Well, having spent some time trawling through RPGnet, and participated in various back and forths here and there, I thought I'd take the opportunity to lay out a diffiuclty I see in the existing model and do the usual thing of proposing my own. It aint that radical, tho.

I have been concerned about the relationship between narrativism and dramatism (which I implicitly accept as an actually-occurring phenomenon). It seems to me that a lot of the argument about narrativism is really an argument about narrativism and dramatism, and I have come to the conlusion that these are both sufficiently distinct forms of play to constitute a top level descriptor.

This produces a 4-axis model - GNDS. In order to arrange them in some (hopefully) self evident manner, I have devised a grid layout.

.............Experience......Exploit
Story......DRAMATISM....NARRATIVISM
Setting...SIMULAITON...GAMISM

The top line indicates the motive/act. The leftmost column indicates the subject/target of the action/motive. I have effectively collapsed setting and situation etc. into my term "setting". The term "exploit" should be taken to indicate use/manipulate/modify/create.

I therefore suggest:
The Simulationist seeks to EXPERIENCE SETTING.
The Gamist seeks to EXPLOIT SETTING
The Narrativist seeks to EXPLOIT STORY
The Dramatist seeks to EXPERIENCE STORY

Please apply criticism with vigour.

Mike and I were talking just this weekend, and I mentioned that I thought Dramaticism should probably be a top level concern. And I do really like the matrix idea you have, it seems logical, at least at first blush.

However, I ran into a problem. GNS is all about the motivation behind the player's choice at a point of decision. In my post a few threads down in this forum I described what I believe to be key differences in motivation for Simulationist decisions, Gamist decisions, and Narrativist decisions.

I could not, at that time, concieve of what would constitute a decision made for Dramatist purposes that would allow it to stand on its own. The nearest I could think of was a player who made a decision based on the decision he thought the GM would want him to make so as not to spoil any of the GM's unfolding plot line. But I'm not sure that's really accurate. Plus while I have seen (and made) this type of decision before, I've never seen it work as a primary decision mode in a game that people were actually enjoying.

So, I have this niggling sense that you're on to something ('cause I've been on to it myself), but unless we can come up with a definition of what an actual Dramatist decision is, I don't know that it fits.

As long as you were to define setting in a very broad sense, for example including character, etc. then I'd see this as an extension of the earlier GDS theory in which you have subdivided the desires of the D player into passive and active participation. Which is fine. But, as always, the question becomes what do you do with this theory. By being based on player actions in-game, GNS makes itself (it seems to me) to be particularly applicable to game design. How does the GDS or GDSN model apply to design? Or, rather, if I have players who want to experience story, how do I make rules different from those that would enhance experiencing setting?

How about rules that made it more easy for a GM to create story during play? Does that make sense?

Mike

contracycle wrote: A difficulty I see in the existing model and do the usual thing of proposing my own.

contracycle wrote: I have been concerned about the relationship between Narrativism and Dramatism (which I implicitly accept as an actually-occurring phenomenon). It seems to me that a lot of the argument about Narrativism is really an argument about Narrativism and Dramatism, and I have come to the conclusion that these are both sufficiently distinct forms of play to constitute a top-level descriptor.

contracycle wrote: This produces a 4-axis model - GNDS. In order to arrange them in some (hopefully) self-evident manner, I have devised a grid layout.
[code] Experience Exploit
Story DRAMATISM NARRATIVISM
Setting SIMULATION GAMISM[/code]The top line indicates the motive/act. The leftmost column indicates the subject/target of the action/motive. I have effectively collapsed setting and situation etc. into my term "setting". The term "exploit" should be taken to indicate use/manipulate/modify/create.

contracycle wrote: I therefore suggest:
The Simulationist seeks to EXPERIENCE SETTING.
The Gamist seeks to EXPLOIT SETTING
The Narrativist seeks to EXPLOIT STORY
The Dramatist seeks to EXPERIENCE STORY

Valamir wrote: I could not conceive of what would constitute a decision made for Dramatist purposes that would allow it to stand on its own.

Mike Holmes wrote:
How about rules that made it more easy for a GM to create story during play? Does that make sense?

Hmmm. This makes this a very tempting idea. But the problem is with what Fang brings up. Essentially the model begins to examine the full range of player desires in RPGs (what players "seek" as you put it). The problem is exactly ad Fang puts it. What makes these four categories atomic? Why not break them down further. To compare to GNS, that theory decides to divide things at the level of decision where, arguably, there are only three possible choices. But certainly with desires, these things can be easily broken down further. This is why one can introduce Narrativism into this (Gareth's) model making it four-fold. But, the difference between these being player-empowerment to affect story, where is my player-empowered setting desire? Or really any other breakdown?

I'd buy that these are mutually exclusive groups at the level you describe (or could be defined as such, much as Ron does), but what makes this level useful as opposed to a finer breakdown, or one that consideres more parameters tham just the two you mention?

Mike

edited for clarity

contracycle wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote:
How about rules that made it more easy for a GM to create story during play? Does that make sense?

I would say you could, yes, although I would also like to say that I this idea was just to open discussion.

I guess my major source of discontent, as it were, with GNS at the moment is:
a) the absence of dramatism
b) failure to distinguish between player and GM modes
c) the mutual exclusivity of the 3 types.

I guess this comes down to a kinda belief thing: I don't believe that you ever, ever, come across an X player who makes X decisions. I do not accept that any discrete decision X is or can be mnotivated by only one strand. IOW I think you find, say. Gamist/Sim combo players, and when they make decisions, they do so along BOTH axes simultaneously. Therefore, I see no need for the present mutual exclusivity - its useful in a diagnostic sense but I don't think the model ever appears in a material form anywhere. I think any given player, AND any given decision, contain a multitude of styles.

As for the GM thing - yes, I can certainly see that in SOME forms of play the GM and players are essentially indistinguishable, but I'm not convinced that this should be an initial assumption. Its a problem that I have dating back to the rgfa threefold - I think GM's make decisions in fundamentally different ways to the ways players do. I would prefere a model which relegated the GM-less/full scenario to a special rather than a general case.

From these two positions, I can construct dramatism as a quarter primarily inhabited by the Illusionist GM. Some player decisions would fall into this box, such as systems which provide point rewards for falmboyant/entertaining play and whatnot. Symmetry is not needed; not all aspects of the model need address players IMO.

That last post should be in the thread about current valid GNS Issues.

But getting back to your new model: I like the notion that you separate the GM and player positions. I'd add that there are combinations of GMs and Players where the decision making process for each is different. For example, a certain GM might play an open Illusionist game with some players while playing a hidden Illusionist game (lying) with others.

Some of these combinations are probably dysfunctional. One could use such a theory for diagnoses (again, just speculating on usefulness).

Mike

Gareth (contracycle),

I'm afraid I see all of those issues as being fully resolved in the existing essay, such that what remains is explanation, not debate.

Taking them out of order ...

