Something I cooked up, a model if you like

[Itse]

I've been doing some thinking, about roleplaying discussion and the existing theoretical models.  I've also been doing some writing. I could do this forever by myself, but since that wouldn't make much point, I'd like to share.

http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/ravela/4D/basics.html

Behind the link there is a model which defines methods, immersion, realism and narration and calls them dimensions. Somewhere in there it should say something like "most talk about roleplaying preferences can be defined as statements about the how the dimensions are (considered to be) related."

It all starts with the following:

"
In discussion about roleplaying, like in discussion about anything, there should be an agreement on what the subject is. To recognize it, two things should be noted. First, most statements are either about one part of the game in particular, or about how the different parts are related. Meaningful statements about several parts of the game at once are often not. Secondly, statements mostly only refer to either roleplaying games, or the gameplay, or the gamers. Meaningful statements about several of these, again, are often not.

This model is created for use in discussion about roleplaying preferences. It should be recognized, that each of the presented "four dimensions of roleplaying" can be divided into subsets, and when used in discussion, one should make sure that he really means to refer to all of the subsets at once and not just some of them. Recognition of the subsets could possibly be seen as a slightly separate issue from the model itself, but I will integrate some of that here" (note: it's not there yet) "When applied to actual gameplay, this model is about preferences in decision-making.

The name of this model comes from the acknowledgement, that the preferences considering roleplaying games and roleplaying move in a multi-dimensional field, in which each dimension represents one and only one part of a game. Thus a certain level of preference in one dimension by definition never requires any specific level of preference in any other dimension. In other words, what you think about one part of the game does not in itself say anything about what you think about the other parts.
"

Personally, I feel pompous and stupid when stating "I have created a model", when all I really meant to do was define some words so I could use them in discussion. But it all got a little out of hand, it looks like a model about something already, and I'm not even finished. I've already planned on expanding the explanations of each of the methods with four separate pages (I think in hypertext), but haven't done it yet. I think some feedback would be very welcome, before I really get lost in what I'm doing. At the moment, I have no idea what this even looks like when read by other people.

Here's some personal notes:
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/ravela/4D/personal.html

The pages are not really meant for public yet, so please don't comment on the looks. I'm not sure they ever will be. I just think in hypertext, and sometimes it helps to write that way too.

By the way, this is my first post here, and I can't help feeling out of my depth with all this. Somehow, I just don't feel like a theorist.

[Itse]

Oh great. Naturally, the server went down. So, here it is. It should propably be an article, but I really want some feedback first.

I'll also quote a bit on the personal notes:

"
This is not all about semantics. By dividing roleplaying into four separate parts, already make an implicit statement about what roleplaying is. Also, if there is an agenda to be found behind this model, it would be in the underlying notion that all the different ways of roleplaying are equal, and that there is no such things as "true roleplaying". To reach for the ultimate experience, one should admit himself to be biased and propably dive deep into the dimensions of choice and claim the other dimensions inferior, with the understanding that it's all based on preference.
"

So the dimensions are not selected randomly. I claim that these four parts are major defining factors of roleplaying games. At least one, maybe two of these parts can be ignored and still call the game roleplaying, but I'd say ignoring two would be stretching it.

The Four-dimensional Model

To set the field, it should be noted that roleplaying games, roleplaying and roleplayers are all handled separately here. No solid definitions on what these three are and how exactly they are apart are given. I suspect that people have a satisfactory intuitive understanding of them even without the definitions. I don't want not attempt to define roleplaying, even though it could be done using the definitions I have made for the different parts of the game. (Some explanation on this choice can be found in metadiscussion, when the site comes up).

To understand this model, it should be enough to consider "the game" to mean the part which comes before the playing starts; in the classical case, the books and the plans of the gamemaster. It's not exactly what I meant, but propably close enough. Roleplaying means the actual gameplay; it's the time when the participants communicate by the media of their choice and decisions on the events of the game are being made. Roleplayers are the people who play roleplaying games, or the people who take part in roleplaying.

The Four Dimensions of Roleplaying Games

Roleplaying games can be divided into four separate parts, which are only related by personal preferences. These parts, or dimensions, are Methods, Immersion, Realism and Narration. When designing or planning a roleplaying game, decisions should be made on how these are meant to relate to each other. (This refers to both creating a game for publishing and setting up a gaming campaign.) Definitions are as follows:

   

Method: a chosen form or style of roleplaying. Methods are the acknowledged rules and agreements of the game, both explicit and implicit. In other words, methods are all the rules, both social and mechanical, of both the game and the metagame in which the participants recognize and have agreed on.

   Immersion: ignoring things not known to the subject (usually a character) and emotional involvement in the psychological situation of the subject, when making decisions about the subjects behaviour in the game.

   Realism: contextual possibility, plausibility and consistency. In other words, within the reality of the game, can it happen, would it happen,  and does it fit with what has been previously established?

   Narration: stories and how they're told. In decision-making, narration refers to the considerement of storylines, themes and dramatic style.
[/list:u]

The Four Principles of Gameplay

From the four given definitions we can extrapolate four principles for the decisions made during the actual gameplay. (I would call them rules, but I'm afraid people would find that confusing.) The principles are Methodical, Immersive, Realistic and Narrative gameplay. Each holds within a value-statement on what is needed for good roleplaying, and sets limitations on what can be done in a gaming session. These principles can be considered methods, but only if all participants agree on and acknowledge which ones are in use. This is not necessarily the case, and disagreement on which principles are followed is a common cause for conflict between participants during the game.

These are not mutually exclusive in theory, but in practise the statements can and propably will come to conflict. All four principles can even be upheld simultaneously, but such a game would propably be filled with compromise and so would not be the most enjoyable of games. Still, these can be acknowledged as methods or guidelines, and they can help in creating a good gaming experience amongst people with different gaming preferences. All can be used in part or in whole, and after a gaming session, all participants should be able to judge which principles were actually followed. The principles can also be called styles of roleplaying, and the definitions are as follows:

   

Methodical: rules and agreements of the game and metagame are not broken during the lenght of a game.

