listed elements, where the listed elements are the context of the RPG. They are, in Jesse's words, "laughing at their characters slapsticky antics."

Wait! You're right, they do have "commitment" to a situation (even if you believe that humorous situations don't count – what about the game Toon?), a humorous one, "sent out to find the Widget of Something."  And now that you bring it up, it occurs to me that slapstick is a "Color," even if it wasn't the one the game designer intended.  So I see them having "commitment" to all five listed elements.  Do you agree?  Is this an issue where we can agree to disagree, or is there a right answer/wrong answer thing going?

And which "context of the RPG" are you speaking of?  Is it 'as written,' because then you are saying that they fail to be role-playing gaming simply because they are not following the published materials' intent.  Or is it 'as played,' because in a humorous game (even unwritten), "slapsticky antics" are the context.

This does not fit into the GNS model, because the point is not role-playing. The point is social joking, in an RPG context.

How can anything done "in role-playing game context" not be considered a form of role-playing gaming?  Are we actually arguing past each other on the issue of what is or is not role-playing gaming (even before we get to the issue of "Exploration")?  Which is it to you?  Not role-playing gaming first or not "Exploration" second?  We cannot discuss both simultaneously.  I believe, by Ron's definition, it is both.  Can you show me the earliest break in the chain?

And how can you say "the point is social joking" (as if the point isn't role-playing gaming)?  Jesse said "with games that already have some element of this," which says to me that the games, as written, have "some element of this" as their explicit goals.  (Even though he adds games to his example that do not, they serve more as examples of what gives him discomfort, not of what is played because those examples have "some element of this" "slapsticky antics" the way I read it.)

This may seem contradictory. Consider a parallel activity, spoofing, or "MST3K"ing, a movie. The movie watched is usually considered bad, and the point is not actually to watch the movie, but to make jokes, in the context of watching a movie. (I find that often the people that enjoy the activity described in Jesse's post enjoy MST3king movies.)

You're right that does seem contradictory.  The way I read it, Jesse's exemplars aren't spoofing the game they're playing; they're enjoying the antics of their characters.  That would parallel watching a good movie and sharing personal anecdotes sotto voce.  But Jesse never mentions anything that happens outside of play (except laughing), so I think even this is a poor parallel.

That said; if we ignore this point and consider that they are role-playing, do they fit in the GNS model, and how do they? You point out:

• They are not applying GNS goals consciously or unconsciously.
  
• They are having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion.[/list:u]They obviously are not applying GNS goals to the RPG experience. That is an acceptable given in this situation. Are they having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion, however? Jesse mentioned that this activity wouldn't bother him, if it weren't extended to more serious games, like Changeling or In Nomine.

And he specifically says "I hesitate to call this style dysfunctional."  Since I take his words at face value, that means I assume it is not dysfunctional (even if it might be).  And since I have had similar experiences, which I know to be non-dysfunctional, I don't think this assumption is much of a stretch.  (Unless we begin using something like a circular line of definition like, if it doesn't follow the GNS model, it's dysfunctional, and vice versa.)

Besides, Jesse has not asked us why he is the only one not having fun.  He was asking which GNS mode these games (and there are obviously a number if they play In Nomine, Changeling, and others) belong to.  He implies that only his play was dysfunctional (in the named games only) and because of it he wondered which GNS mode of play it appealed to (since it wasn't his at those points).

While it has become fashionable for RPGs to say, "Ignore the rules if they get in the way," I think we can follow this logic:
[list=a]

• RPG rules should be written to facilitate a game's premise or goal, whatever that may be, GNS or otherwise.
  
• If a rule does not facilitate that goal, it is dysfunctional.
  
• Therefore, removing rules because they 'get in the way' is a sign of dysfunction.[/list:o]

Except:
[list=a]

• No game had been written that facilitates this style of gaming's premise or goal, by the way Jesse describes it.  (This makes sense if it is non-GNS.  Didn't Narrativists have to "ignore the rules if they get in the way" until Narrativist rules appeared?  What about other, yet to be discovered styles?)
  
• Thus a non-GNS style would require either rules that have not been written yet or they would have to "Ignore the rules."
  