1) What mutual exclusivity? It is not there regarding people as units, nor as games as units, nor even as sessions as units. The unit is "instance of role-playing," which is to say, one decision of play. A scene is probably the minimal unit.

Now, I suggest that sessions and games (ie "campaigns") and players are not characterized by a random assortment of GNS priorities, but the extent to which decisions are "clustered" in GNS terms is observed to vary widely.

I've always stated this point, back to the very first days of the first System article; granted, I did not articulate it formally until the most recent essay. I also stand by the observation that real humans do tend to cluster those priorities, at least into larger units of play. That is not exclusivity inherent to the model, but rather an observation.

2) Where does the perception that GM and player are equivalent at all times come from? That is madness. Stated very, very clearly in my essay, is the concept that the functional role of GM as opposed to player varies widely within each category. It is one of the "further application" issues that the GNS level is officially, definitely, and totally not responsible for describing, but is necessary for functional play. I even list the possible variants of GM/player roles for each category!

I am beginning to think that the "layer" issue, as described in my Seven Misconceptions post, is perhaps the biggest stumbling block of all - people are not seeing that GNS exists in a "block," and that many crucial elements of play exist in further "blocks" within each GNS category.

3) And finally, dramatism. I think I mentioned my views on this somewhere in the last few flurries, but damned if I'm hunting for it now. Let's see ... what I said was this:

a) Dramatism as a uniquely-featured mode of play has never been described or observed. I am still swinging my dead cat and have not yet hit any evidence of an actual human who is actually playing "Dramatist," in a way that isn't described by some aspect of GNS.

b) When I have asked for a description, I am given a textbook description of a form of Simulationism. This assignment to that category has required absolutely no "bending" or discomfort of the fundamental definition of Simulationism. All discomfort with that assignment has been based on emotional reactions, whether toward "story" being a Simulationist possibility or based on loyalty to the Threefold version of the term.

In conclusion, I still see Dramatism as a non-issue if we are discussing role-playing in the terms of my essay. Either we are talking about (b), in which case "Dramatism" as described to me is nicely present in GNS, or we are talking about (a), in which case we are in a Bigfoot situation - you gotta show me a specimen before we start talking about mammalogy.

Best,
Ron

I just want to pop in and comment on Ron's point one above.

That section is worth reading again and again. IMO it is the key to unraveling the mysteries of GNS (which is why I highlighted it in my recent post on the subject).

Looking back on my history with GNS at GO and later here, I think that the lack of understanding of this point (by different people at different times) was the source of a LARGE number of our impassioned discussions.

I can recall Ron mentioning "at the instance of role-play" and other similiar phrases but they never really clicked with me, and in retrospect I suspect they never really clicked with several of us. (Possibly because the meaning of phrases like "at the instance of role-play" isn't immediately obvious except to people who already get it; or possibly because there is just some level of exposure required before understanding dawns).

But this really is for me the key. So many of the discussions here went around and around in circles because people were argueing completely different points. They may have been using the same jargon but in hindsight it is clear to me that much of the time one side or the other (often me) didn't grasp this point. We spent alot of time argueing about "games" and "players" and "player preferences" and "play styles" and other such ambiguities, when what the model was really designed for was decisions. We were trying to apply Newtonian rules at a Quantum level and it just wasn't working. Decisions are the subatomic particles, so to speak, and it is decisions that are what GNS is about.

Speaking for myself, probably better than 1/2 of my disagreement with what GNS says, or should say or doesn't cover, etc. in the past stems from not haveing truly grasped this concept. I read it, I understood it at that acknowledgement of syntax level, but I never really got the implications until the last several months.

It was clear to me from the recent RPG.net thread that most of those folks don't grasp this about GNS either. It is also clear to me that even here on the Forge, our self developed short hand tends to obscure rather than highlight this point.

Also I do believe that my own years of experience in roleplaying looked at through the lens of decision bears out the idea that ulimately each decision can only occupy 1 G-N-S position. Granted, one might weigh the pros and cons "this is what my character would do, but this would be better for the 'story', but this would help me level faster" of a decision; and you may try to "balance" the decision or compromise as much as possible "yeah it was a little bit gamey, but mostly justifiable"; but ultimately the internal debate has to end and the choice has to be made, and that choice will be either a G, N or S choice, regardless of whether the player is even concious of the difference.

Valamir wrote: I just want to pop in and comment on Rons point one above.

But this really is for me the key. So many of the discussions here went around and around in circles because people were argueing completely different points. They may have been using the same jargon but in hindsight it is clear to me that much of the time one side or the other (often me) didn't grasp this point. We spent alot of time argueing about "games" and "players" and "player preferences" and "play styles" and other such ambiguities, when what the model was really designed for was decisions.

It was clear to me from the recent RPG.net thread that most of those folks don't grasp this about GNS either. It is also clear to me that even here on the Forge, our self developed short hand tends to obscure rather than highlight this point.

contracycle wrote:
This produces a 4-axis model - GNDS. In order to arrange them in some (hopefully) self evident manner, I have devised a grid layout.

.............Experience......Exploit
Story......DRAMATISM....NARRATIVISM
Setting...SIMULAITON...GAMISM

The top line indicates the motive/act. The leftmost column indicates the subject/target of the action/motive. I have effectively collapsed setting and situation etc. into my term "setting". The term "exploit" should be taken to indicate use/manipulate/modify/create.

I therefore suggest:
The Simulationist seeks to EXPERIENCE SETTING.
The Gamist seeks to EXPLOIT SETTING
The Narrativist seeks to EXPLOIT STORY
The Dramatist seeks to EXPERIENCE STORY

Please apply criticism with vigour.

Ron Edwards wrote: Gareth (contracycle),
1) What mutual exclusivity? It is not there regarding people as units, nor

recent essay. I also stand by the observation that real humans do tend to cluster those priorities, at least into larger units of play. That is not exclusivity inherent to the model, but rather an observation.

2) Where does the perception that GM and player are equivalent at all times come from? That is madness. Stated very, very clearly in my essay, is the concept that the functional role of GM as opposed to player varies widely within each category.

a) Dramatism as a uniquely-featured mode of play has never been described or observed. I am still swinging my dead cat and have not yet

hit any evidence of an actual human who is actually playing "Dramatist," in a way that isn't described by some aspect of GNS.

b) When I have asked for a description, I am given a textbook description of a form of Simulationism. This assignment to that category has required absolutely no "bending" or discomfort of the fundamental definition of Simulationism. All discomfort with that assignment has been

based on emotional reactions, whether toward "story" being a Simulationist possibility or based on loyalty to the Threefold version of the term.

Valamir wrote: I just want to pop in and comment on Ron's point one
I can recall Ron mentioning "at the instance of role-play" and other similiar phrases but they never really clicked with me, and in retrospect I suspect they never really clicked with several of us. (Possibly because the meaning of phrases like "at the instance of role-play" isn't immediately obvious except to people who already get it; or possibly because there is just some level of exposure required before understanding dawns).