   Immersive: decisions are not made showing ignorance to the subjects (usually a character) psychological state or revealing the use of information unavailable for the subject.

   Realistic: events are not impossible, implausible or inconsistent within the set context of the game.

   Narrative: decisions do not cause the themes or storylines of the game to break. Dramatic preferences are considered in decision-making.
[/list:u]

The Four Types of Roleplayers

We can use the four principles of roleplaying to identify four types of roleplayers. Those would be Methodist, Immersionist, Realist and Narrationist. A player can be all things at once, but will propably consider some dimensions to be more important or superior than others, and can so be defined as being mainly of one type. For clarity, and for ease of use within biased contexts, understated and overstated definitions are also provided.

Many roleplayers believe to be "of the typical type", and might want to challenge the existence of the groups which they don't belong to, or claim that all roleplayers are part of a group they do belong to. I claim that every one of these groups has some members and none of the groups have no members.

   

Methodist: prefers the methods of the game to be clearly defined, easily implemented and unbroken for the lenght of the game.

   Immersionist: prefers the  in-character stance as a basis for decision-making.

   Realist: prefers that events in the game are realistic.

   Narrationist: prefers decisions which support the themes, storylines and dramatic style of the game.
[/list:u]

Understated:

   

Methodist: interested in the methods, conventions and their use in the game.

   Immersionist: interested in the psychological experiences of the subjects (characters).

   Realist: interested in the possibility and consistency of the events in game context.

   Narrationist: interested in the storylines, themes and dramatic style of the game.
[/list:u]

Overstated:

   

Methodist: requires methods to be unchallengeable during the lenght of the game to enjoy a game.

   Immersionist: makes all decisions based purely on the in-character stance.

   Realist: requires all game events to be completely realistic to enjoy a game.

   Narrationist: makes all decisions based on storyline, theme and preferred dramatic effect.
[/list:u]

[M. J. Young]

Welcome to the Forge, Itse; thank you for sharing your ideas. The English is a bit rough in places, but I think I worked out most of it, and it looks interesting.

What I don't really see in the model is a place for gamist play.

If I understand aright, you've identified these four concepts:[list=1][*]Methodist: Making decisions based primarily on what the game system would suggest;[*]Immersionist: Making decisions based on imputed character desires, beliefs, and information;[*]Realist: Making decisions based on what would really happen in such a world; and[*]Narrationist: Making decisions that promote stories and solid story elements.[/list:o]What I don't see would be

[*]??:  Making decisions based on what will promote the player objective of beating the scenario.[/list:u]
This may be uncommon in your experience; what we've seen of Helsinki and other Norwegian role playing theory here (to grossly simplify and overgeneralize what is a rich and wonderful area of thought and play) suggests emphasis on what we call simulationism and narrativism, and very little of the competitive or show-off aspects that drive gamism. Here in America (and I think in other English-speaking countries) there are strong gamist influences--a lot of people do play for the challenge, often using their characters as pawns to achieve the objective, defeat the obstacles, and gain the prize, trying to impress each other with clever tactics and bold successes.

I'm afraid I've used some local jargon in an effort to be brief; you'll find a lot of the explanatory materials in the articles section, and I'm sure if you ask questions you'll get answers, frequently in the form of links to older threads where these were explained. There's something of a steep learning curve here, I'm afraid, because we talk about theory so much that we've devised something of our own language for it.

Personally, I had despaired of having a unifying definition of role playing until just recently, as development of the Lumpley Principle helped me see something significant. I think that the single unifying/defining characteristic of role playing games is this: players cooperatively create events within a shared imaginary space. If that's happening, you have a role playing game. Most of what you've addressed appear to me to be techniques: how do players cooperatively create events within a shared imaginary space? More specifically, you seem to be asking how any one player decides what types of events he (and perhaps others) should create within that space.

It also strikes me that your four methods all seem to be limitations; what they say really is, This player will not create any event that is outside these parameters. What they don't tell me is why this player would create any event at all. You've presented some very interesting filters on our conduct (which I will agree appear to be valid, and applied in different degrees by different players, possibly even with players giving precedence to one over another in some significant or revealing order), but you haven't given what drives them to do this in the first place.

I hope that helps.

--M. J. Young

[MikesLeftHand]

The comment on roleplaying in Scandinavia is only partially true. I can only speak for Norway, so I will. In LARP there is a trend of sim and nar-style playing, but there is still a strong gamist element, usually among the younger and less-recognised players and larpwrights. In roleplaying there is little theory, little avant-garde, and gamism or playing-for-the-heck-of-it is going very strong indeed.

I agree that the model lacks a goal-oriented category, a category where the player plays for the gratification of the player only, call it gamism if you want to.

And I have a bit of a problem grasping the Methodist dimension; does the player play for the thrill of upholding a rules system, or is the point to "stay true to the game". I'm not saying i think it's crap, just that I dont understand it.

Aksel, you friendly norseman

[Itse]

Thank you for the comments.

does the player play for the thrill of upholding a rules system, or is the point to "stay true to the game". I'm not saying i think it's crap, just that I dont understand it.

A good question, but this model does not answer it. "Ask the methodist."

This model is not about "why", it's about "what" and "how". This model does not mean to answer the question of "why people play" or "why people like x". It's about "roleplaying games have parts A, B, C and D, and people can be pretty neatly defined by how they consider these things to be related". It's also about "if you play considering A, you can get along with players who like A." Trying to figure out why people do the things they do is very difficult, and someone else can go there. (Actually, other people already have.)

If I understand aright, you've identified these four concepts:

  1. Methodist: Making decisions based primarily on what the game system would suggest;
  2. Immersionist: Making decisions based on imputed character desires, beliefs, and information;
  3. Realist: Making decisions based on what would really happen in such a world; and
  4. Narrationist: Making decisions that promote stories and solid story elements.

