Something I cooked up, a model if you like

[Eero Tuovinen]

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.

Ahhah, here's the beef: "Are preferential issues about these dimensions central to rpg-discussion?" The answer to this question is ultimately the point here. And, as everybody knows, I can answer anything, anytime, if it is clearly articulated. Let's check it out:

The big, old powergaming debate anywhere, anytime: on the one hand we have powergamers, who usually don't have any kind of discourse ("We're here to have fun, dammit!"). On the other there are all the detractors, which includes largely everyone else. Issue each a copy of the Ravela manifest, and watch what happens...

Well, seriously now. Let's try putting some select Forge problems to 4D-terminology, and see if they can be seen as preferential issues. How useful this is depends on how common or universal you deem the Forge experience.

First, "My wife doesn't want to play illusionist": Illusionist play practice should be easily definable, as it's one of the more usual stumbling blocks. I know, the issue is one of the favourites with the crowds here. 4D defines the most common illusionist preference as high on immersion and possibly high on narration (although there are other kinds), as far as the player is conserned (we haven't yet heard how Risto works the difference between player and GM preferences). Does this definition do an useful characterization, as compared to the natural one? Is it truthful to say "I don't like illusionism, because there's not enough method/realism/challenge there?" or something similar? Does this capture something more basic than the GSN interpretation of illusionism being about narrative control? I feel not, as I really do think that railroading, hiding information and the whole shebang really is about narrative control (although immersion some times has a back seat there), it's about who and how decides on the plot.

One common foible of roleplayers is that powergamer thing mentioned above. By 4D it's about challenge/method play preference clashing with the others, I believe. Here we'd probably need Risto's thoughts on how the preferences aren't actually mutually exclusive (the most controversial part to my mind), but overall this seems to work allright: the people can explain quite believably why they like certain kind of play or they don't. Works like with GNS, which characterizes the phenomenon as especially pointed intraplayer gamism.

Let's take another one, the dreaded performance anxiety (I'm calling these as they come to mind): here 4D is relatively simple; as I read it, the theory says that challenge is the source of the demand for performance, and therefore a game that measures player ability is high on challenge. This is simple compared to GSN, which internalizes challenge as a part of the social conduct of the game, only making it explicit in the gamist mode. It's a more complex question whether challenge really is an attribute of the game and not the group, of course.

From these semirandom choices of roleplaying questions we can say that 4D characterizes at least something. If I were Risto, I'd take careful note about the failure with illusionism - it seems that what ever it is 4D does, it isn't about the control of the diegesis (narrative control), one of the most central parts of play experience and the source of many disagreements. Is this because Risto is a strong GM kind of guy? Be that as it may, I have a suggestion for the model: if the goal is indeed to give words to the "central questions of the rpg-discussion", maybe Risto should review methodically some of the classic disagreements and interpret them as preference issues, like I did above. That could reveal more holes for fixing.

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.

Nah, you're just thinking about it in a too complex manner. You said it yourself; movie crowd won't think twice about why Superman can do this and not do that: it's clear on a instinctive level that it's all just to make a harmonious story, not to prove that a logical world can exist inside the movie.

The amount of people really needing strict, rules-enforced realism is marginal. One of the deeper realizations of Ron Edwards to my mind is the claim that Gamist and Narrativist play is actually more natural than Simulationist; whether it's true or not, the inverse is clearly false. You can test this for yourself, if you wish, by using such basic narrative techniques that most of your players will never notice or complain: leave a central character intentionally away from an important scene, and bring him in to it on the just right dramatic moment. This is totally unrealistic, but I want to see the player who objects. It is truly the same with all the other examples. I just today told a player that I actually couldn't care less whether a given character "could" get somewhere in time - the player was quite prepared to go to some useless contortions about it, to accomodate the player who's character we were talking about. Can't say the player complained when I explained that it just isn't that interesting to try to sabotage the interesting bits by dwelling on the minutiae.

What I'm trying to say with the triatribe is that you have to differentiate between what historically is the case, and what is possible. What you're seeing concerning realism (and immersionism, I believe) is acculturation, not natural development. Microsoft Office being common doesn't make the accursed automatic capitals and other "features" an integral part of text editors, and likewise realism isn't a natural part of roleplaying - it's just something we see because it's the only direction you can take D&D and still have a palatable game.

