I'm rather concerned that some primary aspects of the presentation have been misunderstood by many who have read it. Since I will be rewriting the doc on Jun 21, I think it's important to clear up some of the sticking points and prod for further reaction.

First, I'll address the value of GNS. As a set of ideas, GNS has spawned a lot of debate, but GNS has done some good, too. GNS and the ideas it contains have made some people feel better about gaming and allowed them to once again enjoy their hobby. It has actually brought a few people back to gaming. As far as I know, GNS is unique in doing that. I am among those people. That is why I feel that it's important to have a GNS faq, why I expended the energy to write a faq, and why I participate in this debate at all.

Next, I want to address the tone of the debate. Most of it is very good. I'm really pleased with the quantity and quality of input we've received about the faq. Most of it comes as no surprise to me at all, even the criticism. Thank you to everyone who has taken the time and interest in what we're doing here to read what we've written and tell us what you think about it. Some of it is angry - even pissed-off. To the angry, pissed-off people, I say this: Get over it. This is supposed to be interesting and somewhat rewarding. If this stuff pisses you off so much that you have to rant about it in the wee hours of the morning, don't bother with it. You're probably not listening to the context of what we're trying to say and you're just spreading discord. This is not to say critical thinking is wrong or bad, but we can have a reasonable discussion about it. At the end of the day, we may not agree, but at least we had the discussion.

Third, I want to address the criterion for determining whether a game is G, N, or S. It is a combination of overall game presentation, overall mechanical effect, player intent and behavior in playing the game, plus GM intent and behavior presenting the adventure and running the game. Naturally, this covers a lot of ground and has tremendous impact on how this stuff fits together. It's not "just" any one thing. In fact, using words like "just" or "only" is about the most contentious thing a person can do in discussing these issues. If you say, "It's just this," or "it's only that," you will piss people off. I was aware of it, but I credit Ron for articulating the point. Think about it. If any of these models were so cut-and-dried, none of it would require debate

Now, to the main point. I had a definite reason for presenting the historical and background terms before presenting GNS proper. It seems to me that all these factors feed into GNS and make the definitions live and breathe. It's also apparent that some of the impact has not been fully explored or implemented in the faq. I don't think that will happen over night, but allow me to expand a bit on my thinking in these areas. I will begin with definitions and then delve into terms, their impact, and how all this fits together.

Gamism is about competition among actual humans (players, GMs). It places emphasis on overcoming challenges, solving puzzles, increasing character capabilities, gathering stuff, fairness, balance, and winning the game.

Narrativism is about creating stories as a group. The emphasis is placed on allowing players to have some power over what happens in the story, how it happens, and how the story turns out.

Simulationism is about allowing the group to see what would happen in a given situation as a result of the characters' actions. It places emphasis on fairness, verisimilitude, and allowing the group to have an unusual experience.

GNS and Plot
When we talk about plot/storyline with respect to rpgs, we are talking about a pre-plotted sequence of events. Any game may have a plot set up in advance. Any time the GM uses railroading techniques to keep the players on course, there is the cahnce the players will notice and object. Any time the players deviate from the predetermined plot, there is the possibility that the side-trip will have consequences for the characters later in the game.

Gamist games are most likely to have a completely pre-plotted adventure. In Gamist games, this is primarily a vehicle for moving players from challenge to challenge. Gamists are most likely to follow the pre-plotted adventure from start to finish because the players want to overcome the challenges. The GM will usually railroad them a bit to keep them on course through the story.

Narrativist games are least likely to have a pre-plotted adventure. In a Narrativist game, this is a basis for allowing the players to engage in subplots and new stories. Narrativists may decide to tell a completely different story, in which case the GM probably wouldn't use railroading to keep them on course.

Simulationist games may or may not have a pre-plotted adventure. In a Simulationist game, this is one more set of pre-existing conditions in the game world. Simulationists may follow the pre-plotted story, or they may go off on a tangent at some point. This is determined by character motivations and the GM's interests. Depending on the conditions, the GM may or may not railroad the players to put them back on course.

Metaplot
Any game may have a metaplot. The presence or absence of this has some impact on what might happen in an adventure, but it has little or no impact on the style of play, the techniques the players use, or the methods for making decisions. As far as GNS is concerned, it's no issue at all.

Premise
All games have a premise. Like art, all games are about something. Premise is not so important in Gamist games. It may or may not be important in Simulationist games. It's usually pretty important in Narrativist games.

GNS and System Weight
System weight has little impact on a game's GNS orientation, but it may have some meaning on approach to play within each orientation.

Gamist games are often pretty heavy with mechanics for many occasions and subsystems intended to spell out powers and maintain balance. The mechanics are usually directed toward making a contest (such as combat) more exciting, and they're usually crafted in such a way that the player always has a chance to win or lose, no matter how unlikely either event may be.

Narrativist games are usually light systems, but they can become heavier as designers spell out specific rights and limitations on the player's method for creating story. They may also gain weight with increased Gamist or Simulationist influence.

Simulationist games pay the most attention to weight. Heavy systems are usually the result of stringent efforts to simulate conditions in the game world. Light systems are the result of strong desire for players to be their characters without cumbersome mechanical interference.

Stances
Any player can occupy any stance in any game, depending on the contract between player and GM. That said, the likelihood of the player being allowed to occupy a given stance changes depending on the orientation of the game. All players use Author stance during character creation unless the GM supplies ready-made characters. Some games have mechanics which allow the player to participate in Audience stance, but this is infrequent and not well-tied to GNS orientation of the game.

Gamist games place the player primarily in Actor stance, though some Gamist games may supply access to Author or Director stance in some circumstances. There is overlap here between Gamism and Narrativism.

Narrativist games place the players in Actor stance but usually allow them significant access to Author and Director stance so that they may actively participate in the creation of story, adding events, inventing subplots, and even dictating the outcome of some actions.

Simulationist games primarily place the player in Actor stance. Sometimes, players may have limited Author or Director power which allows them to change the outcome of events. There must be some way to explain this in order to maintain the verisimilitude of the game world. A very lucky character might have luck points to spend in order to improve a die result. A character with special powers may be able to be 2 places at once. If this is part of the game world, the player uses other stances as needed to achieve acceptable results. This is overlap between Simulationism and Narrativism.

Playing Characters
Interestingly enough, player method of playing characters has minimal impact on GNS orientation of the game. A player may play in IC or OOC mode regardless of stance. All approaches are valid.

Gamists are most likely to play for extended periods OOC mode. Regardless of mode, they usually make free and open use of OOC information.

Narrativists play IC or OOC as the situation demands, and use OOC information as needed.

Simulationists are most likely to play IC and to ignore OOC information.

