Hi, over in the GNS forum, I mentioned trying to take Simulationism and 'break it out' into more 'boxes.'

I am pressed for time so I am going to just sketch this out. It's a half-baked theory (unusual for me to submit an unfinished proposal, I know), any discussion would be greatly appreciated (perhaps we could 'finish baking it' together).

Two things to remember in this discussion, I may be starting with the GNS, I am not suggesting any changes to it; it's done. What I am proposing it the sketchy beginning of a different proposition. This is not to be taken as any statement on GNS, nor any call to 'defend' the GNS. Please leave the GNS, as a unit, out of this thread. GNS examples are fine, in fact may empower discussion by giving a common framework to describe things as they are compared to this new proposition.

The second thing is I only conceived of this last night, so forgive (or polish) the rough edges.

Anyway here goes. In Scattershot (because of its genre¹ hybridization techniques), I had to determine what parts of a genre¹ were 'portable.' Here is the list of what I came up with:

• Chara
• Background
• Circumstance
• Genre (Expectations)
• Mecahnics
• Props
• Relationships

You'll notice the resemblance to Ron's 'Five Things to Explore in Simulationism' (Character, Setting, Situation, Color, and System) in the first five.

So if we break down Simulationism by what is explored (according to Scattershot), that gives:

• Chara play; alternatively Self-Discovery or Escapism
• Background play; alternatively Escapism or Tourism
• Genre (Expectation) play; ahhh...'Illusionism?' (More on this in another thread)

Okay, so I haven't had time to work out the details, but you can see where I am going with this, right?

And while we're 'breaking them down,' how about other GNS boxes? I think there is enough diversity in Gamism, we might want to separate it into Mechanics-based play and (I dunno, how about) Context of the Game power play? (Separating creating and exploiting interesting mechanical constructs versus creating and exploiting interesting situations and alliances in the game world.)

Come to think of it, I think Narrativism is focused enough that it might be the only box that isn't ripe for 'breaking down.'

Please be patient, this is in pursuit of the idea that Dramatism is unique enough that it deserves a separate category, but then the G & S of GDS are too 'lumped together.' And I haven't had enough time to fully gestate the idea so I'm calling for help clarifying the unique and well-populated playing styles. These should have their own boxes only so that the relativity between these boxes creates information (as opposed to just giving anyone who wants a new box).

Likewise terminology is one of my foci, so we'll have to come up with some good ones for the new theory.

And remember, this is both a new idea (one I haven't had much time to think about) and I don't have much time to clarify my explanations here. Sorry.

Fang Langford

¹ This is not the idea of fully crystalized genres, but more the techniques for creating your own custom genre by explicitly choosing what to include and what to avoid.

Hi Fang,

As I've said before, I think both Narrativism and Gamism do slice up into many subsets based on various procedural or priority-based variables. So I don't see much problem in finding them and essentially producing a "multi-Kingdom" panoply of modes of play.

[A little note here: I don't think that Dramatism "sticks out" in any funny way over there in Simulationism, once it's understood that GNS is about the actual functional moments of role-playing, rather than "what is produced" by role-playing. But this was GNS-Man intruding himself into Fang's thread, when it was already established that GNS-Man had his own room to cavort about in. I shall now quell him.]

So ... I'm weighing in here for the main purpose of saying, it is perfectly all right to raise the possibility of a novel model in this forum. Please comment on the idea Fang presented as you see fit.

Best,
Ron

..

Logan wrote: I think it doesn't really hurt to break out aspects of roleplaying into more boxes. I don't think GNS Simulationism is the only candidate for this. I do question the viability of calling GNS Simulationism to task and then saying "Leave GNS at the door." As a sort of advocate for more independent thinking on these topics, I think you have to step back and find your own goals and your own approach to achieving those goals. I suspect that you really do have something new to add, but you started by restating one aspect of GNS your own way. Personally, I'd like to see more of the former. In any case, I want to see more of your thinking on this fleshed out before expressing an opinion about it.

What I think is happening here is the formation of another layer BELOW GNS in sort of an RPG Theory tree. Which looks something like this:
[code]
E
/|\
/ | \
/ | \
G N S
/ | | \ | \
/ | | \ | \
? ? ? ? ? ?
[/code]
And what we're really taking about here is the '?' parts. I think this is a VERY valid exercise and something we have been trying to do for a long time. However, it is so often preposed as an ALTERNATIVE to GNS rather than an examination of the next level of refinement that we get wrapped up in the GNS 'Completness' argument and forget about what is really being examined.