Anyway, this doesn't affect your model one whit. It's a fact that realism is an important consideration for many players, red herring though it may be. Therefore it should be in the model, assuming it strives for an usable vocabulary. Otherwise you'll soon be with us theorists, talking about "simulationism" and other non-natural but logically sound terms ;)

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.

To give the alternative view, Myrskyn Aika bombed (in reviews, not the market) because it had exactly the same stuff we've seen in the games since -84, just with less rules. Low points-of-contact fantasy heartbreaker, if you will (and if such a thing is possible). From this viewpoint, it'd probably be more important to point out what you have than what you don't ;)

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.

Well, playing the game certainly demands a roleplaying frame of mind, if you will. It's the same with other games: certainly most roleplaying games will be no less insensible if the player's don't try to make sense.

I've myself played the game in a strong social contract, where the winner is only declared if denying the win would be disgraceful. Works actually quite well, as forcing the story becomes a losing tactic. Could just be that we wanted to tell stories with a rules framework, while you wanted to play a game.

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

This is quite illuminating. To elucidate, we've talked about this with Risto before; he generally insists that certain radical play forms (no GM, for example) aren't actually roleplaying, and therefore don't count when trying to topple his theories. Acceptable of course, as long as you remember he's probably satisfied with theorizing about a more narrow set of play forms than you are.

Anyway. What would you consider definitive methods, then? No need for a definitive answer, just some ideas. Having a GM, possibly? Rules for conflict resolution? Preplanned plot, or no preplanned plot? Sitting in a ring? Eating while doin' it?

[Itse]

Eero Tuovinen:

- Illusionist play practice should be easily definable, as it's one of the more usual stumbling blocks

Illusionism is about several issues, some of which are not really about roleplaying preferences. See below.

- 4D defines the most common illusionist preference as high on immersion and possibly high on narration

- GNS interpretation illusionism being about narrative control.

- it's about who and how decides on the plot.

"Who" and "how" are two different questions and they can relate to different problems.

If it's about narrative control, it's about choice of methods, and if there is a problem, it should be asked what it is. "Doesn't like illusionism" isn't saying much. "Why" should be asked. Let's assume the players feel the chosen method (illusionism) is affecting their challenges and the realism of the world.

The big issue is about trust. That's not really a roleplaying issue, it's a social issue. For illusionism to work, the players have to feel confident in that the GM is really playing the way they have agreed on. If the game should be about challenges, the players have to trust the GM to keep the challenges fair. If the player feels the satisfaction of solving the challenge is robbed, then he clearly doesn't trust that the GM is giving him a real challenge.

Another issue might be about realism. The players are not confident in the consistency of the world, or they find themselves questioning everything that happens. The suspension of disbelief isn't working. This also relates to trust. The players don't trust that the GM isn't doing impossible or inconsistent things behind the scenes.

The group should discuss what it is that is wanted from the game. Are there supposed to be (true) challenges? Does it have to be realistic behind the scenes too? (Is plausible enough?) This now comes back to the 5D.  When we are aware of the dimensions, we can start by making statements like "this game will have true challenges for the players and it will be realistic." The players should then be able to trust that, no matter what the method. ("I don't trust you" is not a nice way of putting it, I recommend "I'm not comfortable with that".) If they don't, I wouldn't recommend using illusionism.

(Btw, thank you for providing me with an idea on what to talk about in the upcoming explanation of what this model is about. The issue of possibility is very much an issue about "does it have be realistic behind the scenes too". Maybe authenticity is the better word for possibility, like pete_darby said.)

Another possible reason for not liking illusionism might be that the player prefers to get clear directions from the GM. He just likes to play with the curtain open, not having to worry about things like "am I going the right way?". That to me looks very much like a narrational preference. The player wants a clear focus on the narration. If and when the player tells that to the GM, then a sign should come up inside the GM's head which says "streamlined narration and the illusionist method are a poor match ". If the problem is that the player just doesn't want to give all that control to the GM, then it's just a matter of methodic preference. (This model doesn't really do much in helping to identify those beforehand.)

So, Illusionism and 5D would mean not stopping at "don't like illusionism", but asking "where's the problem". The answer can be method vs. challenge, it can be method vs. realism and it can be method vs. narration. It might be purely a method-preference thing. (It might even be something else.) The last two are difficult to solve, the first two are really about agreement and trust. I see this recognition as a powerful one.

"Is it okay that the players don't realize that they are being manipulated and what if they notice" is then again not really a roleplaying issue. Are you trying to do something which is not agreed on? If you do this, sure, you'll easily piss the players off.