Balance of Power
Balance of Power has been related to GNS orientation of the game, but that may change over time.

Gamist games have traditionally given the GM the bulk of the power, though some allow sharing based on access to Author and Director stance as shown above. This is not a rigid requirement as Rune demonstrates. Rune gives all the power to the players who take turns acting as GM.

Narrativist games openly share power between GM and players. This is reasonable, because the players need the power in order to tell their own stories. Recent independent designs freely give all the power to the players.

Simulationist games have always given all the power to the GM, and the idea of sharing that power (or using it if it's offered) is anathema to many Simulationists.

Scenario Design
Scenario design is not fixed in its relationship to GNS, but some combinations are more common than others.

Gamist scenarios are usually linear or branched adventures.

Narrativist scenarios are usually Set of Encounters, Relationship Maps, or Intuitive Continuity adventures. They can be linear or branched adventures, but it's likely the players will derail them in oursuit of their own stories.

Simulationist scenarios are often Set of Encounters. This is probably the preferred mode of play for many Simulationists, Simulationist GMs can also present linear, branched. Simulationists could probably make use of intuitive continuity adventures and relationship maps, but the arrangement is fairly new.

Conclusions
Nothing is absolute. There are numerous opportunities for overlap. Games are a jumble of G, N, and S techniques. These are further modified by the GMs who run them and the players who play them. A game can be evaluated based on its written presentation, but players can distort that presentation and give that game a different emphasis. Players themselves need not always play with the same emphasis, even in the same game session. What we try to do with GNS is look at what is possible, try to see what people do in playing games, and make observations about patterns of play.

Dramatism & Narrativism
Much has been said here about Dramatism and the idea of playing for story, any story. The fact is, the bulk of people who write about Dramatism treat it as Simulationism + Plot. I don't buy it. As a goal, a technique, a method, and as an intent, playing for "drama" with the GM driving all the plot is another flavor of Simulationism. The mechanics, the decisions the players make, the way the games are played are just like Simulationist games. All you're saying is that the players portray their characters with feeling and get the most out of their roleplaying experience. This is what I carry away from reading many posts in the rgfa debate.

Narrativism is different and unique. When you give the players control over the course, direction, plot, setup, and outcome of events in the game you open new vistas to them. You give them access to roads previously never travelled. I've seen the eyes of players open when presented with these new possibilities. If these games are a minority in the market, it is because the exploration of these possibilities did not begin until much later. Emphatically, Narrativism deserves its own corner of the triangle. It represents a completely different method and purpose for play compared to Gamism and Simulationism. Related to them? Certainly. A reaction to them? Probably. Important and worthy of separate acknowledgment? Definitely.

On this site in this model, Narrativism is here to stay.

With respect to the GNS faq, if the point of contention is the role of Dramatism in our discussion, I will remove all reference to that term.

Theatrix
IMO, Theatrix is ill-served and poorly represented in the rgfa model. Its potential and its meaning are submerged in the rgfa debate. It's a Narrativist game, pure and simple. That you can play it to dramatic ends is implicit, but to say it's "only" a Dramatist design is an insult to Berkman's work. In truth, I think even he doesn't quite realize the impact of what he wrote. In the bulk of their debates, the rgfa participants don't give weight to the great empowerment of players that Director stance provides. They barely even acknowledge their own Author stance. They largely poo-poo the idea of wearing the Author cap. They don't like the idea of GMs sharing power with players. As far as I can tell, they don't really understand the implications of allowing the whole group to create story as a group. That is one more set of reasons why I am an advocate of the Edwards model over all others. If/when John Kim updates the rgfa faq and presents compelling argument to dispute this, I will re-evaluate my position.

Best,

Logan

[ This Message was edited by: Logan on 2001-06-18 18:57 ]

Simulationism is about allowing the group to see what would happen in a given situation as a result of the characters' actions. It places emphasis on fairness, verisimilitude, and allowing the group to have an unusual experience.

Simulationist games may or may not have a pre-plotted adventure. In a Simulationist game, this is just one more set of pre-existing conditions in the game world.

Simulationists may follow the pre-plotted story, or they may go off on a tangent at some point. This is determined by character motivations and the GM's interests. Depending on the conditions, the GM may or may not railroad the players to put them back on course.

Dramatism & Narrativism
Much has been said here about Dramatism and the idea of playing for story, any story. The fact is, the bulk of people who write about Dramatism treat it as Simulationism + Plot. I don't buy it. As a goal, a technique, a method, and as an intent, playing for "drama" with the GM driving all the plot is just another flavor of Simulationism. The mechanics, the decisions the players make, the way the games are played are just like Simulationist games. All you're saying is that the players portray their characters with feeling and get the most out of their roleplaying experience. This is what I carry away from reading many posts in the rgfa debate.

Emphatically, Narrativism deserves its own corner of the triangle. It represents a completely different method and purpose for play compared to Gamism and Simulationism. Related to them? Certainly. A reaction to them? Probably. Important and worthy of separate acknowledgment? Definitely.

With respect to the GNS faq, if the point of contention is the role of Dramatism in our discussion, I will remove all reference to that term.

On 2001-06-18 16:53, Mytholder wrote:

Simulationist games may or may not have a pre-plotted adventure. In a Simulationist game, this is just one more set of pre-existing conditions in the game world.

No...story doesn't exist in the game world, so it's not a part of simulationism. Simulationists don't use preplotted stories.

Simulationists may follow the pre-plotted story, or they may go off on a tangent at some point. This is determined by character motivations and the GM's interests. Depending on the conditions, the GM may or may not railroad the players to put them back on course.

On course to what?

Dramatism & Narrativism
Much has been said here about Dramatism and the idea of playing for story, any story. The fact is, the bulk of people who write about Dramatism treat it as Simulationism + Plot. I don't buy it. As a goal, a technique, a method, and as an intent, playing for "drama" with the GM driving all the plot is just another flavor of Simulationism. The mechanics, the decisions the players make, the way the games are played are just like Simulationist games. All you're saying is that the players portray their characters with feeling and get the most out of their roleplaying experience. This is what I carry away from reading many posts in the rgfa debate.

The essential difference is that the logic of the game world takes second place to the demands of the GM's story. The Dramatist GM is allowed violate the world's internal consistency if it makes for a better story. The Simulationist GM isn't allowed do this.

That's a great definition...and it works for me. However, the FAQ still talks about the GM being a "provider of story". Simulationism is about "seeing what happens in a situation" - and you can't do that if the result of the situation is predetermined by the story.

No...story doesn't exist in the game world, so it's not a part of simulationism. Simulationists don't use preplotted stories.