So, far I like where Fang is going with this. In fact Fang has finally given a word to something I've been thinking about for a while. I understand what is characteristic of Character and Situation Exploration but I was having trouble figuring out what was Characteristic of Setting Exploration that was different from Situation Exploration. 'Tourism' provides the perfect image.

Jesse

jburneko wrote: What I think is happening here is the formation of another layer BELOW GNS in sort of an RPG Theory tree. Which looks something like this:
[code] E
/|\
/ | \
/ | \
G N S
/ | / \ | \
/ | | | | \
? ? ? ? ? ?[/code]
And what we're really taking about here is the '?' parts. I think this is a VERY valid exercise and something we have been trying to do for a long time. However, it is so often preposed as an ALTERNATIVE to GNS rather than an examination of the next level of refinement that we get wrapped up in the GNS 'Completness' argument and forget about what is really being examined.

jburneko wrote: So, far I like where Fang is going with this. In fact Fang has finally given a word to something I've been thinking about for a while. I understand what is characteristic of Character and Situation Exploration but I was having trouble figuring out what was Characteristic of Setting Exploration that was different from Situation Exploration. 'Tourism' provides the perfect image.

Le Joueur wrote:
The GNS is all about 'Exploration,' I don't think that captures the idea I see in a lot of gaming; the idea of escapism or simple gratification. 'Exploration' sounds too aggressive to me. I appreciate people who sky-dive or rock

Hello Fang,

I *think* I can see where you're coming from. The problem is that I'm personally really good at the GNS remapping game. For example, when you say 'Pride In One's Presentation' is a perfectly valid source of fun, I would completely agree. I would also call it a form of Gamism and probably the source of conflict in many LARPS between the Character Simulationists and the Presentation based Gamists.

However, I would like to see more of your thoughts, particularly if you can develop more of a concrete terminology and model. I'd be really impressed if I couldn't then remap everything to GNS but that's beside the point. I suspect that the area's of role-playing psychology might go along way to explaining that role-playing phenomenon I can only call the GNS apathetic.

The GNS apathetic is a constant thorn in my side because they really don't seem to be 'involved' in the act of role-playing but are still having a fun. I just don't understand them. How to better describe this phenomenon? They seem to be non-dysfunctional version of the 'Just show up' or 'The GM will sort it out' mentality. I say they're non-dysfunctional because I've seen whole groups of them get along just fine and when thrown into more active and 'focused' groups they aren't disruptive.

They seem to be content with the game REGARDLESS of how anything actually happens.

I have one or two of these in my group and they frustrate me only from a psychological point of view because I can't figure out why they keep showing up. They're not gamists because they obviously show no desire to compete with anything. They're not Simulationists because they show no initiative in exploring anything. In terms of character they basically play themselves and in terms of Situation they generally just follow a stronger more motivated character around. They're certainly not Narrativists in that they don't actively participate in story creation.

I'd ALMOST call these players audience members but they DO occasionally do something. Generally it's just the raw application of skills or the occassional commentary on in game actions. For example, if someone is wounded they are quick to lend their 'medical' skills to help. Or if they are confused about something they'll ask an NPC a question. But in general they are 100% passive/reactive players. What is the source of fun for these people? Why do they keep showing up?

By the way if you flat out ask them the most common answer is, 'I like the cool stories.' And they seem to mean 'story' in that hard to use non-specific way.

If your model could somehow explain these people, I'd be very grateful indeed.

Jesse

jburneko wrote: I *think* I can see where you're coming from. The problem is that I'm personally really good at the GNS remapping game.

jburneko wrote: For example, when you say 'Pride In One's Presentation' is a perfectly valid source of fun, I would completely agree.

jburneko wrote: However, I would like to see more of your thoughts, particularly if you can develop more of a concrete terminology and model. I'd be really impressed if I couldn't then remap everything to GNS but that's beside the point.

jburneko wrote: I suspect that the area's of role-playing psychology might go along way to explaining that role-playing phenomenon I can only call the GNS apathetic.

The GNS apathetic is a constant thorn in my side because they really don't seem to be 'involved' in the act of role-playing but are still having a fun. I just don't understand them.

jburneko wrote: How to better describe this phenomenon? They seem to be non-dysfunctional version of the 'Just show up' or 'The GM will sort it out' mentality. I say they're non-dysfunctional because I've seen whole groups of them get along just fine and when thrown into more active and 'focused' groups they aren't disruptive.