Sidetrack: It seems that you have a misconception about how I define immersion. Illusionism (as defined by some threads in the Forge), would not be about 5D-immersion. Illusionism is neither a) making statements about "can ooc-information be used" nor b) making statements about "is character psychogoly an issue". (Immersion does not say: "each player controls one character and each character is only controlled by one player and all information should be given through the five basic senses of the character".)

One common foible of roleplayers is that powergamer thing mentioned above. By 4D it's about challenge/method play preference clashing with the others, I believe. Here we'd probably need Risto's thoughts on how the preferences aren't actually mutually exclusive

They are not exclusive by definition, but they can be in practise. In specific situations you are often forced to make a choice. That's why it's imporant to acknowledge these basic preferences early on.

Personally, I consider powergaming to be an issue of dysfunctional social behaviour, and thus not really about roleplaying. As a roleplaying issue, I'd say it's mostly problems about challenge. It's about
1) there is no challenge, because the character is so powerful. (This might actually be what the powergamer is after. Power is liberating.)
2) the challenge of gathering power for the character is not interesting for the rest of the playgroup.

By 5D, you should define from the start if the game should have challenges for the players. If that's the case and the powergamer messes with the challenge by coming up with a character that's too strong, then he's not playing nice.

One common problem is the rampant use of power. Powergamers are easily applying their power in every possible situation, and so they usually end up breaking up realism and narration. If the game should be about realism and the powergamer breaks that, then again it's not playing nice.

The real problem is often that the powergamers refuse to co-operate. They break the game others are playing. "Play nice or get out" is the best answer.

The 5D can't really help on fitting the powerplayer in to a game group, if it's not clear what the others like and don't like and what's their problem with the powergamer. (One of the problems I see in the rpg-field is that we have a lot of terminology for the dysfunctional behaviour, but much less for the rest.)

(I have often considered that a reason why powergamers do the way they do might be that character power gives them more control over the the events. Changing methods towards more player control might help.)

it seems that what ever it is 4D does, it isn't about the control of the diegesis (narrative control), one of the most central parts of play experience and the source of many disagreements. Is this because Risto is a strong GM kind of guy

Narrative control is a method issue, and yes, this model doesn't do much to help that discussion. (I might do something by adding it to a list of "common issues concerning methods") Personally, I don't see it as a big issue. I am a strong GM and that might be the reason. I say what goes and I've so far had about one player complaining, ever. I believe it's because I'm somehow naturally good at establishing trust. Players trust that I work to give them a good game, and if something goes wrong, they trust that I did give it my best shot.

Also, I usually talk a lot with my players before we start playing, especially during character creation. I tell them where the problems with their characters and the game might be and I tell them what they should be thinking about when creating their characters. I usually end up implicitly saying a lot of things like "methods are not important", "the background can be a little unrealistic" and "this game is about the story". That's one of the reasons why this model is a natural way of thinking for me.

As a GM, I never have problems with my players. Not even at con games. I must be doing something right. (Problems are more common when I play. I suspect one of the reasons is that usually there has been a lot less talk with the GM before we started playing.)

we haven't yet heard how Risto works the difference between player and GM preferences

Dimensional model:

"When planning a roleplaying game, decisions should be made on how these are meant to relate to each other".

I work it by making a clear statement that they should look at the issues and settle them before they start playing. Imagine a GM and some players arguing, because the players just understood that the GM is using illusionism on them. The GM states that "okay, this is a methods vs. narration issue, and I state that methods go, and another method we have is that the GM decides the methods, so shut up." Now, note how the methods are defined. "recognized and agreed on". Here,
the GM didn't inform the players on the fact that he was going to use a lot of power behind the scenes. The methods are not acknowledged, and so it doesn't matter if the GM has the power to decide this or not. It's not a method if the players don't know it's there, and obviously there's no agreement which says that the GM can refuse to tell players what the methods are. The model doesn't work if there's no talking. By putting "acknowledged" right there in the definition of the method, I am saying you should talk about your methods if you care about them. If the group decides that methods are not that important, there shouldn't be a problem with the methods the GM uses. Social convention can be enough.

I have also tried to help by pointing out that conflicts between preferences can be solved. That relates to how I defined the types of gameplay. The point is in recognizing that different gameplay preferences can be at least to some extent satisfied simultaneously, if some thought is put into it. I have even done some of that thinking for them.