Laurel wrote:

contracycle wrote:
I'm interested in hearing more from you about the differences between Experience and Exploitation, and specific examples of how players do

Can't say as I can give all you asked for, as this is strictly Back Of The Envelope, but I can try to describe the decision more precisely.

The simulationist who wishes to Experience Setting wants to find out new and insteresting stuff. The want to experience discovery, enlightenment. I think they primarily value skilled narration as an aid to communication and portrayal.

The Gamist who wishes to Exploit Setting is mostly a "doer" (here the implicit absence of competition as a motive IMO). They want to find out how the gears rotate and what they do; conflicts and challenges provide opportunities for exploiting the circumstances and tools around them to best effect, which satisifes the gamist desire to overcome the world and impose their will upon it.

The dramatist who wishes to Experience Story like Cool Shit, mostly IMO. Many stories have the protagonist as essentially carried by the wave - the Matrix is an example which springs to mind. Combined with a heavy cool factor, this is sufficient for dramatism IMO.

The narrativist wishes to create story; to be the creative entity as opposed experience anothers creation, the combined authorship model. To this end, the story itself is the thing they work and act upon.

Thats all I have for now.

contracycle wrote:

Valamir wrote: I just want to pop in and comment on Ron's point one
I can recall Ron mentioning "at the instance of role-play" and other similiar phrases but they never really clicked with me, and in retrospect I suspect they never really clicked with several of us. (Possibly because the meaning of phrases like "at the instance of role-play" isn't immediately obvious except to people who already get it; or possibly because there is just some level of exposure required before understanding dawns).

Then let me be absolutely explicit: I think that, at the very moment when an actual player or GM is making an actual decision, they may be doing so (indeed are probably doing so IMO) on more than one axis simultaneously, possibly on all of them. I would concede that they are probably doing so to different DEGREES, but not that they are following one axis exclusively in any given decision.

Valamir wrote: For instance if faced with the opportunity to earn your character a +3 modifier in a way that makes no simulative sense, vs a way to earn your character a +1 modifier in a way that isn't so egregious but still doesn't make total simulative sense...choosing the second option is STILL a gamist choice. It may a choice mitigated somewhat by simulationist concerns but the choice itself (the willing violation of the rules of verisimilitude to achieve a competitive edge) is clearly gamist...NOT a combination.

Similarly the demands for Narrativism are fairly explict (although more difficult to define). But they center on making choices that illustrate, involve, advance, or resolve a Premise. If you have the opportunity to spotlight the Premise but you decide instead that to do so would be too out of character, then you've made a simulationist decision. There is no "it was 'mostly' narrativist".

I think part of your disagreement stems from your referring to the GNS positions as lieing on an axis. Since axes lend themselves well to measuring the degree that something is something you've gotten used to thinking of degrees of G or degrees of S. This in not the case. A G, N, or S decision is descrete. It cannot be a combination of more than one because to a large extent the definitions are mutually exclusive.

But G N S decisions are discrete and mutually exclusive because they've been defined that way. If you want to fashion your own theory with your own definitions where this is not the case than feel free to do so, Ron has infact encouraged this. But your altered definitions in no way invalidate the definitions that are set for GNS. Only whether your model proves more or less useful after several years of implementation and practice can it be judged as to whether it is more or less effective then GNS at certain things.

contracycle wrote:

Valamir wrote: For instance if faced with the opportunity to earn your character a +3 modifier in a way that makes no simulative sense, vs a way to earn your character a +1 modifier in a way that isn't so egregious but still doesn't make total simulative sense...choosing the second option is STILL a gamist choice. It may a choice mitigated somewhat by simulationist concerns but the choice itself (the willing violation of the rules of verisimilitude to achieve a competitive edge) is clearly gamist...NOT a combination.

This is a perfect outline of the difference of perspective; to me I think that it is precisely a combined decision, and that the player has sought out a solution that allows a sufficiently comfortable compromise between their two drivers. The player has made neither a pure gamist nor pure simulationist choice - they have selected a mode that accomodates both to the extent that they (the player) are comfortable.

I think part of your disagreement stems from your referring to the GNS positions as lieing on an axis. Since axes lend themselves well to measuring the degree that something is something you've gotten used to thinking of degrees of G or degrees of S. This in not the case. A G, N, or S decision is descrete. It cannot be a combination of more than one because to a large extent the definitions are mutually exclusive.

As far back as r.g.fa., I proposed a model in which a given game was rated 1-10 in each of G, D, and S simultaneously. A game may then have had a predominance of a style, or a couple of equally balanced style and a compromised one, or any combination of three indicators. I think it is harder to do a game that maxes out all three axes simultaneously, but possible.

Thus I think it is quite plausible to say that a given *decision* exhibits strong elements of style X, a consideration for style Y and an abnegation of style Z, for example. That is how I interpret my own observations. A tendency in a give player to favour or privilege a style within their decisions may also be identified, but unless the commitment to a given style is very strong, that player can probably "drift" with ease and in response to other players.

Hey guys,

Great discussion. As a bitsy point, I want to acknowledge Gareth's point about the difference between "theory as such," and "observations regarding the theory and reality." This is a big deal.

A good example is Stances vs. GNS categories. In the theory, by definition (itself based on previous observation), Stances shift easily and unconsciously, well within the unit of "instance" that GNS applies to. By definition, no one Stance defines a GNS category or vice versa.

OK, now take it to videotape and we see that Author Stance shows up like a monster during Narrativist or Gamist play; that Actor Stance shows up consistently during a couple-three nuanced versions of Simulationist play; and that Director Stance shows up in wonky forms scattered all 'round the map. H'm! Have we just altered the theory? No. That observation remains an observation, and perhaps it may become a basis for proposing some causal relationships between [G / N / S] and [Act / Auth / Dir], but it ain't going to change the "GNS is not defined by Stance or vice versa" as described above. Nor does it preclude the possibility of new combinations arising; for instance, a case may be made that Universalis supports Simulationist play with heavy Director Stance.

Anyway, the above example should itself become a topic of debate except on a thread of its own. I present it to demonstrate and support Gareth's point.

I am attending this discussion with great interest, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that Ralph's points are making the most sense to me. But no matter what, even if I'm not participating much, I'm attending carefully and everyone's making a lot of sense.

Best,
Ron

As Ron said, great discussion, and the identification of Tenets vs. Interpretations is a "big deal", as is the "does 51% G + 49% N = 'G', or is it 51% G + 49% N = 'Just a little more G than N' " question.

