This is breaking off from the model proposition and related threads.

It made complete sense to me to look at Dramatism and other behavior-based classifications as a step building upon GNS as decision-based classifications. I can accept Dramatism as a mode of general play which a player can exhibit over the course of the game in which they make primarilly narrative and sim. based decisions in order to fufill both a primary and secondary goal.

If this is the case, and Dramatism is a mode of general play that builds upon GNS, what other behavior-based (as opposed to decision-based) classifications exist? What other fuctional (and not functional) describable patterns of behavior develop through a culmination of GNS decisions?

Laurel

Laurel. Actually this isn't new ground. We've been over this before (old discussions with myself and Fang and others). The problem is that, without atomization, or some other method of selection by criteria, you can claim that any behavior is an "ism". So, theoretically you can have an infinite number of styles, at least one per player.

Gareth attempts to cover this by having his two axes (and GNS is a behavioral model, really, that looks at decision making as the dividing line). I don't think that his method is a particularly good one, but at least it's a method. What method would you want us to categorize things by here? Otherwise you'll get people who want Storyism, and others who will decry that it overlaps with their Eventism (or whatever).

Mike

Damn, Mike. You're feeling awfully curmudgeony today.

I think this is actually TOTALLY new ground.

Yeah, we've flailed around trying to define behaviors before...but NEVER have I seen defining behaviors as a pattern of GNS decisions discussed, and that I think in retrospect has been the problem.

A key problem with GNS discussions before was in thinking of the GNS positions AS behaviors...then we'd find a bunch of behaviors that weren't clearly GNS and someone would declare the model broken. Then someone else would say "no its not broken, its just incomplete", and then someone else would say "maybe we can add more levels and layers to it " and on and on and around in circles ad naseum ad infinitum (and yes I recognize that I was front and center in a number of those threads).

But GNS is not about behaviors its about decisions. I've been saying that alot recently and I think alot of people have been "yeah whatever we know that". And perhaps technically we DO know that, but then we go right back into some circular discussion that clearly demonstrates that we don't really understand what that means.

I think the big difference in what I'm suggesting (and what Laurel at least appears to be interested in), is not how to change the GNS theory to accomodate X, Y, and Z; but rather how do we use GNS as it exists now (recognizing that we are talking about a model that's based on individual decisions), to then describe X, Y and Z as behaviors that are collections of GNS positions.

More than that, we can return to the corollary items of Stance.

Consider. People continuously confound GNS with a specific type of Stance. Why? Because certain behaviors ARE clearly Stance dependent (like Full Immersion) and we'd grown use to thinking of GNS it terms of behaviors.

Armed with an appreciation of GNS as decisions lets start to see if we can't identify all of those behaviors we've spent months argueing about as being a particular pattern of GNS decision, combined with a particular use of Stance, combined with a particular use of DFK, etc.

I suspect that every identifiable roleplaying behavior can eventually be categorized in this way...and if not, its only because there are still some corrolary items that we haven't defined yet.

I'm sure that these behaviors can be categorized in terms of GNS. Some as pure forms, others as mixes, etc. That's what GNS is for, and we do it all the time.

But that doesn't make it any easier to separate one behavior from another. Sure Deep Immersionism and Setting Exploration are both Simulationist behaviors. But that just grups them together. It only tells us how they are the same. It says nothing about their differences. Worse, they are undefined in most ways by the model. They may overlap or be the same thing. How does this analysis tell us anything?

Mike

By "isn't new ground" I meant threads like this one:

http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=715

which I started. There are a couple of others, too, IIRC. Anyhow, it was thought at the time that if there was no set of citeria that could be used to differentiate such behaviors that there would be potentially infinite numbers, and overlapping ones as well.

Yes, if we can nail this down, then it would be new ground. And potentially important. I didn't post to put Laurel off, but to try and get this sort of discussion going in, what I felt was, the right direction.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:
But that doesn't make it any easier to separate one behavior from another. Sure Deep Immersionism and Setting Exploration are both Simulationist behaviors. But that just grups them together. It only tells us how they are the same. It says nothing about their differences. Worse, they are undefined in most ways by the model. They may overlap or be the same thing. How does this analysis tell us anything?

Mike

Thats 100% exactly what I was thinking Laurel.

Play Styles can be seen (and hense analysed) as the GNS decisions a player makes over the course of a game, the GNS decisions a player WON'T make over a course of a game, the Stances a player will or won't use, etc.