This is true, but not the way I would really put it. There are (to begin with, before adding challenges) four "dimensions" / "things" / concepts, in roleplaying games. From them I have identified four ways of playing, which relate to these concepts, and four types of gamers, who have preferences regarding these concepts. So even if the 'meat' of the model are the dimensions, I've also builded things on them.

"Decision-making based on something" is about decisions made during the gameplay. The "*ism:s" are about gamers, so there we are talking about preferences. This is splitting hairs somewhat, but just to make sure that you've noticed.

   * ??: Making decisions based on what will promote the player objective of beating the scenario.

True. (Obvious really. Feedback good.) This is not covered. Now, this is something which I have had little experience with lately (I'm not a goal-oriented gamer), but I'll still try to do some analyzing. So, what are we really talking about here? What is this a part of?

Is it about the objective, or the challenge? Can we cover this with just one, or do we need both?

I tried to add a dimension called "objectives", but it doesn't seem to fit. Just too vague. I'm not sure about challenges either. I could try and put both under "gamism"... No. I go for challenge. I don't want to talk about a "fair challenge", because that's really not saying anything, and I don't even consider "fairness" to be the important thing about a challenge. I wouldn't talk about competition either. If it was about competition, it would be called 'competition'.

(Game) Challenge: a task which tests the abilities of the participants. In other words, a game situation which may or may not lead to desired metagame results or goals, depending on the actions of the participants. (Note: a game result can also be a metagame goal.)

(Gameplay) Challenge-aware: the game involves challenges and resolving the challenges is taken into account in decision-making.

(Gamer) Challenge-oriented: prefers a game with clear challenges and tries to resolve them succesfully.


(Blah and btw, game and metagame are such difficult words. Ingame and offgame, which the live-action players use, are very handy. So, a challenge is about reaching offgame goals, but it should be noted that an ingame goal can at the same time be an offgame goal.)

I think that the single unifying/defining characteristic of role playing games is this: players cooperatively create events within a shared imaginary space. If that's happening, you have a role playing game.

You know, a lot of people would disagree with you, and I would be one of them. I think roleplaying games should have rules. Some people would say that it's a game, and so there should be challenges. Some people would say that without the immersive aspect it's not true roleplaying. Preferences. You don't seem to consider methods or realism important. That's fine, but it's just a preference.

Oh, about the realism. That's one of the things I wanted to pick out and say "this is a big thing in RPG's". Yes, I would say that it's bigger than in any other narrative art form. The easiest way to notice the difference is to look at just about any film with super powers; I don't recall ever seeing a film, in which the powers of the supernaturals are defined in a consistent way. In any other art form, it's quite okay that a person can first bend iron bars but not lift a car, even if bending those bars would've actually taken much more strength than lifting the car. Or vice versa. If you asked Joss Whedon who was the stronger one of two demons Buffy fought in two different episodes, would he have an answer? Quite propably not. It's not an issue. In RPG's, it is. In RPG, you mostly can't just come up with things like "oh and now he hits his hand through the wall". You'd consider the strength of the wall and the strength of the blow. Realism.

To add something, I'd say that now that we have five dimensions (methods, immersion, realism, narration and challenges, if more dimensions seem necessary, I might have to abandon this), an rpg should propably have at least three of them. Pick any three.

Now, sleep.

 - Risto Ravela

[Sean]

Itse, you wrote:

"(I'm not a goal-oriented gamer)"

and provided us with a very interesting model of RP experience which has many more points of contact with what people around the Forge tend to call Simulationism than with other modes of play, IMO.

I wonder what you would think of Ron Edwards' essay "Simulationism: The Right to Dream" at

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/

and how you see those thoughts as connecting up with your own views about role-playing.

[M. J. Young]

I'm pleased to have been of some help. I was going to let you think about it all for a while, but there was one point I thought needed to be addressed.

I think that the single unifying/defining characteristic of role playing games is this: players cooperatively create events within a shared imaginary space. If that's happening, you have a role playing game.

You know, a lot of people would disagree with you, and I would be one of them. I think roleplaying games should have rules.

I would agree; it's inherent in the Lumpley Principle that all roleplaying games have rules. What I think is unclear, though, is whether they need to have explicit rules, that is, whether the rules need to be formalized and expressed, or indeed whether the rules must be inflexible.

Let us suppose five of us sit down, and I say, "Let's play a game. You're an elf, you're a dwarf, you're a ranger, you're a hobbit, you're a wizard. You're all in Rivendell, and there's a message from Gondor asking for help. You've agreed to go help them." Now we start playing. As we play, we start making up rules. "Since I'm an elf, do I have a bow and arrows?" Yes, that makes sense; you are a crack shot. "Can I hit that bird from here?" Good question.

However, I answer that question, I'm applying some rule. It might be that the rule is "whatever the referee thinks makes sense". It might be "roll the dice and see whether you're over/under a particular number." It might be "Let's put it to a vote." We are creating system; we are acknowledging that we have an implicit set of rules which we are discovering and modifying as we play.

We certainly are playing a role playing game. We might never use the rules exactly the same way twice in the entire session, but we have rules--we have a system that controls what the real events in the imagined space are, and what things are not happening there. Our rules may only say, "Whenever we disagree, Mark decides what's really happening however he thinks best"--but that's a rule, that's a system, an apportionment of credibility that determines the outcome. It might be we'll say "Mark says when we roll the dice." It might be anything at all.

In the end, you cannot play without rules/system; it is system that makes it possible to play.

To put this in stark perspective, let's imagine this role playing session:

Code Select Expand

Bob: There is a castle ahead; the drawbridge is lowering.

Steve: I'll draw my sword and stab the dragon in its soft underbelly.

