OK, I want to talk more on Mike's 3D model, which I think is quite good. To review the basic formulation he made:

Mike Holmes wrote:

• CD - Player Challenge goal with Decentralized control (Great Ork Gods - thanks for the example, Sean)
• CC - Player Challenge goal with Centralized control (D&D)
• TD - Thematic goal with Decentralized control (Sorcerer)
• TC - Thematic goal with Centralized control (Pendragon)
• ID - Immersion goal with Decentralized control (No game that I can think of specifically has this as part of the design - at best, GURPS and such might be played this way without problem)
• IC - Immersion goal with Centralized control (CoC)

M. J. Young wrote: I'm not persuaded that the categories you propose really align with the existing categories the way you suggest. As Ralph says, control is not the difference between narrativism and simulationism; it's only symptomatic of the difference historically.

M. J. Young wrote: As I understand it, Ron introduced GNS (in about 1998, in System Does Matter then at Gaming Outpost) specifically as his understanding of the distinctions created in Threefold. He changed the name of "Dramatism" to "Narrativism" (because of Tweet's prior use of "Drama" as a resolution method, which might be confusing). GDS seemed to be about what players were doing when they played; GNS in some sense suggested that what they were doing implied something about why they were doing it--that is, there was something they wanted to get from the game that was different from what someone else wanted to get from the game that caused the difference in how they played.

I'm going to quibble on the choice of the term "thematic goal."

Theme is a murky word and I am guilty of letting it slip in when discussion GNS theory. However, I am constantly reminded in those discussion that theme is not the goal of play in games such as sorcerer.

To quote myself:

Theme is not the premise, the value standard or the consequences. Theme emerges from a series of events that address a value standard in various situations and from various perspectives. In an rpg, theme may be produced by a series of events which address premise. I think of it as the byproduct of the real activity.

Alan wrote: The real goal of Sorcerer it to _play_ those moments when the confluence of character, setting, situation, and some kind of value standard come together - to make a decision in that confluence that has consequences.

As theme is in fact a conglomeration of many events, it is not the goal, merely the side effect.

I'd suggest a term like "Value Standard Decision Point," but of course that takes away your pairing of Pendragon and Sorcerer. Not having played Pendragon, I can't say if the goal it supports best is the illustration of theme or something else.

Hm. How do you mean decentralized? If we're talking about some kkind of decentralized version of lumpley system, - in the sense that "everyone has some GM power," then I disagree. Sorcerer (and TROS and Hero Quest) don't require this. TROS is a good example: it provides the Spiritual Attributes for the player's input, but centralizes much of system with the Seneschal.

So what does decentralized mean?

I'll go back and read the original thread, which I skipped while away, but out of interest it seems to me that ID does exist. In fact, I think you (John) and I were both in a game that ran that way: the Immortals thing. Maybe you could explain that in terms meaningful to the list? I sure as hell can't. Also, I haven't read it, but isn't something like Munchausen more or less ID?

Anyway, back to the discussion....

A comment and a question:

Comment: I agree with John on the naming--using short names instead of two-letter abbreviations is an improvement both for us and others.

Question (For Mike, John, anyone). I played a game this weekend that I'm working to place (I had a talk with the GM about the model and dicision making mode).

Does the 3D model define only a goal for one player? Or describe a play-session which may contain elements from multiple players (I would think this is the case)? Here is some analysis of the game I played this weekend (I'll have a write up some time):

1. I was playing with Immersion as a goal. I expected my input to only, ever, be blocked by internal-cause reasons (I expected that if there was to be a "point" of the game and I diverged from it in a situation-consistent way that diverge I would). Would this be Immer/Dec?

2. While the GM ran the game from (to my observation) what was about 80-90% an internal-cause perspective, I know that he constructed the initial situation in a particuarly specific way to embed themes and employed rare but extant dramatic timing or dramatic events in maybe four cases (over about 24 hours of play).

None of these timing cases circumscribed PC actions (one was badguys showing up after we'd completed a task, one was an off-screen death of a PC we'd interacted with--which was notable in that it brought closure to that part of the storyline in a satisfying dramatic way, one was an attack on the PC's location announcing itself by the enemy making a mistake).

Would this be Theme/Dec?

This meant that the play, because of the situation, did have extant themes that unfolded over the course of play (and some very, very tough moral decisions--which were asthetically pleasing to me and brought key enjoyment to the GM)--but they were not sought out as a focus by the players (i.e. we didn't seek those challenges, did not create them, had significant stretches of play where there weren't thematic moral issues in focus--especially in the begining, etc.)