• What about the Narrativist on the forefront ten or fifteen years ago?[/list:o]Besides this argument is not logical.  The removal a dysfunctional 'thing' (in this case a rule) is not in and of itself dysfunctional.  In fact, I would say removing dysfunction would have to improve function.  Such removal would therefore make a game more functional, especially from a writer's point of view (which you seem to be using).  When trying to play in a style not covered by any of the rules sets available, does it not make sense to be "removing rules because they 'get in the way'" or are (as the written is compared to the intent of play) dysfunctional?
  
  

  I would say that the question "are they having fun in a non-dysfunction fashion" has multiple answers.
  

  • They are having fun.
    
  • Their goal is obviously to laugh, and in that, they are not dysfunctional.
    
  • They are not fulfilling the game's goal. This may be their fault, or the game's, but it is dysfunctional.[/list:u]

  They are definitely not fulfilling the game's goal as it was written, but what if they are playing in a style that no rules sets support like the earliest Narrativists did?  Were the early Narrativists dysfunctional?  If you can say definitively that these people are clearly dysfunctional based on this line of reasoning, then you are also either saying that earliest Narrativist play was dysfunctional or that all modes or gaming have been discovered and nothing is left to look for (except dysfunction).  I think both of those statements are patently untrue but subject to opinion.  What do you think?
  
  

  To your last points:
  

  • They are not unique or rare in this practice.
    
  • Therefore something is missing from the GNS model.[/list:u]It is fully admitted by Edwards that "GNS is the central concept of my theorizing about role-playing ... However, it is not sufficient, and the three modes themselves do not address any and all points about role-playing."

  That means that if these people are practicing something outside of GNS, they are not, by Ron's essay, inherently dysfunctional.  Since the case must therefore exist where people may be exploring new and valid forms of role-playing gaming, ones that may not have rules with goals to suit, it cannot be said they are necessarily dysfunctional by definition.
  
  

  He speaks specifically about the social aspects of role-playing here.  Your argument that this is not included in the GNS model has already been agreed to.

  Actually I wasn't using 'Social' mode.  (In fact I was specifically trying to avoid using it as an example.)
  
  

  I think you mean this to prove that the GNS model is flawed,

  It is only flawed if you consider missing something (not necessarily the mythical 'Social' mode) a flaw.  I may have said "flawed" in the past, but what I meant was 'unfortunately limited.'  Sorry for the mix-up.
  
  

  I don't think it proves that. A lot of effort has gone to prove that the GNS model is flawed in some way,

  Are you asking me to do the impossible?  Prove something exists for which terminology that is not allowed (see the "define them differently" part below) in the current model.
  
  

  and I think they all miss a few points:
  
  [list=1]

  • The GNS model is a way to model games. It is not the way.
    
  • If a game cannot be categorized in the GNS model, it is considered flawed according to the model. That does not mean that it is flawed, but that it does not fulfill a goal in GNS.
    
  • Arguing with defined terms in a model, is, to be blunt, moronic. The terms are defined in the context of that particular model. If you define them differently, you are speaking outside that context.[/list:o]

  Point by point:
  [list=1]
• Can you rephrase that, it reads self-contradictory.
  
• And that means that the common use around here of 'the GNS models everything' is clearly the problem I have.  Since this cannot be prevented with Ron's essay as written (too few even acknowledge the "However, it is not sufficient, and the three modes themselves do not address any and all points about role-playing" part often enough), I would like something different.
  
• That's what I have been saying (poorly I know).  It is also moronic to try and discuss things outside the model with the terms from the model because "the terms are defined in the context of that particular model."  And because of the nature of how this model is used, there has, so far, been no tolerance of terms outside of the ones used in the model.  This scores heavily back into the problems I associated with new terminology earlier.[/list:o]Put simply:
  
  • You say arguing with the terms is moronic.
    
  • You say the terms are defined in the context of that particular model.
    
  • I say that the model is limited.
    
  • Therefore other terms must be used outside those of the model to discuss things outside the model.
    