They seem to be content with the game REGARDLESS of how anything actually happens.

jburneko wrote: I have one or two of these in my group and they frustrate me only from a psychological point of view because I can't figure out why they keep showing up. They're not gamists because they obviously show no desire to compete with anything. They're not Simulationists because they show no initiative in exploring anything. In terms of character they basically play themselves and in terms of Situation they generally just follow a stronger more motivated character around. They're certainly not Narrativists in that they don't actively participate in story creation.

jburneko wrote: I'd ALMOST call these players audience members but they DO occasionally do something. Generally it's just the raw application of skills or the occassional commentary on in game actions. For example, if someone is wounded they are quick to lend their 'medical' skills to help. Or if they are confused about something they'll ask an NPC a question. But in general they are 100% passive/reactive players. What is the source of fun for these people? Why do they keep showing up?

jburneko wrote: By the way if you flat out ask them the most common answer is, 'I like the cool stories.' And they seem to mean 'story' in that hard to use non-specific way.

If your model could somehow explain these people, I'd be very grateful indeed.

jburneko wrote:
By the way if you flat out ask them the most common answer is, 'I like the cool stories.' And they seem to mean 'story' in that hard to use non-specific way.

If your model could somehow explain these people, I'd be very grateful indeed.

Jesse

OK, so GNS claims that not only are its states roughly orthogonal, but that they are quantized, ie, there do not exist mixed states. So, if we accept that theory as reasonable, the only acceptable new type of theory to posit is one which covers entirely different territory, rather than one which attempts to map the same space on different axes.

Next point: I suspect that these people who seem to fit poorly are pretty much just showing up because they enjoy social interaction, irrespective of what's happening. They would be perfectly content if you were to play cards or MST3K movies, instead. So attempting to produce a role-playing theory which covers them tends towards needing a general theory of recreative motivations, instead.

- James

OK, so GNS claims that not only are its states roughly orthogonal, but that they are quantized, ie, there do not exist mixed states. So, if we accept that theory as reasonable, the only acceptable new type of theory to posit is one which covers entirely different territory, rather than one which attempts to map the same space on different axes.

Next point: I suspect that these people who seem to fit poorly are pretty much just showing up because they enjoy social interaction, irrespective of what's happening. They would be perfectly content if you were to play cards or MST3K movies, instead. So attempting to produce a role-playing theory which covers them tends towards needing a general theory of recreative motivations, instead.

- James

Marco wrote:
They're garden variety dramatists--I think the reason you're having problems mapping them is because GNS places them in the Sim/Exploration box while they're story-oriented (whatever that means).

Note 2: I see further evidence that GNS doesn't really acknowledge dramatist play in that some people (not Ron, as far as I know) have described things like Relationship maps, Fortune In The Midde, and other story-oriented mechanics as Narrativist. They're not--there's nothing inherently story creating about a Relationship map or FitM. Standard dramatists enjoy those--and yet they're seen as Narrativist.

Hi Mike,

I thought this was a thread about more boxes? Storyist works fine for all intents and purposes--in fact changing Gamist (the other GDS term) might be clearer too.

As for the joiners ... well, we don't know much about them except they're fairly passive (as you'd expect from people whose primary enjoyment comes from the unfolding of a story) and say they 'like the story.' Since most people role-play with friends there's a social aspect to almost all groups. If asked why they're showing up and they say "I like the stories," in GDS terms they're Dramatist, no? If they said: "I came for the company" then Joiners or Tourists or whatever would be more descriptive (IMO).

As for putting FitM in the Narrativist box--I was corrected pretty quicky when I got Narrativism wrong (I took it as generic "story-oriented" play--this was before Ron's second essay). Mostly the board will very quickly let the poster know if they've misconstrued a tenant of GNS play. I haven't seen that correction for FitM or Relationship Maps or other story-enhancing techniques when ascribed to Narrativist play.

FWIW I wasn't refering to someone saying "this is good for Narrativist play" but more like "I'm using narrativist techniques like ..."

-Marco
[Edited for clarity]

On the (admitedly off topic) "narrativist tools" issue:

FWIW I wasn't refering to someone saying "this is good for Narrativist play" but more like "I'm using narrativist techniques like ..."

Hi Gordon,

That's pretty lucid: I like Authorship and Challenge broken out. I might consolidtate the others as Story (with sub-sets). The real idea is that any game has to be rated in all areas rather than one--GNS does that too--but in practice games tend to get described in terms of only one box.

-Marco

Marco wrote:
I thought this was a thread about more boxes? Storyist works fine for all intents and purposes--in fact changing Gamist (the other GDS term) might be clearer too.

As for the joiners ... well, we don't know much about them except they're fairly passive (as you'd expect from people whose primary enjoyment comes from the unfolding of a story) and say they 'like the story.' Since most people role-play with friends there's a social aspect to almost all groups. If asked why they're showing up and they say "I like the stories," in GDS terms they're Dramatist, no? If they said: "I came for the company" then Joiners or Tourists or whatever would be more descriptive (IMO).