So yes, Deep Immersion and Setting Exploration both make ample use of Simulationist decisions.

But decisions do not equal behavior. A series of decisions over the course of a game defines behavior. Therefor using GNS decisions we can analyse behavior by seeing behavior as the pattern resulting from several dozen to several hundred discrete instances of decisions.

HOW THEY ARE DIFFERENT is exactly what I'm talking about.

What distinguishes Deep Immersion play from from Setting Exploration play? Is it the specific pattern of G N S decisions? Can we say in listing characteristics of them both that Setting Exploration emphasises S but(like most styles) permits a wide range of G N S decisions over the course of play, but Deep Immersion requires overwhelming S?

Can we identify a specific Stance? Is the primary difference that Deep Immersion requires 100% only Actor Stance ever, while Setting Exploration allows a wider range of player Stances.

This is what I'm talking about. APPLYING the theory to arrive at behaviors and play styles.

Um, don't we do this all the time? In the thread on Illusionism, didn't we look at that behavior and try to identify it in terms of GNS and stance and other established stuff? Are you just proposing we do more? OK.

What behavior do you want to look at?

What I was hoping for was a theory that used new criteria that would more effectively relate to satisfying the underlying motivations behind the behaviors. We aren't really all that interested in the actual behaviors, are we, so much as the reasons why people have the behaviors, and what can be designed to appeal to said motivations? Yes we know that GNS and stance can address these things, but only in limited ways. What stance or GNS mode is best suited to the urge to develop a character? None is better than the other that I can see, so does that mean all designs will appeal equally to a player that has that motivation and the behaviors associated with it?

I was hoping for a model that would better address these sorts of questions. And statements like Laurel's:

That's the key right there, in the statement. If player behaviors contain more than a series of GNS decisions, what else do they contain, and how does it affect the series of GNS decisions, if it affects it at all?

I'm still not sure where you're going with this Mike. because you are saying the exact same thing I am. Now that we have the model lets start applying it.

We know the model is not defined by stance, but we also know that it definitely interacts with stance. So lets start talking about what you get when you cross GNS decisions with specific stances. Are there other elements besides stance (but similiarly trying to identify different aspects of play)? Absolutely. Hell I clearly remember 6 odd months or more Ron pleading with us to stop hacking at GNS and start looking for just those things (I can now sympathize profoundly with those sentiments).

But what we don't need to do is rip GNS out by the roots and start all over again with GEN or GDS or GNDS or any of the other flavors of models. If we keep doing that we'll never get around to what those "other things" are.

I say accept GNS as the foundation for all future discussions, and lets use it to probe out into the next levels but if you keep ripping out the foundation the house will never get built.

I can really see where you are both coming from. My brain is wearing down from too much porno today (being a Web Analyst for an Internet Filtering company is such an easy but brain-draining job), so I might not be as coherent as I was 3-6 hours ago.

I am of the opinion that there is more than just a series of GNS decisions that makes up a player's overall character-related behavior over the length of a game, but I think that series of GNS decisions is a vital part, and one of easiest to analyze because its often clearly observable, whereas choosing stances, for example, are often very internal processes not as easy to observe. However, I would *love* to have someone propose 'the other bits' Mike is interested in and for us to discuss them.

One of the goals I've had for a couple of weeks is to incorporate both GNS decision making theory with Robin Law's Player Archetypes, not because Law was the first or only person to ever discuss player archetypes, but he approaches it in a very GNS-friendly way, by suggesting that player archetypes have distinct goals which the GM will need to be aware of and reward in order to have fun.

The time to actually sit down with Ron's essays, Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering, the Scattershot Model all together and really, really read everything and fill up a notebook with my thoughts and the issues addressed and making correlations, alas, has not been forthcoming. I intend to do so as soon as I have a "free day".... hopefully by GenCon.

Laurel wrote: I am of the opinion that there is more than just a series of GNS decisions that makes up a player's overall character-related behavior over the length of a game, but I think that series of GNS decisions is a vital part, and one of easiest to analyze because its often clearly observable, whereas choosing stances, for example, are often very internal processes not as easy to observe. However, I would *love* to have someone propose 'the other bits' Mike is interested in and for us to discuss them.