On 2001-06-18 17:50, jburneko wrote:

The Gamist values challenges and fairness.
The Simulationist value coherency and consistency of world.
The Narrativist values story.

Basically, I think the FAQ says -too much- about them.

Mytholder,

>The essential difference is that the logic of the game world takes second place to the demands of the GM's story. The Dramatist GM is allowed violate the world's internal consistency if it makes for a better story. The Simulationist GM isn't allowed do this.
--------------------------
This is a good point - but the GM determines what constitutes the internal consistency of the game world, especially in rules-light, immersive character simulation. Is that picky? Yes, I think it is.

>However...there's also a style of play which isn't narrativist, isn't gamist, and centres on story instead of world, which your model doesn't seem to recognise.
You're attributing behaviours and ideas to simulationists which don't fit.
-----------------------
Oh, we definitely recognize it. I do, anyway. You just don't like where we've put it in the heirarchy. :wink:

>Well, that's it, problem solved. That wasn't so hard, now, wasn't it? Once the "d" word was removed from the discussion, understanding and fellowship blossomed in an instant and all the simulationists danced off to tell preplotted stories which gleefully violated world logic whenever it got in the way.

Perhaps you'd like to tell me it's just a game and I shouldn't take it so seriously too?
---------------------
Yeah, yeah. Okay. That phrase was poorly chosen.

I'll tell you what you couldn't know:
I had a phone conversation with Ron yesterday. We were talking about this stuff. One of the points that I made was that the only way to make you feel better about this would be to insert the term Dramatism into the model. Shame I didn't put money on that... Anyway, my thought has been, it's an unnecessary addition to the model because in many ways, the flow of play and the relationships between GM and players in Dramatism are practically identical to the relationships in Simulationism. He agreed with me.

The trouble is, I'm trying to build consensus for the work we're doing here. I don't really want to send people away all pissed off and thinking that their valid concerns have been ignored. You've presented some valid reasons why Dramatism (that part of Dramatism that is not part of Narrativism) is subtly different from what we commonly regard as Simulationism. I agree. It coincides with some of what I've read in rfga posts. There is a certain body of material that uniquely qualifies as Dramatist. It's more than Simulationism + Plot and less than full-blown Narrativism. The question is, what do we do with it?

AFAIK, Hell's not frozen today, so it probably won't get built into Narrativism. It's already sitting in Simulationism, but people don't seem too happy about that. If it were up to me, I'd probably work out some sort of compromise, but it's not up to me. I'm not "GNS Governor." I'm more like "GNS Secretary," so I have no definitive answer for you.

Best,

Logan

[ This Message was edited by: Logan on 2001-06-18 18:53 ]

On 2001-06-18 18:13, Epoch wrote:
To say that it should not discuss mechanics and techniques in the FAQ is to say in the FAQ that the theory is fatally flawed.

On 2001-06-18 18:51, Logan wrote:
Mytholder,

>The essential difference is that the logic of the game world takes second place to the demands of the GM's story. The Dramatist GM is allowed violate the world's internal consistency if it makes for a better story. The Simulationist GM isn't allowed do this.
--------------------------
This is a good point - but the GM determines what constitutes the internal consistency of the game world, especially in rules-light, immersive character simulation. Is that picky? Yes, I think it is.

>However...there's also a style of play which isn't narrativist, isn't gamist, and centres on story instead of world, which your model doesn't seem to recognise.
You're attributing behaviours and ideas to simulationists which don't fit.
-----------------------
Oh, we definitely recognize it. I do, anyway. You just don't like where we've put it in the heirarchy. :smile:

>Well, that's it, problem solved. That wasn't so hard, now, wasn't it? Once the "d" word was removed from the discussion, understanding and fellowship blossomed in an instant and all the simulationists danced off to tell preplotted stories which gleefully violated world logic whenever it got in the way.

Perhaps you'd like to tell me it's just a game and I shouldn't take it so seriously too?
---------------------
Yeah, yeah. Okay. That phrase was poorly chosen.

I'll tell you what you couldn't know:
I had a phone conversation with Ron yesterday. We were talking about this stuff. One of the points that I made was that the only way to make you feel better about this would be to insert the term Dramatism into the model. Shame I didn't put money on that... Anyway, my thought has been, it's an unnecessary addition to the model because in many ways, the flow of play and the relationships between GM and players in Dramatism are practically identical to the relationships in Simulationism. He agreed with me.

The trouble is, I'm trying to build consensus for the work we're doing here. I don't really want to send people away all pissed off and thinking that their valid concerns have been ignored. You've presented some valid reasons why Dramatism (that part of Dramatism that is not part of Narrativism) is subtly different from what we commonly regard as Simulationism. I agree. It coincides with some of what I've read in rfga posts. There is a certain body of material that uniquely qualifies as Dramatist. It's more than Simulationism + Plot and less than full-blown Narrativism. The question is, what do we do with it?

Well, my mental model has Narrativism contained within Dramatism, to some extent...or, more accurately, but Narrativism as you've defined it and the other stuff which you threw into simulationism are both catgatorised within a fuzzy "style centred on story" section. Narrativism has its own unique identity - it's a strong style of play that can produce amazing games - but it's sorta related to other styles on some levels.

Another option which I think Jim put forward is to chuck all the Game/Story/World stuff, and explore the concept of a threefold of stances....

AFAIK, Hell's not frozen today, so it probably won't get built into Narrativism. It's already sitting in Simulationism, but people don't seem too happy about that. If it were up to me, I'd probably work out some sort of compromise, but it's not up to me. I'm not "GNS Governor." I'm more like "GNS Secretary," so I have no definitive answer for you.

So what do we do? Ron? You feel like weighing in on this?

(*phew*. I think we achieved something. I'm not sure what, but my fingers hurt....)

The issue of Narrativism as a top-level goal versus being a subset of Dramatism is an interesting question, ain't it?

On the one hand, we've got a pretty darn clear distinction as to whether or not it's a subset of Dramatism. Dramatism is defined as being the style of play in which the goal is for the end result of that play to be a story which is "good" by the aesthetic standards of those involved.

So the question for the Narrativists is: Is it an essential feature of Narrativism that the participants want the end result to be a good story? If the answer is yes, it's a subset of Dramatism.

On the other hand, Logan's point that Narrativism and traditional Dramatism of the railroading variety demand a wildly different approach is a good and telling one.

I think that the answer is the tension between the GNS as a model of people's goals and the GNS as a model of techniques. As a goal, Narrativism isn't top-level. As an approach to the game, well, I haven't thoroughly explored it, but I suspect that it is top-level.

At least, that's what I think.