Let me look at a few other "equations" - I think that under GNS, Experience + Exploit + (a number of other things) = Explore, so one thing we see in this theory is a 'refinement' of the meanings/types of Exploration that are possible in RPGs. That may be a good thing, but it doesn't seem to me *neccessary* in order to explain Dramatism. I do not understand why Gareth says "I find the location of dramatism inside simulationism implausible". Dramatism = the players as actors in a story created by the GM and/or a game line metaplot. Simulation = the prioritization of particular Explorative elements. Thus, in GNS Dramatism = Exploration of "the GMs story", where "the GM's story" can be broken down into Setting, Color, and etc. Having the goal of Exploring an existing (or even an evolving/varying) "story" is not the same as having an N-Created Story as a goal, and that's why N-Story-Creation is not an Explorative element - though making both N and G Explorative elements, and allowing Goals to be essentially any valid combination of the (now) 7 Explorative pieces, is one way a theory could go (probably consistent with the percentage/weighting approach, which concerns me - I think the GNS 51% G = G is an accurate model, at least in terms of looking at player satisfaction and design requirements).

I don't see it as *required* though - can Gareth (or whoever shares the concern) help me see why "Dramatism = Exploration of the GMs story" (which is to say, Sim in that it has as its' Goal the prioritization of Explorative elements) is an unsatisfactory construction?

Gordon

I don't see it as *required* though - can Gareth (or whoever shares the concern) help me see why "Dramatism = Exploration of the GMs story" (which is to say, Sim in that it has as its' Goal the prioritization of Explorative elements) is an unsatisfactory construction?
Gordon

About that model I proposed back at the top of this thread; it's up! Just drop on down to it in the Scattershot forum, and tell me what you think.

Fang Langford

I think Marco's explanation stands well for me - it's exactly the kind of player-originated but story oriented decision that I was thinking of. No, the player is not being truly authorial and thus is not to me Narrativist; but it seems reasonable to me to describe this aspect as dramatist. Its about effect, cool factor, personal satisfaction in selecting types of scenes or experiences which the player believes will, I guess, make their character more interesting, their personal "story" more interesting.

I don't think this sort of behaviour occurs in reference to cause and effect - the player is not extrapolating probability or anything (and probably chooses to be ignorant of much of the required data). I think what they ARE doing is "spotlight authoring" by intervening in how, and to a lesser extent what, the portrayal goes and what it describes.

Thus, I think the duel between Darth and Luke in Empire Strikes Back has "story value" independant of its significance to the emotional states of the characters; it is simply cooler, more dramatic to do this on a gantrey overlooking a giant pit. Some logic applies to opening seen of Jedi, with the sarlac pit.

If players or GM's make decision on this basis - not extrapolation of the sim, not construction of the actual story points - then I would submit they are making a decision which could be described as Draamtist.

(PS: I think players each make decisions about THEIR individual story, not the story experienced by the group).

Hey,

This discussion just went straight down the rabbit hole for me.

Marco has described, 100%, with no bones or ifs-and-buts, a Narrativist decision on a player's part.

Marco, your interpretation of this act as non-Narrativist is plainly, purely bizarre. Doing something during play "because it makes for a great story" is the definition of Narrativist play.

The bizarreness is compounded by non-substantive detail. For one thing, you state that it's not "in-character," which is irrelevant (in, out, whatever, irrelevant). You also specify that it's not in Actor stance, which is only mildly relevant, although not definitive, and without further details cannot mean much.

Also, what's all this about Directorial mechanics? Narrativist play is not defined by their presence.

I dunno, guys. Nothing here indicates to me that the basic issues are being understood - which means, to me, that the debate about them may yield some useful details, but not much overall illumination.

Best,
Ron

You beat me to it. I was about to say exactly the same thing.

I'm not sure where this hang up came from that to be Narrativist it must be with authorial power.

Its all about player motivation in the decision making process.

If a player does something because it would be what his character would do, its a simulationist decision. If that decision cooincidentally happens to make for a good "story" (there's that damn word again), great. But its still a simulationist decision.

If a player does something because it would make for a good "story" its a Narrativist decision. If that decision cooincidentally happens to also be what the character would have done any way, great. But its still a narrativist decision.

Its that simple. Don't ask "what did the player do", ask "why did he do it".

Hey Ralph,

I'm a liiiiittle uncomfortable with your phraseology, although I do agree that we're aiming at the same thing.

I don't think we are dealing with intangibles like motivation, though - GNS really is about observable behaviors, like those that I list in the Simulationism discussion in the essay. So when Marco states "in order to make a great story," I take that as short-hand for a wide variety of tangible context and actions that accompanied the player's stated decision to "take a bullet."

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
I'm a liiiiittle uncomfortable with your phraseology, although I do agree that we're aiming at the same thing.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hey,
Marco has described, 100%, with no bones or ifs-and-buts, a Narrativist decision on a player's part.

Marco, your interpretation of this act as non-Narrativist is plainly, purely bizarre. Doing something during play "because it makes for a great story" is the definition of Narrativist play.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hey,

This discussion just went straight down the rabbit hole for me.

Marco has described, 100%, with no bones or ifs-and-buts, a Narrativist decision on a player's part.

Marco, your interpretation of this act as non-Narrativist is plainly, purely bizarre. Doing something during play "because it makes for a great story" is the definition of Narrativist play.

The bizarreness is compounded by non-substantive detail. For one thing, you state that it's not "in-character," which is irrelevant (in, out, whatever, irrelevant). You also specify that it's not in Actor stance, which is only mildly relevant, although not definitive, and without further details cannot mean much.

Also, what's all this about Directorial mechanics? Narrativist play is not defined by their presence.

I dunno, guys. Nothing here indicates to me that the basic issues are being understood - which means, to me, that the debate about them may yield some useful details, but not much overall illumination.

Hi Gareth,

Well, this is that line of decision one must come to.

My call is that saying "story-oriented decision" is just too damn vague in the first place. It can't be both ways: either the person's decision is fundamentally about experiencing what his character feels and does, utterly regardless of whatever the GM or anyone else is up to, story or not; or his decision is about the character's personal story, again, utterly regardless of whatever the GM is up to, story or not.

So screw the GM and illusion and whether "story is going on around" the character or not. Either the player perceives Narrativist Premise happening and makes a Narrativist decision to address that Premise, or he doesn't, in which case he is "being the character" as the priority. GNS is about real people's actual decisions and goals during play.

In the case of your example, you say,
"The player wants his character to get shot because the PC was, previously, a selfish guy, but he's learned the value of friendship and is now willing to put his life on the line to protect others."

(a) There is no way to interpret what you have described as anything but Author stance: "The player wants ..." That's your Author power right there.

(b) There exists a values-based Premise: which has more value, selfishness or the needs of others? And an action answers it, as a priority: the needs of others - hence, creating Theme.

(a) makes the trick possible. (b) does the trick. Bam, Narrativist Premise. Bam, Narrativist decision, bringing personal judgment to that Premise. Bam, Narrativist play.

[Side note. It seems to me that people are way too hung up on the "consciousness" issue, as if Narrativist play has to be in some kind of non-experiential third-person at all times, as if in-character Author stance were not possible - when it is, as far as I can tell, observed very often as the most satisfying kind of Narrativist play.]