A lot of issues I have seen discussed in the Forge are really about the fact that the participants in the game have different preferences. A lot of it is about differences between GM and player preferences. A lot of that is really about the fact that the GM wants to decide what goes, but I find it surprising that "again, you leaped before you looked" is not more common comment. If you don't want to discuss your preferences before playing, you're just asking for trouble. You should at least talk about the dimensions which you consider the most important.

The 5D model (with some examples to clear the issues up, which I will be creating at some point) tries to make the discussion on (dimensional) preferences faster and easier. "A model for discussing preferential issues about roleplaying."

Damn, do I ever go on and on... I propably should try to say less with one post.

[Itse]

There could be a sixth dimension, participation. Does the player get to experience and influence game events?

It might be that this model is getting bloated. I don't mind at the moment, since this is the building phase anyway. It might be that all this ends up to be a bunch of gameplay advice on how to deal with certain problems. That'd be fine with me.

Issues concerning participation:
Participation vs. Method: "I'm just rolling dice here, I'm just a spectator on how my character is doing."
Participation vs. Immersion: "my character just wants to be left alone" "go away, your character doesn't hear this."
Participation vs. Realism: "your character wouldn't be there"
Participation vs. Narration: "I don't know what to do with the story" "good story, but we were just an audience"
Participation vs. Challenge: Hmm, not much of an issue really.

Challenge always means participation, without it there's no challenge. Is one actually a part of the other, or are they both parts of something else?

I would say that Challenge is actually a part of Participation, since participation is about both experience and influence, and influence is what challenge is about. What the players do decides things. Challenge means influence means participation, and participation usually means challenge.

Although Challenge is such a big issue that it's pretty much a dimension in itself.

Hmm. I wonder where this is going at?

[Eero Tuovinen]

It might be that this model is getting bloated. I don't mind at the moment, since this is the building phase anyway. It might be that all this ends up to be a bunch of gameplay advice on how to deal with certain problems. That'd be fine with me.

Indeed. As far as I've grogged what you are going for, I'd almost suggest that you are developing a vocabulary first, and a model as an aftertought. Think about it: you have these consepts, like realism, immersion, story, and you want to talk about them. The model is a secondary consern, and it seems to me that there is no primary reason for you to hold on to the idea of these consepts residing in specific dimensions, with a given game experience defined by the dimensions.

It's most clearly seen with this last dimension, participation. How, and why, is it a dimension, as opposed to simply a consept or factor of play? There is many ways of participating in a game, many possible experiences and ways of influencing. How is this a one-dimensional continuum? And the same could easily hold for the other dimensions, if they are perceived in such a way; realism, immersion, story, challenge, are all aspects of play experience, but each of them is an object of a singular form, with no clear reason to be stretched into a line of a model.

To illustrate: if there is a disagreement on, say, how I as a player have to know all kinds of fiddly bits about swordplay to play an effective fighter in this given system, in what way is it more useful to resort to the model here? If I already have the concepts, like Realism, Challenge and Immersion, is there really anything valuable to be gained from the model itself. I can just say "Hey, this challenge aspect, although it bolsters realism, makes it impossible for me to immerse myself, which is really the thing that's important to me." No need for the dimensions per se.

Answer this: what else the model gives us? Your self-professed goal is to give a vocabulary (more natural one than the GSN is, that is) for talking about play preference. I suggest then as the best course identifying these terms and analysing them in solitude. How they relate to each other is a complex question answer of which might differ for each game. As a first step, consider them one at a time and be content to claim that these are each important concepts, and a successful game is predicated on an agreement on each and every one of them. Isn't that a true and exact statement on these dimensions? They each correspondent to a thing, which might or might not have a role in some form in the coming game. By considering and discussing them each within the group many of the misunderstandings can be averted.

By choosing a criterion like the above for the consideration, you can also decide what consepts are worthy of your model. Both Challenge and Participation, for example, are important consepts to all kinds of games, because the game has to take a stand on the matter. Even a game without challenge has to make the decision of excluding it, or risk disintegrating. Choose the dimensions based on this criterion, and write about the benefits and drawbacks of including each.

Hmm. I wonder where this is going at?

Well, calling it as I see it. Hope it helps.