But I suspect that this falls under the same criticism that I made of James West's arguments -- the FAQ isn't here to fundamentally change or demolish the GNS theory, it's here to advocate the existing GNS theory as clearly as possible, so that interested parties can decide whether or not they feel it should be kept, tweaked, fundamentally changed, or demolished.

On 2001-06-18 16:53, Mytholder wrote:
No...story doesn't exist in the game world, so it's not a part of simulationism. Simulationists don't use preplotted stories.

I'd equate "Simulationist Metaplot" with events that occur on certain turns/triggers in a wargame - the weather WILL turn bad on turn 13, reinforcements WILL arrive once you relieve the town of Gascony, etc.
the key events ARE going to happen, we are (if you like) simulating a world in which some things are inevitable/fated/destined.
One of the "rules" of the simulation is that the events will occur - there is nothing the PCs can do to change it. That established . . . let's see what happens to our characters, shall we?

There is a certain body of material that uniquely qualifies as Dramatist. It's more than Simulationism + Plot and less than full-blown Narrativism. The question is, what do we do with it?

Hey everyone,

What's particularly surreal about this thread is watching us push railroading back and forth between Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism like a bowl of vaguely threatening Life cereal.

It becomes apparent from an understanding of stance that Narrativism and railroading don't mix, and since the FAQ places railroading techniques squarely within Simulationism the issue we go around and around on becomes whether we modify the FAQ to protect Simulationism from that. My vote is no.

My personal experience doesn't correspond with Logan's observation that "Gamist games are most likely to have a completely pre-plotted adventure". The Tomb of Horrors, any of the giant modules, The Keep on the Borderlands, all of the early TSR AD&D modules were not the least bit pre-plotted. The actions of the player characters were basically the only significant thing happening in the game world while a DM was running one of those modules, and there was no sequence of plot events embedded in them more sophisticated than finding a key in one room to open a door in the next room.

But I can't say I've ever played a scenario of Vampire or Werewolf or Call of Cthulhu that that didn't feature significant events that were entirely pre-plotted by the GM or the published materials he was using.

Of course, if you go way back to the first edition of Traveller, it becomes obvious that Simulationism doesn't have to feature pre-plotting either.

But I've played railroaded Dragonlance AD&D scenarios, and the above-mentioned railroaded Call of Cthulhu scenarios, and I've struggled to overcome my own history of creating railroaded scenarios when I ran Everway recently, probably failing in some ways and actually railroading some events.

I think we push railroading around like that bowl of cereal because we know what poison it is to the engagement of the player. One whiff of railroading and your extended scenario or campaign fizzles. Player bickering. The thief running wild in the streets at night, getting arrested by town guards and distracting the party from the objectives provided to them by the scenario. We all know from experience that it's lack of player engagement in the actual scenario that causes that stuff. To have railroading attached to a favored branch of the threefold feels like the staining of a damnable spot of blood you can't get out. And because we've seen railroading used across the threefold, it seems like a solution to push it off on the other guy. Yet as Gordon has perfectly explicated above, a sequence of predetermined events is a Simulationist technique. The core of Gamism is a balanced challenge. Layering railroading onto it is making use of the Simulationist technique of triggering historical events that impact the simulation without themselves being factors that could arise from within the scope of what's being simulated. Railroading, as such, is a perfectly acceptable Simulationist technique.

It certainly has perceivable consequences for player engagement. The Turkuists address the problem in their Vow of Chastity with language like, "I will try to be true to my character without trying to spot a story-line..." This is basically saying, "Don't think about it." But we all know how hard that is to do.

Somehow, only Mikey can do it.

Paul

[ This Message was edited by: Paul Czege on 2001-06-18 22:48 ]

Hey everybody,

Despite all the sturm and drang, I'd like everyone to look over this thread at least once. Put aside your "position" for a second and notice how ... SUBSTANTIVE this discussion is. It's strong stuff and people are actually making sense to one another.

I was invited to weigh in at one point up there. I've decided to weigh in mainly in the form of revision and re-write of the document itself. In other words, you guys are the "environment" and the GNS-101 is the organism.

I have ... extensive comments on the Simulationist issue, and much of it is related to the Exploratory issue, much of it is related to the creative issues that I was SUPPOSED to clarify with Jim privately (and did not have time to do), and much is related to the cordial differences John Kim and I discovered in our views a long time ago.

Not a word of Gareth's and Jim's objections are surprising to me. Some of it is solvable simply by changing some wording. Some of it, however, is disagreement. There will come a time when - if we understand the parameters of disagreement - we can get along about it, or choose to part ways. And I must make this point: insofar as what I and others are suggesting DIFFERS, coherently, from GDS, then that, in itself, does not earmark these views as WRONG.

Here are my only comments now.

1. System design MATTERS, in terms of effective and enjoyable play. I suggest that GNS is a worthwhile tool for examining HOW it matters.

2. People are getting a bit too festive with "Gamist games do this," and so on - I may be guilty of this regarding stance, which by definition is highly, highly labile during play. All the way back to my original essay, I suggest that we are still very much in the dark about which mechanics do what in terms of GNS. At one point in the GO discussion, M.J. and I found a lot of common ground in discussing the toolbox of design, and thinking about how a hammer (e.g.) is used DIFFERENTLY at different times.

3. Related to the above, I also suggest remembering that people are not games - to play an RPG with a primarily-Gamist orientation is not to be a Gamist; judging this would strictly be a matter of watching or participating in play with that group.

4. In terms of design, I suggest that most role-playing games either (1) have a coherent orientation in GNS, which is well or poorly supported by their mechanics, or (2) have NO GNS orientation, which is to say that nearly anyone has to ignore or insert SOMETHING in order to enjoy the game.

5. Also, in terms of design, I also suggest that author-intent is not, and never has been, an issue in my framework.
I regard GNS (or the issues raised by GDS, to give credit where it's due) as fundamental to role-playing - but just as it was possible to build a functional bridge without knowing Newton's laws of motion, it is possible to write a good RPG without being into GNS thinking at all. I claim that the analogy is exact, in that a GOOD bridge DOES accord with these principles (or is interpretable in their terms), no matter what the author/architect thought or intended.

Best,
Ron

Layering railroading onto it is making use of the Simulationist technique of triggering historical events that impact the simulation without themselves being factors that could arise from within the scope of what's being simulated. Railroading, as such, is a perfectly acceptable Simulationist technique.

What's particularly surreal about this thread is watching us push railroading back and forth between Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism like a bowl of vaguely threatening Life cereal.

Spake Paul

My personal experience doesn't correspond with Logan's observation that "Gamist games are most likely to have a completely pre-plotted adventure". The Tomb of Horrors, any of the giant modules, The Keep on the Borderlands, all of the early TSR AD&D modules were not the least bit pre-plotted.