Laurel wrote: The time to actually sit down with Ron's essays, Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering, the Scattershot Model all together and really, really read everything and fill up a notebook with my thoughts and the issues addressed and making correlations, alas, has not been forthcoming. I intend to do so as soon as I have a "free day".... hopefully by GenCon.

Well, I like Laurels proposal and Fangs alchemist analogy. Anecdotally, I have found myself thinking and writing of coexisting pairs of elements almost exclusively.

Although I'd be inclined to a wave rather than particle model :)

Frequency, amplitude? OK, what about if we brainstorm and construct dramatism as "opportunist narrativism" - i.e a story intervention without deliberation or perhaps clear intent. Then at least in frequency terms, opportunists might be distinct from "committed narrativism" in the extent to which narrativist decisions were made. The opportunist does not require the same degree of infrastructure and insight into story mechanics but can carpe the diem.

I yield the floor.

Fang, thats a beautiful analogy, and I think sums things up nicely.

We need to accept GNS as being complete (at least for awhile) so we can begin to use it to explore other things -- like a periodic table of games...THAT just gets my little hierarchal, categorization neurons all a buzzing ;-)

But EPN theory was rewritten several times over time until now even the concept of "orbitals" is known to just be a convenient abstraction. The interesting thing is that very little of "old school chemistry" like the properties of elements was overturned by new findings about the nature of the subatomic particles. The discovery of Quarks didn't change the position of Iron on the table. So we don't NEED GNS to be absolutely perfect in order to get accurate results from its application. Progress can be made.

I like the analogy but like all analogies...Heck, I can extend on this one.

With RW elements there are methods for determining when something is an element. The criteria is that it's constructed of EPNs, but that it is not combined with other elements (thus creating molecules). This can be determined scientifically by applying a few principles and observations.

So what is the protocol for determining whether a particular behavior is an element, or a molecule?

Also, as I've said before, I fear that, unlike the periodic table with it's limited number of stable elements, there will be a vast number of elements. Potentially too many to enumerate in any fashion that is useful. Let's say that we just stick to GNS (forget about stance for a moment) and consider these elements by percent of decision distribution. If we only allow for a behavior at every ten percent change and throw out, oh, say half as unstable, that leaves us with five hundred behaviors.

That's a lot of research.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: With RW elements there are methods for determining when something is an element. The criteria is that it's constructed of EPNs, but that it is not combined with other elements (thus creating molecules). This can be determined scientifically by applying a few principles and observations.

So what is the protocol for determining whether a particular behavior is an element, or a molecule?

Mike Holmes wrote: Also, as I've said before, I fear that, unlike the periodic table with it's limited number of stable elements, there will be a vast number of elements. Potentially too many to enumerate in any fashion that is useful. Let's say that we just stick to GNS (forget about stance for a moment) and consider these elements by percent of decision distribution. If we only allow for a behavior at every ten percent change and throw out, oh, say half as unstable, that leaves us with five hundred behaviors.

That's a lot of research.

Le Joueur wrote: Well, this isn't my bag, but it seems pretty clearly individual decisions versus patterns of decisions.

Double posted, and me with an edit button but no delete button.

And a finer example of an analogy taken to absurd extreme I never did see :-)

Well, I'm absolutely serious. I only extended the metaphor becasue people seemed to Grok it.

If you don't get to these "elements" you will find that everyone and their brother has an idea of what constitites a particular behavior with a particular label. I pose Illusionism as a case in point. We thought that we knew what that behavior entailed, but on analysis it took a gargantuan thread to sort out. And I believe that it's still not been settled in any coherent way. We can't get to analyzing a particular behavior until we can agree what that particular behavior is.

And we now have to contend with Gamist Illusionism, and other things that got constructed along the way. This sort of proliferation seems to me to be a real potential problem without a method for constraint.

I don't think that my fears are unfounded.

OTOH, if somebody were to propose a coherent guideline, I think that we might have something. Again, I'm not saying that this is a bad idea, just that we cannot prceed willy-nilly. and if we can figure out what those constraints and criteria are, they might say something about the games in general, much like the Periods of the Periodic Table say something about the elements therein (oops, extending the metaphor again). For example, Gareth's criteria would be such a guideline (and would, ironically have rows and columns like a Periodic table). I'm not a big fan of those particular guidelines, but I feel that something is needed.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Well, this isn't my bag, but it seems pretty clearly individual decisions versus patterns of decisions.

That fits the analogy, but is not at all what I'm talking about. An example is necessary.