[Mike Holmes]

Eero, good work on being "translator" of our dialectic to Risto. Risto, I think that the hardest problem that I'm having is finding the purpose of this model. All models like this describe RPGs in some fashion, but they have to have a goal, else one gets to the point that they have to create an infinitely complex model to represent the infinitely complex thing.

GNS does not try to discuss everything about RPGs. It only points to categorizations of priorities in play that have a tendency to conflict. As such the end product is useful in thwarting these issues.

So I find it hard to get into this discussion without knowing why you're making the model in the first place. What will I be able to do with an RPG categorized with the model that I wouldn't have been able to do with it previously once I understand the model?

Mike

[Itse]

Why I tried to form a model instead of just defining words?

Because the words in themselves are not as useful. There are a lot of words, but we don't really need them all. By coming up with more words we are more often than not just complicating things. If everybody tries to define the same things with words that are a little different from the ones the other guy used, messages get muddled. You can build a thousand tools, but mostly people need just a few. That's why it's a model. A model is limited. Sometimes limits are good.

Most rpg-conversation actually roll around just a few subjects, yet people mostly don't see that.

if there is a disagreement on, say, how I as a player have to know all kinds of fiddly bits about swordplay to play an effective fighter in this given system, in what way is it more useful to resort to the model here?

If the 5D would be used, there wouldn't really be a need for that disagreement. Or at least when that subject was analyzed and decided on, those same people shouldn't then have to argue about the damage-rules and then about how there are too many dice and too much rolling and so on. People go on and on about the exact same issues, because they don't see that they are the same issue. If people just recognize and accept that yes, this is just one of the questions in the eternal struggle between realism vs. narration, they would propably be happier. There would propably also be more sunshine and cute bunnies. Or at least, they would eventually grow smart enough to settle the issue before they start playing.

Consider this: If by setting 4-6 dimensions into a priority order one could solve 90% of disagreements before the game even begins, wouldn't that be something? I think the 5D might already do that, imperferct as it is.

5D was an attempt for a model simply because it stated that the problems of gameplay are not infinite. It sets limits on what you really need to talk about before the game begins. (Note that none of these issues usually are talked about before the game begins. People talk about each if the dimensions separately, if that, but they fail to mention how they are related. Just add reality and you get trouble.) You can come up with an infinite number of examples of things that people have disagreed about in games, but mostly they just come back to these few basic things.

And no, those issues are not covered by simulationism, gamism and narrativism. You can't say much anything about a player who is labeled a simulationist. You even can't say that two simulationists would propably get along. That's a big problem. "Logical" is only better than "natural" in theory.

[Mike Holmes]

From what it sounds like, you're model is a lot like the intention of GNS, to stop problems before they start. That's fine, it's all I really wanted to know. I just hadn't seen that stated up front anywhere.

You can't say much anything about a player who is labeled a simulationist. You even can't say that two simulationists would propably get along.

Yes you can. That's the point of the model. If two players prefer simulationism, then they're more likely to get along.

Now, if you're going to tell me that the model that you're creating will narrow down all play to the point that no problems of hair-splitting will ever occur, then I think you're incorrect. If your model simply intends to narrow down these broad areas to someting more concrete, then by all means, I'd love to see it.

So, far it looks to still be largely in a state of flux. Is that your assessment, or is it closer to done than it seems?

Mike

[Itse]

Mike Holmes wrote:

From what it sounds like, you're model is a lot like the intention of GNS, to stop problems before they start. That's fine, it's all I really wanted to know. I just hadn't seen that stated up front anywhere.

From the second message of this thread:

When designing or planning a roleplaying game, decisions should be made on how these are meant to relate to each other.

It's also more implicitly said on several places, or at least there has been an attempt.

That's the point of the model. If two players prefer simulationism, then they're more likely to get along.

Yes, it's the point of the model, but no, they are really not, and that's why I don't like the model. It doesn't work, at least not for me. For example, look at Mike Pohjola and Ville Vuorela. Both would be by GNS-definitions simulationists, but they are about as far apart as can be when it comes to actual gaming preferences. They both would propably have more in common with GNS-narrativists than with each other. I could add myself as a third example, and note that I am also by GNS-definitions mostly a simulationist, but again my preferences in gameplay are very different from both Mike and Ville. As I see it, most of the people I know are supposed to be simulationists, because a) they don't much care for challenge or competition b) they consider in-character decision-making to be the norm c) they consider the story to be something which is mostly created by the GM (in table-top that this). Problem is, all that says a lot more about them than just saying they are simulationist, and none of that still says enough about how they like to play.