Ralph: And I'll shoot at the alien spaceship with my kinetic blaster.

Bob: A squadron of soldiers is advancing from the castle up the road toward you.

Steve: Now that the dragon is dead, I'll rip off its wings and attach them to my back; with a bit of effort, I manage to take off from the ground--I'm flying.

Bob: As they approach, the commander brings them to a halt and demands that you identify yourselves and your intentions.

Ralph: I shoot again, taking out the left engine so that the ship careens toward the ground; I run for cover.

Steve: I fly over to the castle, and pull a small thermonuclear device out of the pocket of my chainmail.

Bob: Since you didn't respond, they open fire. Each of you are pelted with arrows, and are now dead on the road.

Steve: I arm the bomb and drop it on the castle, then fly up and away as fast as I can to escape the blast radius.

Ralph: The spaceship explodes, killing everyone inside.
What is happening here is that no one has been given the credibility to actually make a statement into the shared imaginary space which is accepted as true by anyone else playing. Certainly they are playing; but they are not engaging each other in the same play.

What makes it a role playing game is that there is some set of rules, sometimes including explicity components but always including implicit components, by which everyone involved in the game agrees as to what is happening in the shared imaginary space. No, Ralph, there is no spaceship; no Steve, there is no Dragon. Bob, the soldiers are not coming up the road--somehow, we know what is and is not happening, and that "somehow" is that there is a system that apportions credibility between the participants such that we know whose words have to be accepted as true in what circumstances.

Does that make sense?

--M. J. Young

[Itse]

(I just took about an hour and a half to write a reply. Then when I was just about to send, I accidentally hit Ctrl-R instead of Shift-R. So, here it is, again. I hope it doesn't loose much in the repetition process.)

MJ:

What makes it a role playing game is that there is some set of rules, sometimes including explicity components but always including implicit components, by which everyone involved in the game agrees as to what is happening in the shared imaginary space.

Does that make sense?

(Sidetracking a bit, let's talk about "shared imaginary space". What is that, and is it really needed? If you have a D&D with all the necessary miniatures, rulers, very little character immersion (or any sort of personality for the characters to be exact) and you play strictly by the book, where is the imaginary space? I wouldn't really say there is one. What is happening is happening on the map and on the character sheets, the possible imaginary space is just icing here, it's not the cake. But to sum up, I don't try to define roleplaying, as I've said. You can say I'm talking about what goes on inside and outside that shared imaginary space.)

I hear and understand. Basicly, you seem to be going for "shared imaginary space with rules". (More people would propably agree with you now.) Please note that by method, I mean "all the rules, both social and mechanical, of both the game and the metagame in which the participants recognize and have agreed on". "Recognize", "agree on". (Is this possible to do implicitly? I say it is, but in any case...) There is a difference between a method and a social convention, which is what you're mostly talking about, when you say that "there are always rules".

Now, back to method. It's a tool and it's recognized as such. The easiest way to note the difference between social convention and method is by noting the difference in reactions when a method is broken and when a convention is broken. Breaking methods is not funny. Most people find it highly irritating, "wrong", while some don't mind IF it's done for a good cause. Breaking social conventions on the other hand is what most humour is based on. It's often quite okay to do so just for the heck of it. But breaking it can also be a cause for major conflict. People get emotionally involved.

Social conventions are very often not recognized (and thus can't really be agreed on), and so people don't necessarily understand why they find something to be so infuriating (or funny), or why they just felt uncomfortable about what just happened. "I can't put my finger on it, but somethings not right there." You can't really argue the existence of a certain method. If it's recognized and agreed on, it exists. "Says who" is not answer to "breaking that method was wrong". You can deny social conventions. Breaking a social convention can even be a liberating experience and thought as a positive thing by the group, if the social convention was more limiting than comforting.

So, I feel comfortable talking about methods, and to say that people have different preferences on them, and that this should be recognized as an issue. Some consider them to be the meat of a game, and spend a lot of time discussing their differences and potential uses. I mostly don't. For me, methods are a secondary issue, if even that. I like to do things intuitively, trying to create a narrative while being to some extent true to my character, and keeping realism intact; both as a GM and a player. As a GM I pay a little more attention to methods, or to be more exact, rules. Players expect me to make rules-decicions, so I do that. Mostly, as a GM, I break the rules. It's so bad and obvious you might call it a method. The mechanic rules always bend the way I want things to go. But this is all preferences. The model is meant to be helpful in talking about preferences, not too preferential in itself. That's one of the points.

You can say that all roleplaying games have all of these dimensions, but what I'm after is the fact, that you can say a lot in a pretty accurate way by using these dimensions and talking about how you see them related. "To me, realism is the common ground which creates comfort for the players. It's also what makes good stories great and it helps a great deal in immersion. Methods to me are just a way to keep the story going and help in immersion. Mechanic rules sometimes clash with realism, so I force them if necessary." So, first comes immersion and narration, supported by realism and helped a bit by methods. (I keep forgetting challenge.) First I described the way I play in two sentences, then I even packed that up into one. My model works if you, like me, can from what I just said come up with a picture of how I play.

Remember, three out of five is enough. You can ignore some parts. That would be saying something too.

Sean wrote:

a very interesting model of RP experience which has many more points of contact with what people around the Forge tend to call Simulationism than with other modes of play, IMO.

That's true, mostly because simulationism covers a lot of ground. If you like, you can consider this just a more detailed model on the simulationist ground. I wouldn't agree with you, but hey, if you find a use for this, it's fine by me :) And yes, it's not accurate in any way. If you ask me, I'm just looking at roleplaying from such a different angle that comparison doesn't really work. To sum up, the Five-dimensional model and the GNS-model have very different premises.

from "Simulationism: The Right to Dream"

It's a hard realization: devoted Simulationist play is a fringe interest

On the other hand, simulationism is a marginal thing. This contradiction says a lot about how I feel about GNS, actually.