The next question is whether it is functional play or not. This is crucial as well; three possibilities exist.

1) If this decision is met with disappointment, anger, confusion, or anything similar, we have dysfunctional play. This might occur because the GM has plans for that character or the outcome of that combat. It might occur because the other players want this character around for one reason or another, or perhaps because they are annoyed at the "grandstanding" of the player - "It just has to be about you, doesn't it." The whole point of this kind of dysfunction is that the other people in the group do not care about the Narrativist Premise embodied in that character and they are irritated that it has interfered with their priorities, of whatever kind.

2) If this decision is basically irrelevant to the other players' emotions and concerns, we have ... marginally functional play, basically a hybrid that can at least walk (if not run or fly). Again, the others don't care, but they also don't mind that this player does and acts upon it. The player is making a Narrativist decision that more-or-less "abides" within the game - it might even be scooped up and made important to the GM's story later - but the character's actions had no thematic impact to anyone but that character's player.

3) If this decision is made in the context of the emotional commitment of the others at the table, such that the other players and the GM all grunt or cheer or whatever in acknowledging and valuing the Theme being created, then we have functional Narrativist play at the group level. Note that this may occur even if the Theme is depressing, grim, or reflects badly on the character as a person (ie if he'd left the others to die, in most cases).

All of these are concrete, definite, identifiable outcomes that I have observed multiple times during actual play over the years.

I submit that any allegedly-Dramatist decision of play may be broken down in this fashion, and either it will go the way this one went, or it will go in another direction entirely (any of a number of forms of Simulationist play).

Best,
Ron

Ron, that is probably the most clear and concise break down of an example I've seen yet. You should lift this whole cloth into your next essay.


As an aside, it occurs to me in following this thread that the existance of "Dramatism" as a something seperate and distinct relies on applying a different definition to Narrativism and a different definition to Simulationism than what is present in GNS.

In other words: IF Narrativism meant this, and IF Simulationism mean that, THEN we've opened up a space where there is a type of play not included in either of those definitions and we'll label that space Dramatism.

Given the definitions of N and S as they exist in the GNS model, there is no such space, and instances of what is being called "dramatism" (once broken down) can be seen as being clearly N or clearly S.


Now while it is certainly possible to alter the definition of N and S in order to make room for D, I am not currently seeing the merit in doing so.

What is to be gained by adding D? Is there some deeper insight into the nature of gaming that can only be gleaned if we expand our thinking to include D as a seperate entity rather than including D as part of N and S? If there is, then its an avenue definitely worth pursueing further. If there isn't...then I'd have to ask "what's the motivation behind the desire to add D"?

The cynic in me suspects that the motivation is one of personal bias. Namely identifying with the style defined independently as D, and wishing to see that style occupy a top level traunch in a model as some sort of confirmation of its legitimacy.

That, of course, is just cynical speculation on my part. I stand eager to hear more.

Not more about what D is (because we can fit what D is within the current model)

Rather more about why it is important to recognize D play as D play rather than recognize D play as a flavor of S play or a flavor of N play. Again, what is the significance of seperating it out?

Valamir wrote:

contracycle wrote:

Valamir wrote: The demands for simulationism are pretty explicit: Adherance to cause and effect rules of verisimilitude. If this adherance is violated by even 10% in order to achieve some competitive end or to drive the story towards a Premise, then it is not a simulationist decision. There is no such thing as "it was 'mostly' a simulationist decision". You either adhered to the dictates of casaul reality or you were willing to violate those dictates to pursue a gamist or narrativist goal.

For instance if faced with the opportunity to earn your character a +3 modifier in a way that makes no simulative sense, vs a way to earn your character a +1 modifier in a way that isn't so egregious but still doesn't make total simulative sense...choosing the second option is STILL a gamist choice. It may a choice mitigated somewhat by simulationist concerns but the choice itself (the willing violation of the rules of verisimilitude to achieve a competitive edge) is clearly gamist...NOT a combination.

This is a perfect outline of the difference of perspective; to me I think that it is precisely a combined decision, and that the player has sought out a solution that allows a sufficiently comfortable compromise between their two drivers. The player has made neither a pure gamist nor pure simulationist choice - they have selected a mode that accomodates both to the extent that they (the player) are comfortable.

Yep. Thats where the difference lies. I don't see this as being a combination at all. To be a simulative decision, the player would have had to have made a choice that was completely within the parameters of verisimilitude. Since in this example he made a choice that was outside the parameters of verisimilitude it was NOT a simulative choice. The issue of Premise never entered into it so it was NOT a Narrativist choice. The player had a choice between verisimilitude and increasing character effectiveness, and he chose to increase character effectiveness. That is clearly a gamist choice.

Granted he did mitigate the "damage" to verisimilitude in the example. But that does not make the decision simulative. Making a choice that is less of a violation than another choice doesn't change the fact that its still a violation. Now this player very well may be the kind of player who normally prefers to make simulative choices, and so selecting the lesser violation is easier for him to live with; but that does not change the fact that that particular decision was still a gamist one.

Valamir wrote: But G N S decisions are discrete and mutually exclusive because they've been defined that way. If you [contracycle] want to fashion your own theory with your own definitions where this is not the case than feel free to do so, Ron has infact encouraged this. But your altered definitions in no way invalidate the definitions that are set for GNS. Only whether your model proves more or less useful after several years of implementation and practice can it be judged as to whether it is more or less effective then GNS at certain things.

Whoo, major issues going down while I was writing about something else from back in the thread.

Ron, I buy your breakdown of the Narrativism of the example of the player who wants his character to get shot. Excellent insight.

But it looks like I can toss the arguments I was preparing to dispute "#1 and #2" from the RPG Theory/Illusionism thread. You're doing the work for me.

- Walt

I want to put a message at the top of the GNS Forum - "Important, Substantive clarifications of GNS in this thread - everyone come look!"

I'm gonna re-read and digest - it seems like everyone's covered the ground here well, so this long-time GNS-discussor can probably just sit back and read in appreciation all the great stuff you folks are posting.

One aside the example brings up for me - in my experience, putting a characters' life seriously on the line is a key way players "test" what kind of a game the GM is running (especially when things are getting marginally dusfunctional). Is it really a Sim (I'm-a-gonna-die), or some form of Illusionism? Can I really impact the story, or is the GM tied to his "plans" for my character? I'm not sure if that helps illuminate anything, but . . . there you have it.

Gordon

The hangup with authorial power lies in the Narrativist defintion of "creation of story."

I have seen it held here that character's play without directorial power results in merely adding color to the GM's story but that with meta-game mechanics story can actually be created. It has further been stated here that without actual creation of story then the players are not engaging in Narrativism.

In the example I cited there is no meta-game mechanic in play so how is story being created? If I'm wrong about story-creation then what is missing from VtM? (the Impossible Thing To Believe Before Breakfast).