GNS strikes out in the basic assumption that from the same premises different people would come to the same conclusions. It also strikes out in defining those premises. Since it also strikes out in naming those definitions in a way that they would be correctly understood through short explanations, for me, it's just out.

Now, if you're going to tell me that the model that you're creating will narrow down all play to the point that no problems of hair-splitting will ever occur, then I think you're incorrect.

I'm not talking about hair-splitting. I'm talking about how people keep repeating the same discussions, without realizing it.

If your model simply intends to narrow down these broad areas to someting more concrete, then by all means, I'd love to see it.

My attempt is at trying to create something which would work.

So, far it looks to still be largely in a state of flux. Is that your assessment, or is it closer to done than it seems?

I'm not sure. It's not done, that's for sure. This is just one of those things which can't be done if there's no feedback, that's the reason for posting. The other thing I was after when posting it was to see if anyone else saw anything interesting or useful in it. It seems that mostly they don't, at least not here. Of course, since this is not the "target audience", I'm not totally ready to dump it. I might take a tangent.

I'm a little surpised to see that people seem to be so satisfied with the GNS-model, which could be one of the reasons they don't see a point here. (Actually I'm a bit surprised that people are so eager to compare, when it seems pretty obvious to me that this model and the GNS are not really that closely related in spirit or in practise.)

I feel slightly frustrated that people have kept asking things which already have been exlicitly answered here . It seems communication (my communication, specifically) is failing here, what ever the reason. I feel like quitting on this subject.

[Eero Tuovinen]

I'm not sure. It's not done, that's for sure. This is just one of those things which can't be done if there's no feedback, that's the reason for posting. The other thing I was after when posting it was to see if anyone else saw anything interesting or useful in it. It seems that mostly they don't, at least not here. Of course, since this is not the "target audience", I'm not totally ready to dump it. I might take a tangent.

The reaction is actually quite natural. It takes time for people to digest this kind of stuff, and additionally most readers here surely do like GSN. I recommend proving the usefulness of your model through action: write (here or elsewhere) various analyses of play habits or individual games that demonstrate the analytical strength of your model. GSN has sold itself to most people here by revealing unrealized truths (or possibly lies, if you don't agree with it) that touch them personally. Do the same, and interest will follow.

This comes from my own experience, incidentally. I have nothing against your model, and I don't see any big problems there. However, as others have asked, what should I say? "Seems fine to me" is the only thing that really comes to mind as long as I'm not personally gripped by the model. Use the model and build revealing statements. As an example, I myself was initially impressed with Ron's analysis on Vampire, as well as his structuring of the narrativist agenda. These things were revelations, and therefore they proved the theory strong and useful.

I'm a little surpised to see that people seem to be so satisfied with the GNS-model, which could be one of the reasons they don't see a point here. (Actually I'm a bit surprised that people are so eager to compare, when it seems pretty obvious to me that this model and the GNS are not really that closely related in spirit or in practise.)

I was thinking the same, but from the conversation here it seems to me that the models are actually quite close in intent, if not in methodology. One of the main claims of GNS is that many (not all, many) classical disagreements in roleplaying stem from different creative agendas. You have a similar claim with your dimensions, and thus the theories are similar in their intent of revealing differences.

I won't touch your critique of GNS at this date, as it's not the main point in this thread. Suffice to say that the creative agendas are not the whole of GNS, and although Simulationist agenda is wide, so are the others. You and Ville and Mike are different simulationists, and GNS accomodates the possibility by differentiating between many simulationist techniques and preferences of focus. It's not a valid complain to claim that the three main categories are not descriptive enough, when you are really talking about differences within a category.

As to being satisfied with GNS, accept it and try to prove them wrong. It's no use to state that your model is better, but because people are initiated to GNS they don't see it. If your theory proves strong, it will prevail.

Do you have any ideas about the use of the model? What does it reveal that is as yet unrealized by us? Dazzle us with application, if you would. If GNS is wrong somewhere, write a rigorous essay that proves that your theory handles that aspect better. This is the way interest is generated. Truth will prevail, or we are all lost in darkness.

[Mike Holmes]

There do seem to be some communication issues. But that's a normal part of life.

First off, "likely" means a tendency. No GNS doesn't garuntee you that all Sim players will get along. But it does say that one basic area of friction is eliminated in general terms, meaning that they are more "likely" to get along. Yes, it only speaks in tendencies.