  • Any use of the words that have been taken as the terms of the model in question draw complaints of trying to "define them differently," yet many of those same words tend to be the best for describing issues related to the analysis of role-playing gaming.  (The worst thus far is 'narrative,' it does a really good job describing 'what goes on' in a game, but since it has been co-opted by Narrativists, there is no way to use it here.  The alternative has been to use 'the sequence of in-game events' and as long as that is, it still does not capture all of the meaning that 'narrative' does.)
    
  • This means any attempt to discuss alternative models is at least hamstrung at the terminology level.
    
  • Not only that, but there is intense social pressure to conform to the GNS model theories.[/list:u]The problem here is I LIKE THE GNS MODEL!  I like it so much I want it to be better.  I want it to include more.  I want the terms used in it to be intuitive to newcomers.  I want it to be capable of being used pro-actively (not just to analyze problems).  I think it can be all those things, except I am not allowed to add to it, call for any of the terms to be improved or rearranged, or even suggest how it might be expanded to advisory capability.
    
    

    I don't think this proves the GNS model is flawed because, as I stated in the beginning, these players do not have the goal of role-playing.

    That doesn't change the fact that it is has been no more than an opinion from the beginning, a foundation that I disagree with.  I do not intend to prove my opinion to the contrary, I just want to call some of your assumptions into question so as to state my case more clearly.
    
    

    Their goal seems to be purely social,

    To you.  I see more to it than that, from my experiences.
    
    

    As GNS tries to model role-playing behaviors, and not social behaviors, it cannot be validly used to characterize this activity.

    Thus you both agree that the GNS is limited and pass on any attempt to discuss its expansion or improvement.
    
    Let me try a different (though no less hopeless) tact.
    
    Here are examples of the shortcomings I see in the 'old' GNS model:
    
    What about games where the player is pursuing a goal along the lines of a romance novel, 'to get the girl.'  The closest mode of GNS to what I am suggesting is Gamism, except that there is no 'scorecard,' character improvement, or mechanical consistency.  There are no player-operated narrative elements and yet a thematic metagame goal.  It is approached not at all Narrativistly, but in a 'love is a game' fashion (cat and mouse and all) without any of the familiar stance questions (being entirely Actor stance).  (Because of all the controversy lately, I am not altogether sure this is outside Gamism, but by Ron's essay, it sounds like it to me.)
    
    What about cartoon style role-playing games?  When they use no Authorial and Directorial stance and have no attention paid to issues of tension or denouement, what are they?  So far, I have only been able to liken them to Simulationism except the frequency of deus ex machina defeats any attempt at verisimilitude (or "internal logic and experiential consistency" or plausibility) and the requirement of one and only one "metagame" concern that appears to be humor.  (Many of the Teenagers from Outer Space games I have played in both match this and Jesse's example.)
    
    Further how about all those "I can't wait to play Sorcerer" comments.  Or playing a game to review it.  Don't all GNS goals become subordinate to the goal of experiencing a new game (and trying out all its 'parts')?  That certainly isn't 'Social' mode, but I liken it to Narrativism because both look at the game from an 'outsider' perspective (similar to 'what makes it a good story,' and no co-authorship but more 'how well does the writing achieve its goal').  'Theme' cannot be the ultimate goal, because all games played thus are not necessarily Narrativistic, and yet 'how it works' over all (a "value-judgment" crucial per Ron's definition of Narrativism, just not about 'theme') is the focus of attention (as 'theme' is the focus in Narrativism).
    
    Lastly, what about players who "show up and just play their characters" for escapism's sake alone?  Many times it does not matter whether issues of verisimilitude or consistency are even addressed.  Likewise, they clearly want to avoid the stresses of paying heed to co-authorship, stances (outside of actor), or Narrativism.  Personally, when I am in 'escapist' mode, I also care little about rules or success, resource management, or even who 'wins.'  This only barely looks like 'immersive' play and certainly isn't a match with Simulationism.
    