To get to the point, I don't like GNS. I think I see where it's coming from, and I guess I see where it's going to, but I don't agree with how it's done.
As a detail, I consider the use of the word "simulationism" to be outright misleading and that in itself makes the model inconvenient to use. (I don't agree with the Ron's defense.) But that aside...

I can't really use GNS to discuss preferences. It's hard to describe games with it, because it doesn't say a lot about them, except "most games are simulationist". WoD and D&D and Rulemonster under one banner? That in itself should point out that it's not too useful for most of us.

(WoD-games are about immersion and narration, but gets into trouble because of it's schitzophrenic attitude towards methods. In any case, there's not too much effort towards realism. D&D is about methods and challenge, and to some extent contextual realism. Methods decide realism, that's D&D for you. Rolemaster tries to do it the other way around: fitting methods into realism. It shows little interest in narration or immersion. Note that I'm not talking about GNS-narrative here.)

A big issue for me about the GNS is the simulationism, and how it's defined. From my point of view, it tries to wrap up methodism, immersion and realism in one package. I basicly agree with what is said about gamism, even if I think it's described in a somewhat difficult way, but then again narrativism is defined to be such a tight fit, that a lot of what people would normally call narrative doesn't fit in.

For example, there's this guy I know, Ville Vuorela (who is by many considered to be a great gamemaster). You can read his notes on   "Burger's school of roleplaying" (the third paragraph pretty much nails it) and you can also note what he says on "Thoughts on railroading..." I don't see that fitting anywhere on the GNS-chart.

From "Burger's School of Roleplaying":

However, my interest in roleplaying lies in telling stories and creating an interesting chronological narrative of adventures, events and character development, similar to that found in literature, or in movies where events take place along a prolonged chronological continuum. While it does not exclude character immersion as a possible goal for the players (and I am always ready applaud to good roleplayers, like most of the LARPers I know), my task as a gamemaster is to be a gate between the setting which is where the characters are, and the real world which is where me and my players reside. I am telling a story and the players listen, giving feedback and suggestions in the form of character actions. But my focus, my sole purpose of existence during a roleplaying session is to tell that story! Period.

That doesn't sound like GNS-narrativism to me, if you compare it with the following.

from "Narrativism: Story Now"
In Narrativism, by contrast, the major source of themes are the ones that are brought to the table by the players / GM (if there is one) regardless of the genre or setting used. So, to sum up, themes in Nar play are created by the participants and that's the point; themes in Sim play are already present in the Dream, reinforced by the play, and kind of a by-product.

(also:)
Narrativist play makes special use of the general role-playing principle that the participants are simultaneously authors and audience

I see this as a problem; People can be "all about the story" and be clearly not GNS-narrativist (which by name suggests that it's about stories). I mean, no, you can't just pick words and define them as you like, if you're trying to communicate with other people. And that's what I think models should do. They should provide both tools and subjects for discussion. If you can't go "that's not what narrativism is about", then you're ending the discussion. All you can talk about is what some guy somewhere has defined something to be. That would be okay, if those definitions would be useful as tools. GNS is not, mostly because it doesn't provide convinient labels. Communication is very much about labels, and the attempt to understand what does the other person fit under his label.

Also, Ville's aproach is called simulationist. My approach is called simulationist, because I consider realism so much. We play in significantly different ways; I didn't really fit in to Ville's campaign last time I tried, and he propably wouldn't care for my campaigns.

Ville mentions Mike Pohjola, who recently wrote an article in response to reactions to his game, Myrskyn aika

I'll quote some parts:

from "You Suck!":

"The game shouldn't pose character immersion as the only goal in role-playing games." -shpr I'm sorry, but for me it is the only goal.

Personally, I hate rules. They're a remnant from strategy games, and rarely do anything to enhance role-playing.

Hello immersion, good bye methods. The Turku-school is defined as simulationist, and here we have MikeP, who could be referred to as "the definitive Turku-player", totally dissing one part of what simulationism is supposed to be about. I see a problem.

So, let's get to the GNS-itself.

From "Simulationism: The Right to Dream":

different types of Simulationist play can address very different things, ranging from a focus on characters' most deep-psychology processes, to a focus on the kinetic impact and physiological effects of weapons, to a focus on economic trends and politics, and more.

Now, this here should be a warning sign. All those things under one banner? In a way, true, but think about it; the people who go for the psychology and the people who go for the kinetic impact, do they actually play alike? What do they really have in common?

Clearly, System is a major design element here, as the causal anchor among the other elements. As I outlined in the previous essay, System is mainly composed of character creation, resolution, and reward mechanics.

The game engine, whatever it might be, is not to be messed with.

Now, that's clearly a method statement. There's a whole lot about methods. On and on and on about methods actually. That's understandable; after all, this is a methodist forum. But there's a problem in the assumptions. People don't really play this way. For example, according a recent poll, something like 80% of the members of Alter Ego (the Helsinki university roleplaying association) accept that a GM has the right to overrule the game engine. That's some 200 roleplayers, and we didn't ask the rest. So if most players are supposed to be simulationists (and it's said to be especially true here in Finland) how can this be?

Realism and rules clash all the time in RPG's. It's one of the biggest causes for conflict, and one of the reasons why everybody keeps bringing on their own systems; they want it to coincide with what they think is realistic. The people on one side of that fence can rarely get along with the people on the other side.

Some other major points of conflict:
- Story vs. rules; can the GM mess with the system to get "the right results"? (narration vs. methodism)
- Immersion vs. narration; GM: "You notice you've developed a crush on her." Player: "I and only I can decide what my character feels like, not the GM and not the rules."
- Narration vs. realism; players: Player: "I jump through" GM: "You can't break the glass enough to get through, but you cut yourself horribly in attempt."
- Challenge vs. realism; GM: "There's a guard there." Players: "Just one? At the door to the armoury? Even when the alarm went off?"