But again, my point is that I think you'll only ever be able to speak in tendencies on these issues. Now, you think that the axes that you're looking at will be more effective as such a model? Well, then I'm all for it. You seem to think that I'm putting down your effort, somehow. I'm not, I'm just trying to understand it.

One thing that's confusing is that you say that your model is about avoiding problems, which is exactly what GNS is about. Then you say that the models are not similar. I think that either I'm missing something about what your model is about (not likely, you've been abundantly clear), or you're not really sure what the GNS model is for. The other possibilty is that I don't know what the GNS model is for, but you'll have to forgive me if I think that's rather unlikely.

As for this stuff getting a lack of attention, I showed up precisely because I felt that was the case, and that this should have more attention than it's getting. I'm sorry that my attempts at creating discussion have been so poor to date.

Mike

[Itse]

First off, "likely" means a tendency. No GNS doesn't garuntee you that all Sim players will get along. But it does say that one basic area of friction is eliminated in general terms, meaning that they are more "likely" to get along. Yes, it only speaks in tendencies.

Then the question is, is the tendency significant? In other words, does the GNS-model provide "solution good enough for a lot of cases". Everybody can evaluate that for themselves. I say "no". I also see the model as something which can easily cause misunderstandings and misconceptions, so I think it's somewhat counter-productive in use. For example, the GNS-simulationism has a built in presumptions about how certain methods and immersion and immersion and realism are connected, and I think those presumptions are wrong.

You seem to think that I'm putting down your effort, somehow. I'm not, I'm just trying to understand it.

I get that, I just feel that I can't find more ways of explaining myself. At the moment I'm just letting this thing lie there in the back of my head, and I trust it's going to emerge again at some point, hopefully as something which more people find useful / easy to understand.

One thing that's confusing is that you say that your model is about avoiding problems, which is exactly what GNS is about. Then you say that the models are not similar.

I can't explain this very clearly. As I see it, GNS and my "model" are broadly speaking about the same thing, but they look at it from very different angles and they try to analyze different parts of it. (GNS starts from "what people want and why", my model ignores half of that and  approaches the other half from the opposite direction.) They are very different tools for basicly the same thing. It's like comparing a knife and a saw, perhaps. Same idea, different approaches. You can compare them, but not in truly meaningful way.

As for this stuff getting a lack of attention, I showed up precisely because I felt that was the case, and that this should have more attention than it's getting. I'm sorry that my attempts at creating discussion have been so poor to date.

No need to apologize, I do appreciate the attention. In this case, my goal was to create something which was as "ready to use" as possible. (I'd like to think of myself more as a journalist than a theorist.) The fact that I have to explain myself is in itself a problem, so it's "back to the drawing board". Maybe I say things the wrong way, maybe the thing itself is hard to get. I am also quite prepared to accept that maybe my starting point was just wrong. I'll get back to it when I know. (At the moment I'm bouncing the word 'control' around and waiting for it to connect to something. I'm also going to read this thread / feedback again at some point.)

As a very personal note, my personal history of communication is filled with problems, and maybe for that reason I pay so much attention to the metalevels, especially metadiscussion. (Or maybe I have problems because I tend to go too meta?) Mostly I get no responses or just responses from which I get the feeling that the I have been isunderstood, so this was good. (I also have a hard time expressing myself in a way which people don't find provocative.) After consideration and relieving feedback I have come to the conclusion that it's not because I'm stupid. After that, well, it's live and learn and accept your losses.

[Valamir]

I can't explain this very clearly. As I see it, GNS and my "model" are broadly speaking about the same thing, but they look at it from very different angles and they try to analyze different parts of it. (GNS starts from "what people want and why", my model ignores half of that and approaches the other half from the opposite direction.)

Then may I suggest that your dissatisfaction with GNS stems from from your own misinterpretation of what you think its about rather than actually with what the model is about.

The model is not about what players want...and Ron has gone to extreme lengths to state very clearly that it definitely is not about the why.

The model is about what players actually do when they're at the table and playing.

Perhaps if you revisit it with that in mind you won't be so put off by it.

[Mike Holmes]

All sounds good to me, Risto. Even Ron wouldn't say that his theory is flawless or anything - there's always room for improvement, or looking at things from new angles. So here's me hoping that you get it ironed out more.

What at this point do you see as being the biggest problems with your model? What's not complete about it in your opinion?

Mike