    And these are not the only limitations noticeable (only four that I've found).  Why can't we advance the GNS model so that it includes these (without adding adjuncts and listing exceptions to be included)?  What is wrong with taking the strengths of the GNS and increasing them?  Why can I get no discussion on this?  (It always turns into an argument over me "finding flaws" that "don't exist," changing the terminology, or misusing the model.)  Everyone seems ready to say that the GNS model is limited and doesn't cover everything, why is no one willing to talk about what can be done to change that fact?
    
    

    ---
    
    With all that said, I have an aside. No one will have a civil argument with you, Fang, if you do not return civility.

    Point taken, I will go back and delete my breaches of civility now (even if you never call this point on people like Greyorm or lock their threads.).
    
    Fang Langford
    
    p. s. Hey you're the Site Maintenance Guy, why is there no 'Alternatives to the GNS' forum?  That way there'd be less of these arguments altogether.  (Since the GNS forum would be used to discuss the model as is and the other could be used for complaints and replacements, but not defensiveness.)
    
    [ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-12-07 15:34 ]

[Paul Czege]

Hey Fang,

I am rather fond of GNS, but as Gordon mentions in another recent thread, it fails as a 'theory of everything' (yet most 'fans' fall back to using it that way, at least unconsciously).

Can you blame the theory for this? Somehow I think it's a human tendency to over-extend the significance of any theory. Have you ever had that 2:30 a.m. conversation with a drunken college student, the one where he tells you the freshman psych solution to inner city crime? Take a look at university press journals  or the collected papers of student conferences and you'll see a zillion examples. "Objectivism in the Novels of Charles Dickens." That kind of crap.

Is it the fault of the theory that enthusiastic fans generalize it beyond its intended context?

Paul

[Clinton R. Nixon]

On 2001-12-07 14:34, Le Joueur wrote:
I like [the GNS model] so much I want it to be better.  I want it to include more.  I want the terms used in it to be intuitive to newcomers.  I want it to be capable of being used pro-actively (not just to analyze problems).

First, let me say I agree with most of your post, specifically the point that the behavior examined does not fit in the GNS model. I think I said that plenty above.

Here's my take on the rest: I don't think GNS is the end-all categorization of role-playing games and their associated behaviors. I think that is such a diverse subject that there's no real way to encompass it all in one model.

(Aside: for some interesting models that do examine the social behaviors in RPGs, check out http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0786408154/qid=1007754874/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_74_2/107-0188019-1017329">The Fantasy Role-Playing Game: A New Performing Art by Daniel Mackay. Mackay also examines models for RPG aesthetics. It's a brillant book, if a little master's thesis-esque.)

I think this is where we disagree (and I where I disagree with a lot of people on GNS): it's a model solely to examine the three major goals of role-playing game system design. It's not supposed to be used to examine every aspect of role-playing.

If you want to suggest a model to examine personal reasons for role-playing, and the social behaviors that result, I'm all for that. Robin Laws has actually examined this quite a bit in his recent Dragon articles.

To touch on your other points:

Cartoon-style roleplaying games - well, it depends. I'm not going to make a guess here, because I haven't played any. I would suggest:

- If the system tries to make things work according to "cartoon logic," that's a Simulationist trait.
- If the system uses techniques to evoke humor, that sounds like a Narrativist trait.
- If the players are dropping rules in order to make the play more to their tastes (as in Jesse's example), it sounds like straight-up drift. It sounds like the game does not fulfill its intended purpose, or at least the goals of the players.

---

By the way, thanks for returning the civility. I truly do appreciate it. I'm sorry you think that there's been favoritism in the past. I assure you that running a forum has been a learning process for both Ron and I, and we've probably both made mistakes in judgment. We do tend to deal with different people differently because of our personal relationships. If someone I knew well was acting uncivil, I'd probably be quicker to e-mail them and let them know. I know that's hard, because that sort of thing isn't seen in the public arena. If you do see something that doesn't seem kosher around here, please let me know privately.

As far as an 'Alternatives to GNS' forum: I'd recommend taking it up in RPG Theory. I'd love to see a thread about models for the social aspect of roleplaying. If there's enough interest in a thread, I'll expand it into an entire forum.

[Le Joueur]

Clinton R Nixon wrote:

Fang wrote:

I like [the GNS model] so much I want it to be better.  I want it to include more.  I want the terms used in it to be intuitive to newcomers.  I want it to be capable of being used pro-actively (not just to analyze problems).