I think it'd be nice to have a model which deals with all this. (Not deal as in solves, but deal as in analyzes it in a compact way and offers clear guidelines for possible solutions.)

From "GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory"

Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play

(and a little before that)

Character: a fictional person or entity.
System: a means by which in-game events are determined to occur.
Setting: where the character is, in the broadest sense
Situation: a problem or circumstance faced by the character.
Color: any details or illustrations or nuances that provide atmosphere.

Okay, so simulationism is supposed to be about characters, system, setting, situation and color? All of that?

And what if you're like me; not interested in the system. Look at what I told before about my preferences. Immersion and narration, backed by realism, bending methods if in conflict with any of the above, ignoring challenges. Where do I fit in? And on the other hand, if we have this guy who is  first and foremost a realist, highly interested in methods and challenge and doesn't care about immersion and narration, where does he fit in? With the guy who creates games about moral issues, but demands that they are played in a strictly immersionistic and realistic way ("the lesson is for the players, not the characters")?

When it comes to talking about player/gameplay preferences, the GNS-model just doesn't cut it. "I'm a simulationist, except that I do accept narrativism and gamism as a base for choice. Except that I want others to keep up the feeling of immersion while their at it, so I can keep mine, and I don't like competition. And I'm fine if the GM messes with the rules, and by the way I like fast and simple rules, and as a GM I try to give as much space for the players to create their own stories, you know, as long as they don't conflict with what has been said before, you know, realism..." Except, except.

Talking about preferences is just about the most important thing that people should discuss with each other, if they are going to actually do some roleplaying together. That's what this model is meant for.

I don't want to say that GNS is stupid and be dumped. It has good points, and as "school of narrativism", "school of simulationism" and "school of gamism" they can serve as fodder for many interesting (theoretical and propably pretty much methodist) discussions; just not about things I'm interested in. GNS isn't really a chart. It's points. Points are only interesting if you're near them.

- Risto Ravela

[Mike Holmes]

Great discussion. But I have to take a time out:

You know, a lot of people would disagree with you, and I would be one of them. I think roleplaying games should have rules. Some people would say that it's a game, and so there should be challenges. Some people would say that without the immersive aspect it's not true roleplaying. Preferences. You don't seem to consider methods or realism important. That's fine, but it's just a preference

Itse, this statmement is more titantically ironic than you can know. MJ is a game designer, you see. MJ, how long is Multiverser? Itse, MJ is more about the rules than the vast majority of designers.

He was, in fact, pointing out that the only common thing amongst people of all preferences who claim to be playing RPGs is that there's some shared imagined space. Not that you can't have anything more, just that this is the minimum requirement.

In really gamist, on the map D&D, the shared space is the characters conversing. When we say space, it doesn't mean a three dimensional space, just a Venn diagram of shared knowledge of some sort that's not represented elsewhere.

I've read the quote above like five times now, and it makes me smile each time. :-)

Mike

[Sean]

Hi, Itse -

Well, I don't feel a need to argue GNS with you if you don't like it. I will say that reading over your post tended to confirm my first impression that you were primarily Sim-oriented (or at least theorize your experience in a Sim-oriented way), and the way Ville describes himself (story-oriented but immersion-neutral) sure sounds like someone who knows how to get Narrativist play going to me. But I don't find his description to be at all inconsistent with Ron's definitions, at least in the paragraph you quote.

GNS as I understand it is primarily about what you want out of your role-playing and what is fun for you in role-playing. Well, and the ways to get that, of course. A historical pitfall of RPG design is that many games have 'wanted' to facilitate Gam or Nar and gotten bogged down (relative to those design goals) in concerns that are more facilitating to Sim-oriented play. One reason, perhaps, for the 80% of 'fudgers' in your club is that they are playing games that don't really facilitate what they want to be getting out of them. (Poor facilitation of creative agenda by many games is also one reason for the myth that 'strong GMs' are needed, I think, but no point discussing that in this thread.)

Thanks for the interesting posts!

[Itse]

Mike Holmes:

Itse, this statmement is more titantically ironic than you can know. MJ is a game designer, you see. MJ, how long is Multiverser? Itse, MJ is more about the rules than the vast majority of designers.

Actually I did know that, since I've done enough reading. But see, my point was, that talking about "shared imaginary space" isn't really saying much anything. (Also note that I said "you seem". ;) I see that as a problem. Saying something like "roleplaying is about cooperative storytelling" is all very nice, but it misses the target. It doesn't explain anything. It's just a one-liner, understandable for people who are already "in the know" and not very informative in any case.

I'm not defining roleplaying here. I'm trying to take a look at what's in it and what the issues are. I don't agree with the "roleplaying can be anything / anything can be roleplayed" -school, mostly because it makes no sense. Roleplaying clearly has it's own issues, which can be and should be recognized, but very often are not. This is not "a unifying theory". It's tools for the handicapped; roleplaying discussion is IMO severely handicapped at the moment, since it's lacking terminology.

Of course, this doesn't really apply here in the Forge. Mostly, people here have learned to communicate with each other pretty well, without the need to be precise and compact and easy to understand. (Just look at the articles on GNS. They're not exactly easy on the eyes.) Outside, there's not much real discussion going on. Communication about roleplaying mostly fails, if the people discussing don't already share common interests. On the other hand, people don't seem to recognize conflicts of interests.  I don't think that it's because people are stupid. It's because they don't have the tools.

You don't really see discussions like "british comedy is not funny", or endless discussions about "Star Trek sucks / does not". Or if you do, you see the discussions between sci-fi fans, and mostly actually between people who like similar sci-fi. People who only like French drama (with the mandatory sexual issues) mostly don't get into arguments with people who like Star Trek, because they already know that it's pointless.
Roleplayers have not reached that point, and are a long way from it. A lot of discussion about roleplaying is on the level of drama vs. special effects.