AND

But I can't say I've ever played a scenario of Vampire or Werewolf or Call of Cthulhu that that didn't feature significant events that were entirely pre-plotted by the GM or the published materials he was using.

AND

But I've played railroaded Dragonlance AD&D scenarios, and the above-mentioned railroaded Call of Cthulhu scenarios, and I've struggled to overcome my own history of creating railroaded scenarios when I ran Everway recently, probably failing in some ways and actually railroading some events.

And I must make this point: insofar as what I and others are suggesting DIFFERS, coherently, from GDS, then that, in itself, does not earmark these views as WRONG.

Plenty of ground to cover today. Lots of good discussion.

Epoch has it right about the goal for the faq. Its job is to present the current state of GNS theory so that we have a start point for newcomers and a reference point for further development. Still, the faq may become a catalyst for change and it's certainly sparked interest in what GNS theory says and how it says it.

Jim,
You summed up the way pre-plotted Gamist adventures work, with the adventure as a vehicle through the game's challenges; but this isn't what Mytholder (Gareth) has been talking about, and I think you know it.

Furthermore, there have been pre-plotted adventures published for Simulationist games. They've been published in modules and magazines for years. You can't ignore the fact of it just because it doesn't suit your ideals. To that end, I think Gordon makes a valid point about the inherent imperfection of Simulationist efforts.

Paul,
I really hope this whole thing is about more than "railroading in pre-plotted adventures." As far as Gamist adventures, you're absolutely right about the early dungeon crawls, but FASA and West End published a mountain of pre-plotted adventures for Shadowrun, Earthdawn, and the old Star Wars RPG. They weren't the only ones to do this for Gamist games. The thing is, no style of game has to feature pre-plotting, though I think any style can have it. It's just some styles feature it more than others, and it serves different roles with markedly different results as you go from style to style.

And this, I suppose, is as good a launching point as any for my main point. Bear with me. This is long.

I know what's bugging Gareth about this whole pre-plotted adventure thing, and I know he's not alone in his irritation. You can have a pre-plotted linear or branched Simulationist adventure. It's not ideal for Simulationist play (no one ever said it was), but such things exist. The events in it won't necessarily violate the verisimilitude of the game world. They can, but they don't have to. That part is a leap in logic, but the GM must anticipate problems in running it as described by others in this thread. This is Simulationism + Plot. This exists and it's a valid approach to play. Verisimilitude of the game world, strong use of character motives in decision making, and the desire for the experience take precedence over creating story (doing what is good for the story) or successful completion of the adventure. The plot is there to set up events so that the players (including GM) can have their experience and see what happens.

Here's the rub: I know from experience, from posts on the rgfa list, from posts on GO, and from posts here that there is a mode of play that fits between Simulationism + Plot and Narrativism. In form and action, it strongly resembles rules-light, character simulation related to the Elaytijist ideal - but it's really not a simulationist mode of play. We know it's not because, as Gareth and others have correctly pointed out, verisimilitude of the game world and (to a lesser degree) decision-making based on character motivation are both thrown out the window in favor of story. This is the basis of rgfa Dramatism. And Gareth's right, we're definitely "dancing on the heads of pins here."
But there has to be an acceptable solution that doesn't require switching to a 4-fold model and doesn't piss people off.

The problem is, in rgfa discussion, Dramatism focuses on this mode of play that I just described. It's rules-light Simulation where Story, (support of the GM's story?) and the desire to participate in telling a story to a high aesthetic standard, replaces verisimilitude and the desire for experience. The part where the GM and players share power and the players actively participate in shaping events that happen in the story, what we call Narrativism, is truncated. In GNS discussion, Narrativism is in a class all by itself and Dramatism, genuine Dramatism, is an orphan.

I think Dramatism (as we've discussed it) is a bridge which leads from Simulationism to Narrativism. The question is, can we build it into the definition of Narrativism without ruining anything? We managed to accept the idea of character simulation and rules-light Simulationism without destroying the model. Can we do the same for Dramatism? Can we set up some sort of arrangement where you have Lesser and Greater (Weaker/Stronger; Older/Newer, whatever) forms of Narrativism? So far, Ron has resisted all such efforts. He went tooth and claw with MJ young over this very issue on GO. I don't blame Ron. He went to a lot of trouble to articulate the Narrativist ideal. But Dramatism and Narrativism are obviously related.

If the idea of Dramatism is valid (and I think it is), it has to fit somewhere. It's not a Gamist concern. Their gateway to Narrativism lies on a different path. If Dramatism is not part of Simulationism, then perhaps it could be part of Narrativism. If that's not possible, then it must be its own entity.

As is frequently the case in these debates, I can live with the arrangement however it turns out. Like Mike Holmes, I can see both sides of the issue. I can also see that the current arrangement is fine with some people and not fine with others. If we don't reach consensus today, don't worry. We can list it as a current issue. When a consensus is reached, we can update the faq as needed. That's all I can say about it.

Best,

Logan

On 2001-06-19 10:46, Logan wrote:
I know what's bugging Gareth about this whole pre-plotted adventure thing, and I know he's not alone in his irritation. You can have a pre-plotted linear or branched Simulationist adventure. It's not ideal for Simulationist play (no one ever said it was), but such things exist. The events in it won't necessarily violate the verisimilitude of the game world. They can, but they don't have to. That part is a leap in logic, but the GM must anticipate problems in running it as described by others in this thread. This is Simulationism + Plot. This exists and it's a valid approach to play. Verisimilitude of the game world, strong use of character motives in decision making, and the desire for the experience take precedence over creating story (doing what is good for the story) or successful completion of the adventure. The plot is there to set up events so that the players (including GM) can have their experience and see what happens.

But there has to be an acceptable solution that doesn't require switching to a 4-fold model and doesn't piss people off.

I do not think you could find a self-styled simulationist who would claim the Dragonlance modules.

What makes it "wrong" in the sense of universally applicable, is, among other things, that only self-identified narrativists are okay with the proposed model in toto.

On 2001-06-19 07:46, Supplanter wrote:
. . . if the characters get so afraid or disgusted or bored that they want nothing to do with the issue before them, they are free to disentangle themselves to the best of their ability, and the referee must not prevent them from doing so - the world itself may prevent them, but the referee must not alter the world purely to do so. The GM may say, Okay folks, I need some time to think about what happense next. He may not say, Your tire blows out just before the gate, just to keep you here.

On 2001-06-19 04:49, Mytholder wrote:
Saying "two hours after the war starts, the King's army will reach the gates of Castle Anthrax" is fine.
Saying "two hours after the war starts, the King's army led by the PCs will reach the gates" isn't. Both are preplotted events, but one impinges on the reality of the game world. The GM can ensure that his NPCs go to Castle Anthrax. He can't ensure the PCs do so without breaking into the world.