So I would say that my goal was Immersion/Dist, the GM catered to that but had some Theme/Dec goals as well.

I would tentatively put it in Mixed.

Am I reading this right?

-Marco

John Kim wrote: OK, I want to talk more on Mike's 3D model, which I think is quite good. To review the basic formulation he made:

Mike Holmes wrote:

• ID - Immersion goal with Decentralized control (No game that I can think of specifically has this as part of the design - at best, GURPS and such might be played this way without problem)

One thing though: Why is this being refered to as the '3d Model' when it only has two dimension (theme/immersion/challenge and centralised/decentralised)?

I was just reading the original thread.

I think I now accept the idea of centralized vs decentralized play. I do have a few comments:

1) Just an observation: the power (or influence) distribution scale is a measure of technique. So unlike Creative Agenda descriptions, which speaks purely about observable player goals, the 3d model pairs player goal with technique. This will produce it's own limitations, but may well be a useful analytical tool.

2) Associating a particular Creative Agenda with a box on the 3d matrix, must be seen as saying: "This is how the agenda is best supported." Because, while the techniques used in play affect the rate of satisfaction, they are not required for the existance of an agenda.

3) I still object to the use of the word "theme" being associated with narraivist play. As I said before, illustrating theme is not the goal of narrativist play, it is an incidental result of a series of premise addressing events, like chaff from threshing. People are mistaking the value standard, which gives meaning to each decision event, for theme. These are not the same.

4) I do however, agree that certain simulationist play can have theme as its goal. It can also have story structure as a goal. And you're right, these will be in the hands of a GM- centralized power.

Alan wrote:
3) I still object to the use of the word "theme" being associated with narraivist play. As I said before, illustrating theme is not the goal of narrativist play, it is an incidental result of a series of premise addressing events, like chaff from threshing. People are mistaking the value standard, which gives meaning to each decision event, for theme. These are not the same.

4) I do however, agree that certain simulationist play can have theme as its goal. It can also have story structure as a goal. And you're right, these will be in the hands of a GM- centralized power.

Marco wrote: Mike said (and I have a lot of sympathy for this) that Address of Premise boils down, in some sense to emotional involvement of the player plus empowerment over the focus of that emotional involvement (i.e. the ability of choice on an emotional issue).

Well, I don't claim any authority over what "the 3D model really is", but I'll try to express what makes sense to me. And I agree that "3D" is a misnomer, but I think it works fine as a label for the moment.

As I see it, Centralized and Decentralized refers to degree of control over the game's outcomes. This is a subjective judgement, of course -- and there is vagueness of "control of what". I would say the question is whether players have control over the focus of the game: i.e. Theme, Challenge, or Immersion. That is, in Challenge/Decentralized, the players have high control over what sort of challenges they will be facing.

To Chris Lehrich:
I'm not sure about the immortals game -- meaning our rotating-GM, modified Theatrix game set between 1100 and the present, with PCs Pyutz, Harkel, Odysseus, and Leminkainen. While we rotated the GM position, each adventure was primarily directed by the GM-of-the-week (in my opinion). To my mind, this has more in common with Centralized, but it's an interesting issue for the centrality distinction.

To Marco:
I agree that "mixed" or "hybrid" sounds reasonable for the game as you describe it.

To Tobias:
Yes, I agree that a wargame with no referee would be Decentralized, though it seems likely to have Challenge as a focus rather than Immersion. Actually, I think that freeform LARPs (in the Australian sense) are a good example of Immersion/Decentralized. Here "freeform" means that there is no defined plot and the organizers don't step in to keep things on track. Rather, things happen spontaneously as a result of player actions.

To Alan:

Alan wrote: 3) I still object to the use of the word "theme" being associated with narraivist play. As I said before, illustrating theme is not the goal of narrativist play, it is an incidental result of a series of premise addressing events, like chaff from threshing. People are mistaking the value standard, which gives meaning to each decision event, for theme. These are not the same.

4) I do however, agree that certain simulationist play can have theme as its goal. It can also have story structure as a goal. And you're right, these will be in the hands of a GM- centralized power.

Alan wrote:
I would agree that addressing a premise boils down to a choice made about something the player feels strongly about. But such a choice is neither theme nor story. Again, if one uses the words like story or theme for this, one is mistaking a side product for the events that create it.