To further expound on the guy-getting-shot scenario: if the decision comes into play when the GM offers a chance to get shot (i.e. the player doesn't go "okay, now it's time in my story arc to take the bullet" and then engineer a scene to do just that, but instead, in a plot-line created gun battle the player decides that his character has had enough and stands up and walks out blazing away suidicially into gunfire--the character's action being a rationalization of the player's wish for a dramatic story-altering death scene) then isn't the story still being created by the GM (in Narrativist terms--I suspect most RPGamers would accept story-creation as the result of a character aciton without directoral power)?

-Marco

I have a much longer reply to this coming, but I'll wait until Marco's most recent post is answered, as he touches on similar topics. I'll just interject:

Ron Edwards wrote:
In the case of your example, you say,
"The player wants his character to get shot because the PC was, previously, a selfish guy, but he's learned the value of friendship and is now willing to put his life on the line to protect others."

(a) There is no way to interpret what you have described as anything but Author stance: "The player wants ..." That's your Author power right there.

Mytholder wrote: To clarify: when I said "the player wants", I was trying to suggest that this is something the player privately desires, not something that he's declaring to the GM. He's not saying "can the bullet hit my guy?" or "my guy leaps in front of the bullet", he's saying "my guy tries to leap in front of the bullet". All resolution is in the hands of the GM. It's externally indistinguishable from Actor stance.

To clarify: when I said "the player wants", I was trying to suggest that this is something the player privately desires, not something that he's declaring to the GM. He's not saying "can the bullet hit my guy?" or "my guy leaps in front of the bullet", he's saying "my guy tries to leap in front of the bullet". All resolution is in the hands of the GM. It's externally indistinguishable from Actor stance.

Hello,

This post is written as a companion to Mike's, above.

1) Gareth, although one cannot tell Author/Actor stance apart without OOC dialogue being involved (and sometimes not even then), the distinction is eventually noticeable across scenes or other units of play. Please see two parts of my essay: (a) the examples of stances, and (b) the part of the GNS section about instances of play. The "instance of play" referred to in my essay specifically refers to enough play such that the distinction among GNS goals may be made by others. Author/Actor stance is involved (although not definitive) in this distinction.

2) Marco, I have no idea where you acquired the notion that Narrativist play requires or is defined by metagame mechanics. I have never said any such thing, and have repeatedly corrected others when they strayed in that direction. I suggest that you lose this particular cognitive association, because all it's doing is gumming up the dialogue.

Best,
Ron

Mike Holmes wrote: And, Marco, there certainly don't have to be any metagame mechanics used to facilitate this. Such mechanics may support this sort of play, but Vanilla Narrativism is often just making such decisions without using any particular mechanical help.

Marco wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: And, Marco, there certainly don't have to be any metagame mechanics used to facilitate this. Such mechanics may support this sort of play, but Vanilla Narrativism is often just making such decisions without using any particular mechanical help.

No doubt. But is this actually Narrativism? Is story being created with Author Stance? If it is, then are the GM and players "creating beautiful stories together" when the players are in Author Stance? If so, then why is VtM's color deceptive (the impossible thing, etc.)?
-Marco

Hi Mike,

You missed the sailent points of my post, I think.

1. Is story being created in a traditional game without any actual or social-contract-implied directoral power rules?

2. If that's so, what is the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast that it asks us to believe (Taken from Ron's essay)?

-Marco

We're dragging this dangerously off topic, but:

1. Story (I assume we're referring to the Narratvist definition, though less stringentlydefined forms are even more certainly being created) can be created in such a traditional game, yes. By players playing in a Narrativist fashion. Happens all the time. My favorite example is Peter Seckler's D&D game which is, from all reports, run in a completely Narrativist fashion.

Ron (and others) have wondered out loud why he bothers with a system that resists his efforts as much as D&D does, but there is no reason why one cannot play in a Narrativist fashion in D&D. The system just fights such efforts. Again calling D&D Gamist means that it best supports Gamism, not that you can't use it for other things.

2. "The Impossible Thing" is a player making a decision that is intended to both create Verisimilitude and Story simultaneously. Or a system that can enable a player to do such, I suppose. Note that certain decisions can create both by accident or coincidence, but at the moment of decision the player must be prioritizing one or the other. In any case, the important idea is that since a player can't do that (supposedly, that is the debate in this thread) a system cannot be created to support such an urge (which definitely exists).

Is this helping. If further clarification is needed on a point that is not pertinent to the thread, lets do this via PM.

Mike

Marco,

You wrote,
"Is story being created in a traditional game without any actual or social-contract-implied directoral power rules?"

It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter.

GNS is not about what is produced through play, but about the decisions, goals, and priorities of the participants. Therefore, screw the rules in question, at the most basic level. What are the goals and decisions? As I think I demonstrated, unequivocally, above, they are very easily categorized into G, N, or S, or (rarely) functional hybrids.

Now, if no activities, reinforcement, or standards of play at the social level are encouraging (say) Narrativist play, you'll get that kind of blah-neutral functionality I described above. So yes, you "can" get Narrativist play, speaking for one player at a time, in the total absence of such things. It ain't very significant at any level above that one player's experience.

If any activities, reinforcement, or standards of play at the social level do encourage (say) Narrativist play, then we move into functional Narrativism, at the group level. [Just as we would for any other of the GNS categories.]

Okay ... now for the big point, which I think you have been missing from day one. Systems, rules, and game mechanics are a formal method of activities, reinforcement, and standards of play at the social level. That's what they are, no more and no less.

1) GNS describes individual priorities of play.
2) Functional group play is achieved in large part by sharing compatible priorities.
3) Rules and systems are a means of promoting compatible priorities, or rather, they encourage enjoyable play insofar as they do this.

Thus we are not discussing whether "story" is being produced. We are discussing what people do during the moments that they engage in role-playing. Please see the paragraph that I quoted from my essay in my "Seven Misconceptions" thread, as well as the section from the essay that concerns "story" as it relates to Gamist and Simulationist play.

In conclusion, I think that you have failed to see my entire argument concerning the Impossible Thing. I am not claiming that "it cannot make story" or anything like that. I am claiming that these two things, (a) GM authors the story and (b) players determine protagonist actions, are literally impossible to combine, procedurally, at any given instant, in any given way, ever, during play.

Best,
Ron

Valamir wrote: Ron, that is probably the most clear and concise break
Given the definitions of N and S as they exist in the GNS model, there is no such space, and instances of what is being called "dramatism" (once broken down) can be seen as being clearly N or clearly S.

What is to be gained by adding D? Is there some deeper insight into the nature of gaming that can only be gleaned if we expand our thinking to include D as a seperate entity rather than including D as part of N and S? If there is, then its an avenue definitely worth pursueing further. If there isn't...then I'd have to ask "what's the motivation behind the desire to add D"?