Let's say I find a new substance called Immersion, and another similar substance called Deep Immersion. Now we all know what these are (or we will assume for the example that we do), but what we do not know is if they are elemental or not. On close examination using some protocol we might find that Immersion is actually a whole group of molecules formed using Deep Immersion as one element of their construction.

That would be cool. Now what's the protocol for determining an elemental behavior? What observable properties do they have which the molecules do not?

Mike Holmes wrote: And if we were to find all five hundred behaviors (or four, or however many there actually are), I despair that the only thing we would learn from them is what sort of GNS and Stance composition they had. Which we can do now with existing theory applied to any particular behavior we'd like to look at on an individual basis. So why bother?

Unless there is some other factor we'd like to identify in the mix which we haven't previously. Are the motivations behind combinations of GNS and Stance the only things that motivate players? I doubt it.

Mike Holmes wrote: If you don't get to these "elements" you will find that everyone and their brother has an idea of what constitutes a particular behavior with a particular label. I pose Illusionism as a case in point. We thought that we knew what that behavior entailed, but on analysis it took a gargantuan thread to sort out. And I believe that it's still not been settled in any coherent way. We can't get to analyzing a particular behavior until we can agree what that particular behavior is.

Mike Holmes wrote: And we now have to contend with Gamist Illusionism, and other things that got constructed along the way. This sort of proliferation seems to me to be a real potential problem without a method for constraint.

I don't think that my fears are unfounded.

Mike Holmes wrote: OTOH, if somebody were to propose a coherent guideline, I think that we might have something. Again, I'm not saying that this is a bad idea, just that we cannot proceed willy-nilly. And if we can figure out what those constraints and criteria are, they might say something about the games in general, much like the Periods of the Periodic Table say something about the elements therein (oops, extending the metaphor again). For example, Gareth's criteria would be such a guideline (and would, ironically have rows and columns like a Periodic table). I'm not a big fan of those particular guidelines, but I feel that something is needed.

I think all of the above is also very relevant to a number of calls recently about why terribly incoherent games sell like gangbusters.

I think what's going on for those games is that the incoherency of design allows for 'drift' into the ranges of play of much larger groups of participants. Since I also believe that 'system does matter,' I believe an alternative to designing games that are narrowly coherent in GNS terms is designing games that employ systems to be customized to the Elements that the customers want (and more of them per game), instead of relying upon unconscious, unspoken alterations (and the peril of misunderstandings).

Notable examples of this might be GURPS with its thousand and one optional rules and FUDGE's gamemaking toolkit. The problem with these is the actual systems for customization are either too 'hidden' and underexplained or too overwhelming, for the lesser sophisticated gamer.

I believe that a good seller could be intentionally designed to be custonizable by its system and flexibility. Such a game, prior to customizing would inherently be 'abashedly' everything, allowing any form of customization. The mechanism of customization would have to be simple yet robust and well-documented. I would even go so far as to say the utility of such customization systems could be tested by making it possible to change customization over time as the group's interest changes and that qualifies for the description of Transitional gaming.

I might even say that, if done extremely well, one could change the customization from one Element to another (relatively close one) from session to session or even from scene to scene. But there is no way I can tell if such is feasible, possible, or worth doing.* All I know is that such would benefit greatly from a discussion of individual Elements as opposed to yet another rehash of "My Problems with the GNS."

Fang Langford

* Actually, I'm lying here.

(Sleep, yes, definitely, sleeeepppp....)

Reduction. OK, that's a possible method. But as you say, you need a method to be able to "apply the breaks" as you put it. You suggest peer review? I like the way you think. But I may be the only one.

FWIW, I nominate you, Fang Langford, AKA Le Joueur, to the RPG Behavioral Theory Behavior Identification Review Panel.

Now, do you feel blessed or cursed?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Reduction. OK, that's a possible method. But as you say, you need a method to be able to "apply the breaks" as you put it. You suggest peer review? I like the way you think. But I may be the only one.

FWIW, I nominate you, Fang Langford, AKA Le Joueur, to the RPG Behavioral Theory Behavior Identification Review Panel.

Now, do you feel blessed or cursed?

Like I said, I'm OK with it. But I think we'd be getting a little ahead of ourselves to assume that anyone else thought the idea was a good one. Just considering the democratic nature of the Internet, an Oligarchy might rub many the wrong way.

Give them a chance to read your post a few times (took me twice).

Mike