Marco wrote:

Alan wrote:
I would agree that addressing a premise boils down to a choice made about something the player feels strongly about. But such a choice is neither theme nor story. Again, if one uses the words like story or theme for this, one is mistaking a side product for the events that create it.

I think the question that determines if that's a good word is based on whether the player sees his or her actions as making a statement. If that is the case, then I don't think the terms theme or story are mistakenly used.

-Marco

Alan wrote:

Marco wrote:

Alan wrote:
I would agree that addressing a premise boils down to a choice made about something the player feels strongly about. But such a choice is neither theme nor story. Again, if one uses the words like story or theme for this, one is mistaking a side product for the events that create it.

I think the question that determines if that's a good word is based on whether the player sees his or her actions as making a statement. If that is the case, then I don't think the terms theme or story are mistakenly used.

-Marco

Ah, but my actions may make a statement, but my object is the emotional charge of the act, not the content that results. The content produces the frisson, but is not the objective of it.

John Kim wrote:

To Alan:

Alan wrote: 3) I still object to the use of the word "theme" being associated with narraivist play. As I said before, illustrating theme is not the goal of narrativist play, it is an incidental result of a series of premise addressing events, like chaff from threshing. People are mistaking the value standard, which gives meaning to each decision event, for theme. These are not the same.

I'm not sure how substansive the #3 is. Is this based on a Forge-specific definition for the term "theme" -- or is it more general? I'm not familiar with the term "value standard". It isn't part of Ron's Narrativist essays, at least. Do you think there are games which focus on things considered "theme", and in which the players are empowered to determine that, but which are not Narrativist?

From Ron's glossary:

Theme

The point, message, or key emotional conclusion perceived by an audience member, about a fictional series of events. The presence of a theme is the defining feature of Story as opposed to Transcript. ...

This is exactly what I've been saying. I've just pointed out that this definition means that theme is the result of a series of addressments of premise that have a consistent message - and that the consistency is _not_ the objective of narrativist play.

Value standard is not part of much or Ron's writing, thought I don't think that should invalidate it. I think of the term as meaning the rule by which something is judge right or wrong. You'll note that such a rule is not theme. What makes theme is a series of events where a particular rule (or value standard) is the key source of emotional engagement. Narrativist premise, in Ron's sense, is the confluence of situation: characters, setting, history; and a value standard. As Marco observed, Premise doesn't exist without the emotional engagement, that engagement comes from a player's interest and understanding of a value standard.

Alan wrote:
Ah, but my actions may make a statement, but my object is the emotional charge of the act, not the content that results. The content produces the frisson, but is not the objective of it.

ErrathofKosh wrote:
So the emotion that is evoked by the statement is your goal? Interesting...

So, I ask two questions:

What is the goal you seek to attain through conflict?
Your answer (IMO): To make a statement....
What is your reward for making such a statement?
Your answer (again, IMO): An emotion evoked by said statement....

Alan wrote:
Not quite. The emotion evoked by the doing is the goal - not the content of the statement. That feeling is also the the reward.

Conflict (especially when supported by fortune) provides risk, which amps up the emotional charge.

Let me try it a different way:

Theme is created by consistently demonstrating a particular content (an implied value judgement). ie, we see a particular premise with value standard approached from different angles, each event produces a statement. Part of each statement is some element which is consistent with a greater message - that message being theme.

Narrativist play does not require any consistency in the content of the statments made. The goal is to have a chance to make the statement, not to establish one of a number of statements all with a consistent argument toward an pre-envisioned theme.

Alan wrote: Let me try it a different way:

Theme is created by consistently demonstrating a particular content (an implied value judgement). ie, we see a particular premise with value standard approached from different angles, each event produces a statement. Part of each statement is some element which is consistent with a greater message - that message being theme.

Narrativist play does not require any consistency in the content of the statments made. The goal is to have a chance to make the statement, not to establish one of a number of statements all with a consistent argument toward an pre-envisioned theme.

Alan wrote: Not quite. The emotion evoked by the doing is the goal - not the content of the statement. That feeling is also the the reward.

I've been called on the carpet; at least I know my sometimes verbose posting is invited on this thread.