We have words for discussing movies. Everybody knows about acting, directing, special-effects, sets, camera-work, even about mandatory-funny-sidekicks and the mandatory-racial-minority. Some people like realism and introspection, others side like fantasy and escapism. One side goes for credible acting, the other side doesnt' care, but they care about special effects and cool gadgets. Both know where they stand, they know that the other side exists and they also know the basics of what they think is interesting. They don't have to talk about it, or if they do want to talk about it, they have some basic understanding about what the issues are, and so they don't get infuriated too easily.

I think we should put more effort into reaching that.

Sean:

Well, I don't feel a need to argue GNS with you if you don't like it.

I so agree. I don't really want to discuss GNS. I just wanted to make it very clear where I stand with it, and I wanted to talk about why, because I think it goes a long way in explaining where I come from with this. By saying what problems I have with GNS is really talking about what I tried to do with that model-thingie.

But it's really like talking about dance music. I totally respect it, I can understand why some people like it, but I really shouldn't talk too much about it, because I just don't agree with the way it's done and will always be "wrong" in the eyes of the people who like it. (If you got me drunk I might start bashing it with a 50 lbs hammer. You know, not very smart, but very satisfying, even if you never hit the target :)

I don't generally like to argue (debate yes, argue no), but I know I always sound like I'm arguing. It's so bad that it's really a personal problem, because I know I have a hard time getting heard, especially with people who don't know me. "Just another flaming idiot". I get that a lot. Still, I always make an effort to be constructive, even if I fail to sound like it. I just have a hard time expressing myself any other way.

*sigh*

- Risto Ravela

[Eero Tuovinen]

Risto's model is a complex topic to evaluate, as there is a strong functional element to it all. Whether to give feedback about internal consistency, or about usefullness, that's the problem. No wonder only few have felt they have anything to say.

does the player play for the thrill of upholding a rules system, or is the point to "stay true to the game". I'm not saying i think it's crap, just that I dont understand it.

A good question, but this model does not answer it. "Ask the methodist."

This model is not about "why", it's about "what" and "how". This model does not mean to answer the question of "why people play" or "why people like x". It's about "roleplaying games have parts A, B, C and D, and people can be pretty neatly defined by how they consider these things to be related". It's also about "if you play considering A, you can get along with players who like A." Trying to figure out why people do the things they do is very difficult, and someone else can go there. (Actually, other people already have.)

This is key to understanding the epistemology of the model. When evaluating it, it's thus imperative to consider whether roleplaying indeed has these elements as building blocks. Evidently they are factors, but there is a pressing question here: are they essential? Risto seems to think so, but what if they are not? What if, say, realism isn't an important part at all, but actually is only needed for preferense? Then, what ever implications the model has, they would likewise hold for the "die-type model" where games are evaluated based on the type of die-mechanic they use (this is a joke). The model depends clearly on the actual meaning of the four (five) categories. If these are the essential parts that mold the roleplaying experience, then it is useful and meaningful to separate them and evaluate a game or gaming preference based on them. As a conclusion, I'd say that Risto's model is based on observation and distillation of principles, based on his understanding of what roleplaying is (or what gives kicks, if you will). This would seem an useful viewpoint when evaluating it.

As I understand it, Risto differentiates between five elements that are necessary for a roleplaying game, and more importantly, posits that the balance of those elements is somehow connected with the play experience. Mostly this seems clearly reasoned: only in special cases can one expect a player interested in one of these to be satisfied with play focusing on another. In that sense I see no fault in the model.

Oh, about the realism. That's one of the things I wanted to pick out and say "this is a big thing in RPG's". Yes, I would say that it's bigger than in any other narrative art form. The easiest way to notice the difference is to look at just about any film with super powers; I don't recall ever seeing a film, in which the powers of the supernaturals are defined in a consistent way. In any other art form, it's quite okay that a person can first bend iron bars but not lift a car, even if bending those bars would've actually taken much more strength than lifting the car. Or vice versa. If you asked Joss Whedon who was the stronger one of two demons Buffy fought in two different episodes, would he have an answer? Quite propably not. It's not an issue. In RPG's, it is. In RPG, you mostly can't just come up with things like "oh and now he hits his hand through the wall". You'd consider the strength of the wall and the strength of the blow. Realism.

Here we go. Regardless of the viability of the overall approach, these are the kinds of things I flat out disagree with. There is no reason whatsoever for realism in roleplaying games. By trying to define roleplaying by empiristic means you draw these conclusions that are grounded in your own play experience and general history of roleplaying. Do you realize, that the exactly same argument about what something is about would have worked for old mute cinema? "As all movies done to date are stupid farce and comedy, it's clear that movie is not a suitable medium for serious drama, like theater is." or something like that. To reiterate, I'll quote you again:

In RPG, you mostly can't just come up with things like "oh and now he hits his hand through the wall". You'd consider the strength of the wall and the strength of the blow. Realism.

Actually, I've played whole campaigns where we indeedy came up with things like this. "And now he shoots his solar beam through Turku, and buildings collapse."; "I'll jump to the roof of the building."; "My character simply runs through the wall." In all these cases there was no need for considerations of the relative strengths, or even any dice rolling, as the system was drama-based.

I might sound a little harsh here, and apologies for that. Realism is, however, entirely voluntary, and in no way central to roleplaying. The same holds, as we have discussed, for immersionism (which I indeed consider closely related ideas).

To add something, I'd say that now that we have five dimensions (methods, immersion, realism, narration and challenges, if more dimensions seem necessary, I might have to abandon this), an rpg should propably have at least three of them. Pick any three.

So you'd finally consider Once Upon a Time (methods+narration+challenges) a roleplaying game? Seems we are progressing :)

[Itse]

Sometimes it's much better when it's someone else explaining your stuff. Thank you Eero.

Realism is, however, entirely voluntary, and in no way central to roleplaying. The same holds, as we have discussed, for immersionism (which I indeed consider closely related ideas).