First, let me say I agree with most of your post, specifically the point that the behavior examined does not fit in the GNS model. I think I said that plenty above.

Here's my take on the rest: I don't think GNS is the end-all categorization of role-playing games and their associated behaviors. I think that is such a diverse subject that there's no real way to encompass it all in one model.

True enough, but as the centerpiece to the essay everyone here uses to do all that, does it bother you if I want the part that describes the major goals to include more than three if there are more?  (I think there are, but that's a topic for another debate.)

[Snip.  Thanks for the book reference; I will look into it.]

I think this is where we disagree (and I where I disagree with a lot of people on GNS): it's a model solely to examine the three major goals of role-playing game system design. It's not supposed to be used to examine every aspect of role-playing.

This illustrates my problem.  To you it's just about design.  Because it does not clearly say anything like that in Ron's essay, all the people you disagree with use it more widely.  How can we fix this?

If you want to suggest a model to examine personal reasons for role-playing, and the social behaviors that result, I'm all for that.

I did already for all the discussion it got.

To touch on your other points:

Cartoon-style role-playing games - well, it depends. I'm not going to make a guess here, because I haven't played any.

I'm beginning to think that might be the problem I am encountering here.  Too few of the regulars have actually tried an escapist cartoon game like Teenagers from Outer Space (that might have to be the oldest edition, I haven't looked at the new ones yet, they don't come with a little bag of mini-dice).  Thus when I try to go on at length about 'escapist' play, most don't get it.

I would suggest:

[list=1]

• If the system tries to make things work according to "cartoon logic," that's a Simulationist trait.
  
• If the system uses techniques to evoke humor, that sounds like a Narrativist trait.
  
• If the players are dropping rules in order to make the play more to their tastes (as in Jesse's example), it sounds like straight-up drift. It sounds like the game does not fulfill its intended purpose, or at least the goals of the players.[/list:o]

Point by point (sigh, agin, aren't youall gettin' a bit tired o' it?):
[list=1]

• Not in my edition of TFoS, the rules are written in a Simulationist fashion, yet with absences so that the 'cartoon' motif can play through uninhibited.  (The designer probably was only beginning to realize that "System Does Matter.")
  
• The humor is brought out strictly by the "Color" and the examples, remember this is a 'classic era' game, back before explicit Narrativist texts.
  
• No 'droppage' is really necessary; the game designer did that for us.  And yes, there is some text describing how to play in this absence.  It specifically talks about being humorous and fun, the only part we ever drop is the "pretend it's an episode" stuff implied by the game suggestion section in the back.  We saw that as a short road to railroading even though the book never mentions pre-scripting the endings.[/list:o]

  As far as an 'Alternatives to GNS' forum: I'd recommend taking it up in RPG Theory. I'd love to see a thread about models for the social aspect of role-playing. If there's enough interest in a thread, I'll expand it into an entire forum.

  That's just it, how do you measure interest in splitting complaints into their own forum?  Complaining surely makes enough bandwidth to deserve a forum, right?  With no defensiveness necessary, these complaints can be dignified and explored and the perpetual reactionary responses would disappear, shortening both 'parent' and 'child' forums (giving rise to calls to "take it to the 'Alternatives to GNS' forum").  Likewise the 'parent forum' would no longer have to suffer these voluminous quasi-flame-wars.
  
  Also, I seriously doubt any single new theory will be dignified enough to grow and gain the following you are requiring so that they rate an entire forum of their own.  I am suggesting a single forum for all proposed alternatives combined.  That might reach a traffic minimum to be worthy and if you add in the 'complaints' part I think it will get plenty of traffic.  Much more than any individual GNS 'stepchild' would get or support.
  
  Likewise I think that the GNS and related theories might benefit from seeing parallels evolve (it would be hard to not be informed by the observation of this process), something impossible in all the 'noise' in the RPG theory forum.
  
  Do you want me to take this to the 'Site Discussion' forum?
  
  Fang Langford
  
  [ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-12-07 16:30 ]