John Kim wrote:

M. J. Young wrote: I'm not persuaded that the categories you propose really align with the existing categories the way you suggest. As Ralph says, control is not the difference between narrativism and simulationism; it's only symptomatic of the difference historically.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that centralized, GM-controlled Narrativism is possible, just that it hasn't happened historically? My impression is that it is inherent -- i.e. by definition, you cannot have Narrativism with centralized GM control. If so, then centrality of control is at least one inherent difference between GNS Sim and GNS Nar.

ErrathofKosh wrote:

Alan wrote: Not quite. The emotion evoked by the doing is the goal - not the content of the statement. That feeling is also the the reward.

If no "statement" was made during some conflict, would there still be a possibility of the evoked emotion? If so, what evokes it?

Marco wrote:
I understand you can see it that way (correctly, IMO)--but I don't think you have to focus on the consistency. Theme can simply be the "main idea" of a story.

Alan wrote: Narrativist play aims to participate in the _process_ of making a statement - the actual content of the statement is secondary.

John Kim wrote:

Alan wrote: Narrativist play aims to participate in the _process_ of making a statement - the actual content of the statement is secondary.

Well, but do you agree that theme/statement is still central to this definition?

I've just thought of a good analogy:

Imagine a man directing a cart across a flat, muddy plain, studded with huge boulders. Each time the cart approaches a boulder the man can choose at least two directions.

Addressing premise is one of those acts of choosing.

Later on another man sees the trail the cart left and thinks he sees a message in the pattern. That's theme.

The cart driver is primarily interested in his choice. How his trail turns out is incidental.

Alan wrote: I've just thought of a good analogy:

Imagine a man directing a cart across a flat, muddy plain, studded with huge boulders. Each time the cart approaches a boulder the man can choose at least two directions.

Addressing premise is one of those acts of choosing.

Later on another man sees the trail the cart left and thinks he sees a message in the pattern. That's theme.

The cart driver is primarily interested in his choice. How his trail turns out is incidental.

Marco,

I think I've taken this thread off topic. I'll send you a private message.

M. J. Young wrote:

John Kim wrote: I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that centralized, GM-controlled Narrativism is possible, just that it hasn't happened historically? My impression is that it is inherent -- i.e. by definition, you cannot have Narrativism with centralized GM control. If so, then centrality of control is at least one inherent difference between GNS Sim and GNS Nar.

That's a good question.

My most basic problem is that I don't see centralized/decentralized as a switch, but as a potentiometer (er--a slide? a dimmer switch, for those who don't know the concept otherwise). Illusionism and participationism are probably one end of the range, freeform the other, and everything else is between the two.

M. J. Young wrote: Further, arguendo, even if narrativism must be "decentralized theme", that doesn't mean that simulationism can't be so. I don't think it's been demonstrated that you can't have decentralized simulationism (and I suggested this was possible in Applied Theory when it wasn't really at issue). I know that simulationism has generally been highly centralized; but then, this has in large part been (presumably) to prevent gamist creep. If you had a gaming group committed to simulationism, you could do simulationist freeform. In fact, I'd wager that most games of House are exactly that: let's explore what it's like to be grown ups who are married and have a family, you be the daddy, you be the mommy, you be the baby. That's fully decentralized simulationism. It doesn't have theme, but there's no reason it couldn't, that I can see.

M. J. Young wrote: That, though, raises what I think is an emerging issue concerning narrativism--the thing that has bothered Ralph for some time, and I think has bothered me, too. In most discussions the assertion is made that the referee is one of the players, acting in a specific role in the game. In discussing address of premise, though, it is not permitted that the referee should have too much control over it, or it is not narrativism. I'm struggling with that myself. If we hit the place where centralization results in illusionism, then no one except the referee has any power to do anything meaningful; but in that case, no one is expressing their creative agendum except the referee, because he is stifling their efforts (in ways that are presumably skillful enough that they don't know it). They aren't really expressing narrativism, or gamism, or (I would say) simulationism. In illusionism, we may watch players struggle to assert a creative agendum, and we may see a creative agendum emerge from the referee's efforts, but the entire process is extremely dysfunctional and difficult to analyze in any meaningful way.

Hello,

M.J., when your "decentralized Simulationist" play does acquire theme through the decisions of the people involved, then it's Narrativist play.

It's also what you like to play most, John, if I'm not mistaken. One of these days, you'll say, "Oh! I guess I like to play Narrativst by the definitions of the Big Model," without perceiving it as a threat to your designation/definition of Simulationist according to the Threefold.

That'll be a nice day.