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Gareth,
My call is that saying "story-oriented decision" is just too damn vague in the first place. It can't be both ways: either the person's decision is

contracycle wrote:

Valamir wrote: What is to be gained by adding D? Is there some deeper insight into the nature of gaming that can only be gleaned if we expand our thinking to include D as a seperate entity rather than including D as part of N and S? If there is, then its an avenue definitely worth pursueing further. If there isn't...then I'd have to ask "what's the motivation behind the desire to add D"?

Its an observable behaviour

I think, Ralph, that the point of looking at models that include Dramatism is not particularly to challenge GNS as such.

The point of GNS is to avoid conflicts. So, the player motivation is what we are trying to serve. GNS says that the way to satisfy a player is to look at how they make decisions, atomically. Which I have found utility with, previously.

I think that what Gareth's model is looking to do, however, is to simply approach the problem of motivation from a diffferent angel, and to consider behavior, which as you point out is decisions made over time. A set of decisions may be looked at differently than each atomically. The GNDS theory would state that to satisfy player motivations you consider their behavior over time. Then you apply mechanics that will satisfy the player that plays with such behavior. This makes sense to me.

However, I what I haven't seen is Gareth's theory take on a truely coherent form yet, or one that seems particularly useful. Part of the problem is the assigned categories and how they are determined. They seem quite a bit more loose than, say, the atomic decisions of GNS. And we have yet to consider any extended ramifications of such a theory (such as how to apply design to it).

That's not to say that I think that such speculation is useless, however. I think the theory just needs some work. It's not an attack on GNS. It's its own theory, and one that might some day be useful. And if Gareth want's to ponder it here, I can think of no better place. Perhaps it should be in the theory forum as it is not GNS, but it has obvious similarities so it might as well be here.

Mike

Valamir wrote:
What you are describing as D, as an observable behavior and as a "fully functional" play style I believe is well explained by GNS as follows.

Dramatism: A game in which both S decisions and N decisions are being made, but where the players are limiting themselves to S decisions and leaving the majority (or the entirety) of the N decisions to the GM.

I believe this definition addresses all of the characteristics of Dramatist play you've described, and is in direct contract to Narrativist play which requires the N decisions to be shared among all of the participants.

Gareth (contracycle),

I have four points, both of which are compatible with the posts by Ralph and Mike above.

1) The hypothetical player described by Marco and described further by Gareth (mytholder) was the topic of my discussion that you quoted from. The distinction between "player wanting" and "player playing the character wanting" was made very clearly by Gareth (m), especially. My dichotomy, which you are criticizing as a "leap," applies only to this example, not to all play of any kind. In the context of the example, it is not a leap or assumption at all. Please don't extrapolate my points beyond the questions that they address.

2) GNS is about individual decisions. You are including, by your own words, Dramatism as a combination of diverse sorts of decisions, themselves each described by GNS. I think this level-jump, in which I am discussing individual decisions and you are discussing combinations of decisions, is precisely the problem.

As I stated in my essay, a given group of people may in theory display a wide variety of GNS decisions through the course of play. I also stated that some combinations are apparently functional, and even described a few of them.

It is no challenge to the points of my essay to assign a name to any or some of these combinations. If you want to call one of them "Dramatism," it's no big deal, as any and all points of the essay, including the three-way distinction among GNS categories at the individual-decision level, remain unchanged.

In other words, what you refer to as a "problem" in reference to Ralph's post, is only a problem insofar as you confound the individual-decision level with the group-as-a-whole level.

3) I have noted in the past that you perceive Premise to be an imposed issue upon the players, and I think this misperception is causing a lot of problems in discussion. Here, you state that the player's insertion of Premise via play may somehow disrupt "the" Premise. You describe a chaotic situation in which everyone is Premise-ing left and right ... and I have terrible news for you - that's right.

That's exactly right. Everyone, via individual instances of play, may be altering Premise left and right. Group Premise is an outcome, a merger if you will, of all these little Premises. If we have compatibility among them, we have functional play. That's an "if." Achieving that "if" is what the essay is about.

I am describing all of role-playing, in this point. This is what people do; there is no "the" Premise which everyone "must" cleave to. The developed Premise of a coherent role-playing experience arises from compatible decisions and actions during play. Once such a thing arises and is perceived to any degree, it may of course feed back upon subsequent individual decisions.

3) We evidently disagree about this "consciousness" issue at a very basic level. In my view, if we begin to talk about what people are thinking while they do things, and use that as some sort of indicator of the quality/nature of what they do, we move straight into a zone of debate with no data, no observations, no recognizable patterns, and no value. Again, since I think we simply disagree regarding these aspects of the mind and the "self," I don't expect much value to arise from debating the point.

If anyone really wants to do so, and if they can refrain from sophomoric challenges of "Oh yeah? Then ..." then they can contact me privately.

Best,
Ron

I'm not really seeing the point of your post Mike. No one had labeled CC's efforts as an attack on GNS or any such thing.

There is this behavior out there identified as Dramatist. I'm not Anti-Dramatist, at all. In fact, if you peruse back to the top of the thread you'll see me commented at my own struggles to determine where this Dramatist idea might fit within GNS.

No matter how logical it seemed I couldn't see anything in Dramatism that could be identified as a motivation for making decisions that was distinct from the motivations already available.

The several exchanges that we've had since have solidified for me that the term Dramatist refers more to the outcome of how the game is played than actual decisions that are made. The last post hit it home for me. Dramatist play is a BEHAVIOR.

GNS looks at single decisions (or clusters of decisions for context as discussed recently in another thread), while behavior is a string of decisions.

Thus we do not need to account for Dramatist play with a new theory that changes GNS to GNDS...D doesn't belong at that level. D belongs at the next level up in scale. The level that we rarely get to because we've been too busy slogging in the mud. D decisions are really just S decisions and N decisions, which is the point of Ron's posts above. However, that is a little bit disatisfying because the play FEELS different and distinct. My above post, I think, explains quite nicely why the play fees different even though its built with the same type of decisions.

I feel quite comfortable characterizing D play not as a different type of decision but rather as a particular pattern of decisions which constitute the "Observable behavior" during play.

In fact, relating back to the thread where Ron and I were talking about "Intances of Play" to provide a context for identifying a G N or S decision, I'm now tempted to take things a step further.

Hypothesis: GNS is about discrete decisions during play. A sequence of these discrete decisions constitutes player behavior. The interaction of several player behaviors constitutes a game style. What Ron was describing as an Instance of play as being enough observed decisions to provide context is really simply acknowledging that some times its easier to observe behaviors rather than individual decisions directly.

What this does is allow us to talk about player behaviors and game styles without trying to shoe horn EVERYTHING into the core of the model itself. This doesn't in any way invalidate GNS rather it is simply an application of it.

Dramatist play does exist, it is totally legitimate to discuss it, and I'll leave questions of marginally functional or fully functional to the people who enjoy playing that way. It is a specific type of game style that can be defined by a combination of player behaviors which are themselves combinations of GNS principals.

Dramatist play is not only thus describable under GNS it is actually a perfectly natural and sensible application of GNS tenants.