Hi folks,

There's some excellent discussion in this thread. Much to digest. Here's my input, all standard disclaimers attached.

With many, many kudos to Ron and Logan for an excellent first draft, let me say I disagree with the boxing match/main event analogy as a basis for organizing the document. I suggest a more concise, bullet-pointed presentation at the beginning that sketches a basic outline of the model along with any prerequisite vocabulary, thereafter proceeding to a more detailed discussion of the model, its history, and its potential application. Any explanation of a model needs to move from general to specific with clear lines of progression. The historical context of the model's development and discussion about stances could properly come after the model is presented at least in a summary format. Visual aids such as a flowchart-style graphic or a triangle graph would also be helpful. James and Ron have discussed several variants in another thread, I believe. I would definitely include the GNS Triangle section closer to the beginning of the document.

The part about simulationism seems to gloss over the point that simulationist games, whether genre-focused (Feng Shui, Pendragon) or realism-focused (Rolemaster, GURPS), strive for player immersion via accurate modeling of a particular milieu. The primary motive for simulationist gamers, on the other hand, can apparently be condensed to Exploration of character or setting. Given these definitions, I personally don't find Simulationist gaming difficult to place in the model, but the Forge community seems quite divided on it, perhaps because (in my opinion), the model's focus has shifted toward a taxonomy based primarily on mechanics rather than design goals and player motivation. I may be grossly overstating things (in which case please do correct me), but this particular point is where most of the contention appears to come up.

Another point I'd like to suggest concerns stances. We've discussed Actor, Author, Audience, and Director stances; Actor and Author seem to correspond to Simulationism and Narrativism respectively (yes, I know stance is independent of RP goals, but I like the symmetry and think the correlations are at least generally valid in terms of describing prototypical player approaches). It occurred to me that another relevant stance could be termed Tactical stance, in which the player treats the character like a piece on a board. This stance would, of course, arise most frequently in Gamist and certain Simulationist games. The FAQ mentions it under the section on pawns, adding that Ron speculates that it may be Author stance in a Gamist context. Tactical stance players assume OOC knowledge for purposes of optimizing decisions for conflict resolution. They may well adopt a more detached, almost isometric perspective that focuses on rules, the character's combat capabilities, location, and movement options. In my view, this approach goes farther than Author stance in abstracting the player connection to the character. In the pure sense, Tactical stance could be analogized to a chess player's viewpoint, which doesn't utilize Author stance at all. However, I may be making too fine a distinction here.

At any rate, the model in (drastic) summary form could look something like this:

GAMISM:
Primary Goal = Victory
Primary Motive = Overcome tactical challenges
Primary Mode = Competition
Primary Stance = Tactical

NARRATIVISM:
Primary Goal = Story
Primary Motive = Create satisfying dramatic conflict
Primary Mode = Collaboration
Primary Stance = Author

SIMULATIONISM:
Primary Goal = Verisimilitude
Primary Motive = Explore character or setting
Primary Mode = Immersion
Primary Stance = Actor

Crude as it is, this breakdown helps me see the major differences between the different components of the model. Using the triangle concept, dramatism would be nothing less than a point falling somewhere between the N and S vertices.

Thoughts? Does this resolve anything, or is it too simplistic?

Best,

Blake

[ This Message was edited by: Blake Hutchins on 2001-06-22 17:18 ]

Thoughts? Does this resolve anything, or is it too simplistic?

So far, Ron has resisted all such efforts. He went tooth and claw with MJ young over this very issue on GO. I don't blame Ron. He went to a lot of trouble to articulate the Narrativist ideal. But Dramatism and Narrativism are obviously related.

If the idea of Dramatism is valid (and I think it is), it has to fit somewhere. It's not a Gamist concern. Their gateway to Narrativism lies on a different path. If Dramatism is not part of Simulationism, then perhaps it could be part of Narrativism. If that's not possible, then it must be its own entity.

I'd suggest:
Keep the current definition of narrativism. Use something cobbled together from the various pro-sim posts over the last few days as the definition of simulationism. Somewhere between those two is Dramatism - it's neither one nor the other. (I think it is anyway...).

At any rate, the model in (drastic) summary form could look something like this:

GAMISM:
Primary Goal = Victory
Primary Motive = Overcome tactical challenges
Primary Mode = Competition
Primary Stance = Tactical

NARRATIVISM:
Primary Goal = Story
Primary Motive = Create satisfying dramatic conflict
Primary Mode = Collaboration
Primary Stance = Author

SIMULATIONISM:
Primary Goal = Verisimilitude
Primary Motive = Explore character or setting
Primary Mode = Immersion
Primary Stance = Actor

I'm here to say that Simulationism includes (but is not limited to, of course) plots of all kinds. Meta plot, pre-plotting, railroading, you name it. When I think high fantasy RPG, I think a Simulation of the kinds of adventures that characters have in High Fantasy. That doesn't mean that they are just left entirely free to roam in a static world. The world will come at them in the form of Goals, NPCs, quests, adventures. I don't want to simulate everyday life of a Medieval peasant in a world that happens to have magic and monsters. I want to simulate the life of adventurous souls in such a world, lives full of action and exciting occurences. I believe few Simulationists are intrerested in simulations that don't make any attempts to introduce plots.

Given that my fantasy game will include adventurous plots, I require my players to make their characters adventurous in some way such that an accurate poortrayal of them does not include slinking off to the beach until its all over. That way I don't have to railroad them toward adventures. I can just have adventures available and let the players pursue them as they like, which then is an accurate simulation of that character. Yes, premise can be important to Simulationism.

A quick note on that word, "railroading". It has been used for a long time and has a definition from before RPGs that is inherently negative. Mayhap I'm being a bit PC here, but could we use a different term? Direction by Fiat? I don't know what exactly. But if you do include that term it will make those that are of the "ism" to which it is assigned a bit anxious. I think that Railroading should be reserved for that foul method that involves taking player power over their character's destinies away entirely and obviously. This is a mistake when it occurs, and is rarely done intentionally. It is not a feature of Simulationism, it is an example of Simulationism done poorly.

Illusionism is much more acceptable. All simulations are inherently flawed, people, that's why they're called simulations and not reality. The Simulationist doesn't strive to make a perfect simulation of something, he tries to make those things he can control as believable and interesting as possible (this is entertainment after all). Magic isn't really all that believable, it's just interesting. The Simulationist must make it internally consistent to make it "believable" within the context of a world in which magic exists.