FWIW I wasn't refering to someone saying "this is good for Narrativist play" but more like "I'm using narrativist techniques like ..."

Sorry for being out of contact for so long folks, Scattershot (just the mechanix) is up now, so back to business....

Let's take stock of what we have for boxes so far.

Back in January, Marco brought up the Story-as-Result (we might call that SaR) and Story-as-Creation (this could be SaC) issues. He also made it plain that the terms 'Simulation,' 'Simulationism,' and 'Simulationist' have way to much baggage; me? I think its time for them to rest now.

James West (without the 'V'), points out a new theory needs a new set of axes. This is very true, I might go so far as to suggest that it ought to have a different 'point.' Ron has clearly stated that the GNS is for people who aren't happy with their games; it exists to give them a 'compass' to find their way to a coherent style of play. Therefore it's about play-style goal alignment. As I have heard it, the GDS is about how decisions are made during play and styles where those decision-types find the best homes. (A bit of an over-simplification, but discussing other theories, especially in their complexity, isn't the point here.)

When I gamemaster (or play for that matter), my main focus is on delivering value to the players. I look for what they value, and how to help them feel valuable to the game. (And I know I don't like it when my characters are irrelevant.) I usually do this through a number of techniques that engage them, to play on their emotions, and make use of whatever they bring to the game (which they value right?). I am the facilitator, I 'work all the parts.' I am the person who is expected to bring it all together when no one else will; I am the gamemaster (or at least that's what I expect from one). So that's what I am looking for in a new theory. (Boxes are then a way of finding patterns of desires.)

Back to our inventory....

Mike offers Joiners as a category, and I think we can say that if 'I like the stories' is an excuse, then these people must be way on the 'receptive end' of things. (Which would mean that people who want lots of 'player power' are on the 'active end' of things.) And I think Mike's right, both Dramatist (and probably Storyist) is a loaded term. (Let's break them down and rename them later?)

Marco points out Gamist is a problem too. I have been thinking about this for awhile and I'm convinced that basing new model terminology on loaded words is always problematic. So I have a bold suggestion; remember SaR and SaC? These nonsense words might be the key to terminology that wouldn't be misunderstood. Let's make up words!

Gordon has taken the familiar elements of play (Story, Situation, Character, System, and Color) and added two more (Challenge and Authorship). I offered my list earlier which was also two elements more than the original (Chara, Background, Circumstance, Genre Expectations, Mecahnics, Props, and Relationships). The problem with both new schemes is how they are being interpreted in terms of the old. Ron's five were 'things that Simulationists explore.' I'm not sure you can explore Authorship or Challenge (or Color for that matter), I mean you can experience them, you can use them, but I don't think you can 'go to them' and explore.

My seven elements are meant as a list of things you can 'take to another game.' Gordon's suggestions don't look like 'portable elements' either; they look like the 'terms of the game' (like Authorship is the terms of a game where 'active' players working on SaC, or like Challenge is the terms under which everything is looked at like competition). Are there any other terms of play?

Bringing it all together? Well, so far James has suggested we work out new axes of comparison; I think 'terms of play' (would that be ToP?) is a good start. I suggested a new 'point,' structures that enhance value and involvment.

Mike and Marco suggest that old, 'loaded' terms should be jettisoned. My suggestion is using words that have no meanings at all, new words. Gordon indirectly suggested a couple of new axes (but according to my terminology suggestion, we need words other than Authorship and Challenge). Taken with my idea of valuation a initial structure seems to be emerging, but we need 'more boxes' if we're going to see what emerges.

Especially boxed that don't seem to fit.

Fang Langford

Let me here offer:

Immersionist instead of story-oriented simulationist.

The Immersionist wants a premise "what is it like to be confronted with a choice of Love over Power" (or other N-sounding Premise). This is different from the Narrativist who wants to address that premise from an authorship perspecitve.

The Immersionist is interested in exploring story with out breaking SOD. They may want to explore--or participate in a story--but on the story-oriented end of things, they want the story-quality of the Narrativist without breaking SOD.

(note: this would still be covered under the Dramatist box)
-Marco

Marco wrote:
Let me here offer:

Immersionist instead of story-oriented simulationist.

The Immersionist wants a premise "what is it like to be confronted with a choice of Love over Power" (or other N-sounding Premise). This is different from the Narrativist who wants to address that premise from an authorship perspecitve.

The Immersionist is interested in exploring story with out breaking SOD. They may want to explore--or participate in a story--but on the story-oriented end of things, they want the story-quality of the Narrativist without breaking SOD.