Best,
Ron

O.K., the creation of theme through decentralized simulationism is problematic. Part of my problem is undoubtedly the use of the word "theme", which hits me (personally) more in its musical than its literary meaning. I can see theme arising incidentally from decentralized simulationism, but if you are pursuing theme it may be impossible to do so without engaging premise, and that would be narrativism.

Still, centralization is not a switch, and no matter how many categories you create there will still be increments between them. Creative agenda remains a switch--you have one of these primary during play, and by definition you can't have two primary. You can have hybrid design which facilitates either of two agenda, and there might be coherence when two agenda coexist in play, but you can't prioritize two agenda simultaneously.

I still have more trouble with the notion that narrativism does not exist outside decentralized play. If narrativism is creation of theme through address of premise, it ought to be so even in participationist play. Centralization of credibility is an independent variable.

Participationism is, of course, the hard case. It is difficult to see how it can be anything, but it is something, and I find it difficult to imagine that it's always the same thing merely because of credibility distribution.

--M. J. Young

Alan wrote: 1) Just an observation: the power (or influence) distribution scale is a measure of technique. So unlike Creative Agenda descriptions, which speaks purely about observable player goals, the 3d model pairs player goal with technique.

I think my question about the observation of Decentralized Immersionist achieving theme and then declaring them Narrativist is this: what does The Big Model say that's useful about that? (I'm not saying it says nothing--I'd really like to know what, that is valuable, could come out of that categorization)

As someone who also identifies with that mode of play, I think there's a reason I'm skeptical of a lot of the Nar-centered dialog that goes on here that doesn't fit that model.

In a conversation with someone through PM's, I referenced a game I'd run and noted that the thematic questions (Premise and it's answer) weren't extant at the start of the game--they became so during the game and were answered in and around the climax.

I said that in order to bring those questions to the players up front, I'd have had to "start at the end."

He liked that (although he wasn't sure I'd have to 'start at the end') but said that I had to make sure that Premise was "up front and personal" to all the players (presumably all the time) for the play to be Narrativist.

Clearly if someone is playing under a Virtuality-mode that won't necessiarily/reliably be the case. But the idea that "we're doing star trek" so we're throwing out things that aren't star trek doesn't describe this play either (it's a virtuality, you can do whatever you think is apporpriate).

Now, missuse of the terms and ideas of GNS abound so maybe that PM conversation I had was misleading or misunderstood--but it does match many things I've seen unchallenged here in this forum.

-Marco

Hello,

M.J., you wrote,

I still have more trouble with the notion that narrativism does not exist outside decentralized play. If narrativism is creation of theme through address of premise, it ought to be so even in participationist play.

Ron, I would agree with that as an example of highly centralized narrativist play. I can't say for certain whether it was "participationist", or whether it would be possible to put more credibility in the hands of the referee, but I think it makes my key point--that you can't distinguish "narrativist address of premise" from "simulationist creation of theme" strictly by centralization of credibility. I think that centralization eventually hits the point at which character players have no meaningful input, at which point no creative agendum can be expressed by the character players (efforts to do so being quashed by the referee). The referee may still be addressing his premise and creating his theme entirely on the fly, telling them the story as he creates it and ignoring their efforts to derail him. This may be narrativist (because theme is arising from address of premise), but it is dysfunctional because the character players are shut out of meaningful participation in the game (which would be true for any agendum).

So I'm going to go with three recognized agenda, one creating theme, one meeting challenge, and one acquiring knowledge, and leave centralization/decentralization of credibility as a range of techniques which can enhance or complicate play in different agenda at different points in the range and in conjunction with other techniques.

--M. J. Young

Hello,

Your dysfunctional image matches my "Typhoid Mary" description in the Narrativism essay.

What I'd really like to emphasize, however, is that pre-created or agreed-upon theme cannot fall into your "creating theme" category. That is something I've been trying to articulate over and over for about seven years now.

The distinction between a process which creates a theme (however hackneyed, doesn't matter) via play and one which is revisiting or confirming an already-established theme via play is immense.

Best,
Ron

Hi all,

I'd phrase it this way: in all play, decentralization of credibility is (as M.J. says) an independent variable. But in Nar play, decentralization of authorship is required. I think failing to seperate these two things (and they are tricky to seperate - I'm not sure how exactly to express the difference, even though I think I can feel it fairly well) is why people object to the Impossible Thing. It is possible to author even with greatly constrained credibility - in fact, System Matters tells us that putting some constraints on credibilty can be a very good thing.