That's exactly the kind of things I would like to be discussed. One way of looking at my model would be: "are preferential issues about these dimensions central to a lot of rpg-discussion". It aims to be more than that, but that in itself would be nice.

When I look around, I find realism to have a lot to do with roleplaying. Not for you, I know, but a lot of people consider realism to be important, and demand it in any game they play. They are unsatisfied if it's not there. Much effort is usually put into setting the context, because without clearly setting the context you can't have contextual reality, and most people are uncomfortable without it. Lots of rules also helps to establish the context, if they form an understandable whole. If the plaintext explanation of the world doesn't match the rules, the context becomes muddled, and some people get uncomfortable again.

Many here in the Forge seem to agree with you on that realism is not important. Still, there is a lot of energy spent on explaining "forget realism". At the moment, most rpg's are about realism, and most roleplayers consider it to be important, even if it's not really a conscious decision. Personally, I'd like to state that only (certain) methods and immersion are essential to roleplaying, and that narration, challenge and realism are all just options. But it would be pointless. I can see people playing just fine without immersion, and my close friends play happily without ever concerning themselves with methods.

The 3/5 rule is not a part of the model. It's just something I thought  might help people understand what I'm after. The model does not mean to state that "every rpg has these parts", but instead "rpg's tend to have these parts, and if they don't, they make a point out of it." So, you can dump any one of these, but every time you do, you should say so to those you intend to play with. Otherwise you're asking for conflict which could have been avoided with two words. If you design a game which doesn't concern itself with some of these dimensions, you should say so.

Text above is on the point, text below is just somewhere around it.

The above would be saying something to game designers actually. (Didn't mean to, really.) But it seems that many designers have already noted this, since games tend to have explanations about what is not important in the game. Some games want to rule out challenge. Some new games rule out immersion. From this point of view, Myrskyn Aika took a beating because it didn't say what it was and was not about, and so people just looked for the usual stuff and were disappointed.

Note that D&D-type games are also a lot about realism, even if they do set methods first. (Methods are what sets the reality.) It seems to be very important to some players that the GM can't "just come up" with things. (They want to know the rules behind any monster, they want to be sure that something is "possible". They are willing accept that anything is plausible if it's possible, because that's just how it goes. But it's not enough that it seems plausible, there has to be rules for it, because rules define reality, and so rules and only rules make things possible. The funny thing to me is, that if the GM makes up rules for the monster, it's fine. "Just as long as it's not arbitrary." But then again, there are rules for/to creating monsters in D&D3, iirc)

I think one of the reasons "big games" sell so well is that they at least try to offer something for everybody. Even D&D tries to cater to the narrative crowd (based on what I've heard). The focus is not there, but they note the existence of the dimension. White Wolf is quite succesful in attracting the challenge/method -oriented crowd, even if that's not what the games focus on.

So you'd finally consider Once Upon a Time (methods+narration+challenges) a roleplaying game? Seems we are progressing :)

Damn! Hitting me on a weak spot :) I can't think of OPaT as an RPG to start with, but I'm just going to have to admit that it's at least very very close. Maybe it's just too far away from my RPG-preferences. (Which is in a way odd, since I enjoy the game very much.) So, I have to admit I can't really challenge you on that.

The thing I might argue about OPaT that most of the games I've played in were not really narrative. They didn't really consider themes, plots or dramatic style. In other words, it's supposed to create stories, but actually it just tends to create a nonsensical series of events. Maybe that's what makes it a borderline case.

(If you didn't get that: The Monopoly you buy from the store isn't an rpg. On the other hand, if you truly immerse to it and narrate the events, a game of Monopoly can turn into a roleplaying. In OPaT, it goes the other way around. The game you buy from the store is (at least in a way) an RPG, but the actual gameplay rarely is. The game is itself about methodic challenging narration, but the sessions are in fact rarely narrative.)

By the way, if I did try to define roleplaying, I'd look for specific definitive methods and draw the line there.

- Risto Ravela

[pete_darby]

Realism is a red herring: whos realism, which realism...?

Are we really talking about...

1. Consistency
2. Authenticity
or
3. Plausibility

All three are quite separate, yet can be mutually re-inforcing.

Generally, I'd say that all three are desirable for an RPG. Realism.. ach, I get enough of that in real life.

[Itse]

pete_darby:

Are we really talking about...

1. Consistency
2. Authenticity
or
3. Plausibility

All three are quite separate, yet can be mutually re-inforcing

Five-Dimensional model:

Realism: contextual possibility, plausibility and consistency. In other words, within the reality of the game, can it happen, would it happen, and does it fit with what has been previously established?

You're right in the fact that they (I would substitute authenticity with possibility) can be handled as separate issues, and yes, sometimes propably should be. I'll be getting into that, if it seems that people have some interest in this model / way of thinking.
("That" would be expanding the model into subsets of the main dimensions. The difference is that dimensions are separate, but subsets of dimensions are very much connected.)

I haven't really thought about this that much, but here's some things that have come to mind. Things that should be or could be discussed under each dimension. Some of them don't have anything to do with the model itself. This is more just brainstorming than developing.

Methods
- game rules / metagame rules
- "explicism": "All methods should be explicitly agreed on, implicism leads to confusion"

Immersion
- character immersion ("I am that person")
- situation immersion ("I am in that situation")
- outside/inside credibility: "The character makes sense to others" vs. "The character makes sense to me"

Realism:
- simulation: events "can be deducted" from the starting point
- plausibility: how to achieve ("The suspension of disbelief")
- consistency: how to agree on what is... / how and when to break it
- possible: "surprisingly unnecessary" / related to what?

Narration:
- "stories come to be" / "we create stories" / "we tell stories" /
"we experience stories"
- how the story is told (powerful /potential / hazardious / awful narrative techniques)
- stories vs. The Plot (little stories / big stories)
[/quote]

- Risto Ravela