To the extent that SOD is important, presentation of plots must still seem as though the characters have free will, or more importantly that the world is not colluding to make things occur despite their efforts. This means either they do have free will in a given situation, or the mechanisms that are used to introduce the plot do not stretch the illusion beyond beleivability. Just like a player can buy into magic, he can buy into this illusion.

Again, no simulation is perfect, but, by golly, some are damned fun.

Mike Holmes

On 2001-06-19 22:19, Supplanter wrote:

(from Gareth)
I'd suggest:
Keep the current definition of narrativism. Use something cobbled together from the various pro-sim posts over the last few days as the definition of simulationism. Somewhere between those two is Dramatism - it's neither one nor the other. (I think it is anyway...).

And Gareth finds the perfect balance, IMHO. The mismatch has been defining narrativism in terms of ideals and simulationism in terms of actual, messy praxis.

Frex, Gordon has argued that simulationist GMs have been known to do X despite their ideals. But the point is that while they may do X, they are breaking simulation when they do so. The further point is that examples of narrativist GMs breaking the narrativist ideal have not been considered justification for expanding the definition of narrativism.

... AND SAYS "Gamism is...oh you know, when you try to win. Or whatever." (Strikes me the gamists have been awful quiet through this whole discussion.)

Out of curiosity, I finally came over here to look at the GNS discussions. To be honest, having been involved in the r.g.f.a discussions, the experience was not unlike watching Highlander 2. A lot of the words are the same but the interpretation is significantly different. For whatever it is worth, I'm going to give my comments on the issues presented here in the hope that they might be useful. I've tried to be constructive and not negative but I'm sure I've failed in a few places. Feel free to ignore my comments if you want.

On 2001-06-18 14:45, Logan wrote:
Gamism is about competition among actual humans (players, GMs). It places emphasis on overcoming challenges, solving puzzles, increasing character capabilities, gathering stuff, fairness, balance, and winning the game.

Narrativism is about creating stories as a group. The emphasis is placed on allowing players to have some power over what happens in the story, how it happens, and how the story turns out.

Simulationism is about allowing the group to see what would happen in a given situation as a result of the characters' actions. It places emphasis on fairness, verisimilitude, and allowing the group to have an unusual experience.

GNS and Plot
When we talk about plot/storyline with respect to rpgs, we are talking about a pre-plotted sequence of events. Any game may have a plot set up in advance. Any time the GM uses railroading techniques to keep the players on course, there is the cahnce the players will notice and object. Any time the players deviate from the predetermined plot, there is the possibility that the side-trip will have consequences for the characters later in the game.

Gamist games are most likely to have a completely pre-plotted adventure. In Gamist games, this is primarily a vehicle for moving players from challenge to challenge. Gamists are most likely to follow the pre-plotted adventure from start to finish because the players want to overcome the challenges. The GM will usually railroad them a bit to keep them on course through the story.

Narrativist games are least likely to have a pre-plotted adventure. In a Narrativist game, this is a basis for allowing the players to engage in subplots and new stories. Narrativists may decide to tell a completely different story, in which case the GM probably wouldn't use railroading to keep them on course.

Simulationist games may or may not have a pre-plotted adventure. In a Simulationist game, this is one more set of pre-existing conditions in the game world. Simulationists may follow the pre-plotted story, or they may go off on a tangent at some point. This is determined by character motivations and the GM's interests. Depending on the conditions, the GM may or may not railroad the players to put them back on course.

GNS and System Weight
System weight has little impact on a game's GNS orientation, but it may have some meaning on approach to play within each orientation.

Gamist games are often pretty heavy with mechanics for many occasions and subsystems intended to spell out powers and maintain balance. The mechanics are usually directed toward making a contest (such as combat) more exciting, and they're usually crafted in such a way that the player always has a chance to win or lose, no matter how unlikely either event may be.

Narrativist games are usually light systems, but they can become heavier as designers spell out specific rights and limitations on the player's method for creating story. They may also gain weight with increased Gamist or Simulationist influence.

Simulationist games pay the most attention to weight. Heavy systems are usually the result of stringent efforts to simulate conditions in the game world. Light systems are the result of strong desire for players to be their characters without cumbersome mechanical interference.

Stances
Any player can occupy any stance in any game, depending on the contract between player and GM. That said, the likelihood of the player being allowed to occupy a given stance changes depending on the orientation of the game. All players use Author stance during character creation unless the GM supplies ready-made characters. Some games have mechanics which allow the player to participate in Audience stance, but this is infrequent and not well-tied to GNS orientation of the game.

Gamist games place the player primarily in Actor stance, though some Gamist games may supply access to Author or Director stance in some circumstances. There is overlap here between Gamism and Narrativism.

Narrativist games place the players in Actor stance but usually allow them significant access to Author and Director stance so that they may actively participate in the creation of story, adding events, inventing subplots, and even dictating the outcome of some actions.

Simulationist games primarily place the player in Actor stance. Sometimes, players may have limited Author or Director power which allows them to change the outcome of events. There must be some way to explain this in order to maintain the verisimilitude of the game world. A very lucky character might have luck points to spend in order to improve a die result. A character with special powers may be able to be 2 places at once. If this is part of the game world, the player uses other stances as needed to achieve acceptable results. This is overlap between Simulationism and Narrativism.

Playing Characters
Interestingly enough, player method of playing characters has minimal impact on GNS orientation of the game. A player may play in IC or OOC mode regardless of stance. All approaches are valid.

Simulationists are most likely to play IC and to ignore OOC information.

Balance of Power
Balance of Power has been related to GNS orientation of the game, but that may change over time.

Gamist games have traditionally given the GM the bulk of the power, though some allow sharing based on access to Author and Director stance as shown above. This is not a rigid requirement as Rune demonstrates. Rune gives all the power to the players who take turns acting as GM.

Narrativist games openly share power between GM and players. This is reasonable, because the players need the power in order to tell their own stories. Recent independent designs freely give all the power to the players.

Simulationist games have always given all the power to the GM, and the idea of sharing that power (or using it if it's offered) is anathema to many Simulationists.

Scenario Design
Scenario design is not fixed in its relationship to GNS, but some combinations are more common than others.

Gamist scenarios are usually linear or branched adventures.

Narrativist scenarios are usually Set of Encounters, Relationship Maps, or Intuitive Continuity adventures. They can be linear or branched adventures, but it's likely the players will derail them in oursuit of their own stories.

Simulationist scenarios are often Set of Encounters. This is probably the preferred mode of play for many Simulationists, Simulationist GMs can also present linear, branched. Simulationists could probably make use of intuitive continuity adventures and relationship maps, but the arrangement is fairly new.