There are preferences regarding credibility distribution "styles" that can be very strong - but (IMO) a credibility-preference isn't in itself a CA. I still think through my playtest of clehrich's Shadows in the Fog with John (Kim) from time to time, and I've come to realize there was only one really strong conclusion I could draw from the experience: many in that group don't like a lot of distributed credibility. CA-wise, neither my GNS-acumen nor the "instance" of play were up to the task of making a meaningful evaluation.

Note that when I say "authorship" and "author" above, I'm referring (as Ron points out) to the address of premise in play. Story-transcript oriented Sim play might be said to have decentralization of authorship of the transcript, but not of the premise. Decentralize that, and it's Nar.

Marco's question is an interesting one, which looks like it may get it's own thread. A few quick responses: it seems to me that knowing whether we're doing Nar-Virtuality (or Dramatism) or Sim-Virtuality(or Dramatism) makes for a great starting point. I think the three GNS CA's were always intented as [sarcasm] mere [/sarcasm] starting points, and it is entirely appropriate (desperately needed, in fact) to discuss credibility preferences (and many other things) in detail. Not in that it invalidates or changes GNS CA's in any way, just that it's something else that's really important.

I also have come to realize of late just how . . . unforced (he said, avoiding "unconscious" and thus hopefully the many possible side arguments that can spring from there) authorship (in the address of premise sense) can be. When you have credibility-distribution mechanics in play, it's easy to "see" the authors at work, but susch things aren't needed. At all. As the claim that all three CA's have been around as long as the hobby has would require . . .

Gordon

Ron Edwards wrote: M.J., when your "decentralized Simulationist" play does acquire theme through the decisions of the people involved, then it's Narrativist play.

It's also what you like to play most, John, if I'm not mistaken. One of these days, you'll say, "Oh! I guess I like to play Narrativst by the definitions of the Big Model," without perceiving it as a threat to your designation/definition of Simulationist according to the Threefold.

That'll be a nice day.

Ron Edwards wrote: What I'd really like to emphasize, however, is that pre-created or agreed-upon theme cannot fall into your "creating theme" category. That is something I've been trying to articulate over and over for about seven years now.

The distinction between a process which creates a theme (however hackneyed, doesn't matter) via play and one which is revisiting or confirming an already-established theme via play is immense.

Gordon C. Landis wrote: I'd phrase it this way: in all play, decentralization of credibility is (as M.J. says) an independent variable. But in Nar play, decentralization of authorship is required. I think failing to seperate these two things (and they are tricky to seperate - I'm not sure how exactly to express the difference, even though I think I can feel it fairly well) is why people object to the Impossible Thing. It is possible to author even with greatly constrained credibility - in fact, System Matters tells us that putting some constraints on credibilty can be a very good thing.

Gordon C. Landis wrote: There are preferences regarding credibility distribution "styles" that can be very strong - but (IMO) a credibility-preference isn't in itself a CA. I still think through my playtest of clehrich's Shadows in the Fog with John (Kim) from time to time, and I've come to realize there was only one really strong conclusion I could draw from the experience: many in that group don't like a lot of distributed credibility. CA-wise, neither my GNS-acumen nor the "instance" of play were up to the task of making a meaningful evaluation.

Gordon C. Landis wrote: Note that when I say "authorship" and "author" above, I'm referring (as Ron points out) to the address of premise in play. Story-transcript oriented Sim play might be said to have decentralization of authorship of the transcript, but not of the premise. Decentralize that, and it's Nar.

Hello,

Are we all agreeing here? Mostly?

Holy shit.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Are we all agreeing here? Mostly?

Ron wrote: What I'd really like to emphasize, however, is that pre-created or agreed-upon theme cannot fall into your "creating theme" category. That is something I've been trying to articulate over and over for about seven years now.

The distinction between a process which creates a theme (however hackneyed, doesn't matter) via play and one which is revisiting or confirming an already-established theme via play is immense.

M. J. Young wrote: The problem is, my players can't really tell the difference between me inventing the story as I go along, me working toward specific outcomes from a rough outline I've got in my head, and me corraling them into a story I've got written up here behind the referee's screen. If the theme is something I have decided to present through the game, but the other players don't know it, we're really in a gray area.

I would say that that gray area is borderline narrativism. It's still the Typhoid Mary referee, because he has addressed the premise and created the theme several steps ahead of where everyone else is at the moment but is revealing his thoughts through play.