Ralph,

You wrote "Stop hacking at GNS". I took that to mean that you saw what Gareth is doing as an attack on GNS. If he's not attacking GNS, then what "hacking" must he stop? And if you accept that Dramatism is one of these Behaviors, do you accept that there might be three others that might reasonably be labeled Gamism, Simulationism, and Narrativism?

If I'm not mistaken that's the point of this thread.

Note that if we were to start using these terms in earnest, I would suggest calling them Behavioral Gamism, then to discriminate between it and, um, Decisional Gamism. As I said, the theory needs work.

Mike

No offense Mike but your post is really just side tracking things.

This thread began as a model alternative to GNS in order to address issues that are not address in GNS. There have been many sub issues that have come up but the main direction of the thread has been to demonstrate that those issues actually are already describable by current GNS theory.

It can be hard to see how the range of issues are addressed by GNS because GNS operates on a very atomic level, and many of the issues are macro level issues. I offered one rough example of how a style of play that doesn't immediately seem to be represented in the model actually is represented if one adjusts the scale of reference.

Of course there are going to be other behaviors represented by different patterns of GNS arising during play. Probably dozens. Some of them may be Behavioral Gamism as a style of play that focuses almost exclusively on Gamist Decisions, as opposed to another style that is more of a blend of Gamist decisions and Simulationist decision, as opposed to another style that uses both Gamist and Simulationist decisions but each is limited to a specific area of game play.

Point being is that this doesn't require a new model. It doesn't require expanding GNS to include a D term. It simply requires that we stop "hacking away" at the model and start applying it. GNS is just a foundation. We need to see what kind of house we can start building with it.

No offense, Ralph, but I think it is you who are sidetracking. :-)

I think that the house that Gareth is building may potentially be able to stand on it's own. It certainly does not need to refer to GNS in any way if it doesn't want to. The relationship that you point out may be valid, but I'm not sure of the use of such a relationship.

For example, if we accept Gareth's model, then we could say that we are building a game based on serving Behavioral Dramatism, giving the GM lots of tools to create story for the players, and maybe some occasional player powers, whatever. We could then also point out how those things relate to GNS, but to what end? To say that such a game would not satisfy Decisional Narrativists? Mmm OK...

Mike

Well, I'm not going to go around and around with you on this.

I see absolutely no value (as in zero) to discussing building a new model to address ANYTHING until we are convinced that the existing model does not address that thing already. Reinventing the wheel over and over again is completely unproductive.

1) clearly identify the issue (which in another thread I started I state that I believe this has not been done).

2) identify how the GNS model (yes I said the GNS model, this is the GNS model forum after all) address or fails to address this issue.

3) only if the model fails to address the issue adequately is there a need to adjust the model or design a new one.

I don't believe there is any sense skipping ahead to 3 until 1 and 2 have been performed.

Looks like this has begun to spawn new threads to handle appropriate details (a good thing, I'd think), but for what it's worth -

Gareth's thoughts are (apparently) inspired to a large degree by perceived "issues" in GNS, so it is (IMO) appropriate to talk about those issues and seek clarification. Certainly it seems to me that "Dramatism" fits comfortably in GNS.

On the other hand, that doesn't neccessarily mean this (or some other) model isn't worth looking at - it may do a BETTER job than GNS in capturing the nature of things.

But those are very different discussions - "this is needed because GNS doesn't/can't handle x" vs. "this is needed because it handles x better than GNS does". Being clear about which discussion you're having seems to me to be an important understanding to establish.

Gordon

Thanks Gordon.

This thread is about a new model related to GNS. I am here to discuss the validity, usefullness, etc of that model. I think that Gareth proposed it as a fix of GNS originally, but I, personally see it as an alternate model. That is I can see some potential use of it as an alternate model. I completely agree that it in no way should replace GNS, at least not from what I've seen.

To satisfy Ralph,

1) The issue is that GNS is used, in part, for addressing the needs of players.
2) GNS in looking at only decisions and nothing else as a baseline, fails to be usefull in adressing some of these motivations.
3) By looking at a wider behavioral model, perhaps we can address these issues better.

OK, now can we continue? We don't hav to prove the above to discuss it, do we? I mean isn't that waht the discussion is for?


Ron has said that GNS is just a starting place in theory. Isn't it time we started to look at other potential avenues of thoretical development?

Mike

Whatever "new model" one comes up with can be only 1 of 2 things.

1) an alternative, as in "instead of", replacement to GNS. or
2) an addition to, extension of, application of GNS.

#1 IMO is counter productive. We've done that 1000 times. If that is what Gareth is interested in doing, great. More power to him. I'd submit that the GNS forum isn't the place to be doing that because it makes it real confusing but thats not my call.

#2 is what we need to do. What I want to do. What at least a dozen people I know want to do (what Ron's been begging us for months to do) but which never gets started because somehow we always wind up back at #1.

For any new model to be #2 and not #1 it has to build upon GNS not detract from it. That means using the definitions of Narrativist and Simulationist, and Gamist as they are defined in the foundational theory. Not using completely different definitions and slapping the same terms on them. That's just completely confusing. That means incorporating the basic tenents of GNS and going another step forward. Otherwise you wind up with confusion, misunderstandings and incompatibility.

I offered the beginning of one possible way to begin to take GNS another step forward by scaling up from decisions to behaviors and defining behaviors as a series of related GNS decisions. Is it a revolutionary idea? Hardly. But its a direction we haven't gone before to my knowledge. I remember a number of threads on the topic which mistook GNS FOR behaviors, but I can't remember any which used GNS to define behaviors.

You can take it another step forward by beginning a rigorous examination of Stance and then examining how Stance interacts with GNS.

You can take it another step forward by realizing that not all behaviors can be defined as collections of GNS decisions + Stance. That they are GNS decisions + Stance + Something Else, and starting to work on what that something else might be.

But at the end of the day, if the new models are to be actual advances of the theory they have to start with the theory as the foundation. Otherwise we're right back to reinventing the wheel.

Given that Gareth is not interested in supporting any such model, and that I am left out here defending the idea alone when I did not start it, I will acceed to quitting the thread. But I still believe that a model can be created that looks for that "Something Else" and is only related to GNS as much as Stance is. And I'm still interested in seeing that looked at.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Given that Gareth is not interested in supporting any such model, and that I am left out here defending the idea alone when I did not start it, I will acceed to quitting the thread. But I still believe that a model can be created that looks for that "Something Else" and is only related to GNS as much as Stance is. And I'm still interested in seeing that looked at.

Valamir wrote:
1) clearly identify the issue (which in another thread I started I state that I believe this has not been done).

2) identify how the GNS model (yes I said the GNS model, this is the GNS model forum after all) address or fails to address this issue.

3) only if the model fails to address the issue adequately is there a need to adjust the model or design a new one.

Le Joueur wrote: Actually Mike, I think you are supporting a manner of thinking, independant of a suggested model.