Dramatism & Narrativism
Much has been said here about Dramatism and the idea of playing for story, any story. The fact is, the bulk of people who write about Dramatism treat it as Simulationism + Plot. I don't buy it. As a goal, a technique, a method, and as an intent, playing for "drama" with the GM driving all the plot is another flavor of Simulationism. The mechanics, the decisions the players make, the way the games are played are just like Simulationist games. All you're saying is that the players portray their characters with feeling and get the most out of their roleplaying experience. This is what I carry away from reading many posts in the rgfa debate.

Narrativism is different and unique. When you give the players control over the course, direction, plot, setup, and outcome of events in the game you open new vistas to them. You give them access to roads previously never travelled. I've seen the eyes of players open when presented with these new possibilities. If these games are a minority in the market, it is because the exploration of these possibilities did not begin until much later. Emphatically, Narrativism deserves its own corner of the triangle. It represents a completely different method and purpose for play compared to Gamism and Simulationism. Related to them? Certainly. A reaction to them? Probably. Important and worthy of separate acknowledgment? Definitely.

On this site in this model, Narrativism is here to stay.

With respect to the GNS faq, if the point of contention is the role of Dramatism in our discussion, I will remove all reference to that term.

Theatrix
IMO, Theatrix is ill-served and poorly represented in the rgfa model. Its potential and its meaning are submerged in the rgfa debate. It's a Narrativist game, pure and simple. That you can play it to dramatic ends is implicit, but to say it's "only" a Dramatist design is an insult to Berkman's work. In truth, I think even he doesn't quite realize the impact of what he wrote. In the bulk of their debates, the rgfa participants don't give weight to the great empowerment of players that Director stance provides. They barely even acknowledge their own Author stance. They largely poo-poo the idea of wearing the Author cap. They don't like the idea of GMs sharing power with players. As far as I can tell, they don't really understand the implications of allowing the whole group to create story as a group. That is one more set of reasons why I am an advocate of the Edwards model over all others. If/when John Kim updates the rgfa faq and presents compelling argument to dispute this, I will re-evaluate my position.

John - if you get a chance, would you mind taking a look at the other threads relating to simulationism and the FAQ (my 'long and bloody' one, & Supplanter's 'towards a sense if not a theory' one? We made a lot of the same comments you did, and I'd like to see your opinion of the results of those comments.

Thanks to all who have responded. The GNS doc is now being rewritten. Look for a new draft at the beginning of July.

Best,

Logan

You folks haven't seen me around here before. Hi.

Let's start off with a compliment. Logan, Ron, I was very impressed with the FAQ. As a long time RGFA reader, I expected, and attempted, to make a paragraph by paragraph criticism. I didn't have enough disagreement to support it, which is about the best compliment I can think of. I thought your version was interesting and useful.

Of course, I did have points of disagreement, and you asked for comments, so here are my suggestions:

1) Take advantage of the HTML format. Although you don't want to burden a FAQ with justifactions for every statement, it would be worthwhile to have footnotes or links to discussions where some of your claims are justified. In particular, why is it more important to follow the rules in a rules-light game? Similarly, link to an explanation of WHY PCs must impact the game world within Narrativism, and to what extent that can be limited (for example, if the contract is to tell a certain kind of story, can "railroading" be used to enforce that contract).

2) You may want to set off your examples and conclusions from the main definitions by markers, similar to the section markers in Hero Wars or "... For Dummies" books.

3) You will save yourself a lot of repetition of the same objections if you note that your stances model is NOT the same as the RFGA model. I had a half-page diatribe written on how you had conflated Actor, IC, and Immersion before I got to the following section on IC / OOC, at which point I realized that you actually have a different stance model. Since this is a "precursor" section, people are expecting that you are establishing groundwork for people who do not already know the terms, and are not expecting the introcuction of new concepts with the same names as concepts they are familiar with.

4) Nitpick: "Gamist players play to overcome challenges, solve puzzles, gather stuff, increase character capabilities, and win." This should end with "_or_ win", and I recommend that you add that emphasis.

5) "Many Gamist players will happily alter their approach to play if the GM or rules of the game provides a reward for doing that." I would delete this, or strongly revise. Many players will alter their approach to play just because you ask them to, and will simply incorporate it into the rules they are playing by. I think emphasis on playing within the constraints provided could be added here as well (not cheating, spirit of the rules, etc.).

6) "Many good Gamist players are cagey..." Again, I would strongly suggest revision. Something along the lines of "One form of gamist play involves seeking advantage within the precise definitions provided by the rules." I would then add something about this not being universal, as a hedge against the fact that it is a common prejudice that all Gamists are "rules lawyers."

7) Nitpick: "random methods play little to no roll" s/b "role". (Sorry to be so picky, but FAQs are highly read, and this doesn't get caught by a spell-checker.)

:smile:

9) Metaplot & railroading: don't put this in the FAQ, or if anything, move it to current issues. I second the objections to calling this an (inherently) sim technique. Also, realize that not everything will fit the model. For example, I have seen valid arguments for use of "script immunity" in all 3 corners (yes, even sim, but that's a discussion for another time).

10) You imply that switching styles much occur between games. This is not my experience, although I agree that I have not seen multiple styles in use at the (exact) same time, I have seen them blended in different aspects of the same game.

11) System does matter. However, I think it is poor form to dismiss unaligned games as badly designed. This is true only if the group desires a given triangle preference. OTOH, in a mixed group, a centrist game provides greater ease of accomodating ALL of the styles in proportion to their representation among the players, AND the preferences for various game tasks to be resolved using different styles. I realize this is likely to be controversial, but maybe a thread about it would be worthwhile.

All in all, an excellent first effort, and I hope my comments prove helpful in the revisions.

. . . . . . . -- Eric

On 2001-06-23 10:35, Brian Gleichman wrote:
I on the other hand consider nearly the entire definition irrelevant. The characters actions may or may not matter at all, only the 'real' outcome is important.

Further, issues of fairness, verisimilitude, and experience are also besides the point. Life isn't fair, nor are Simulationist games. Verisimilitude is also broken in both life and Simulation (remember the old comment, "Truth is Stranger than fiction"?).

And a number of Simulationist GM's have comment that they couldn't care less if the players didn't so up at all, let alone have a "unusual experience"

In simulation, everything must be real. Not the illusion, but the fact. Pre-plots wreck this from the start.

Indeed. I have often encountered people on r.g.f.a who are of the mindset that the best simulation can only be had through mechanic-less play since any mechanic method (in their view) comes with faults and abstractions.

I would say that Gamist games give the power to the players by way of the rules.

Actually, Simulationist games give power to the World. Any power anyone else has is indirect by way of that path.

This is a fine, but important distinction.

On 2001-06-23 07:54, Mytholder wrote:
John - if you get a chance, would you mind taking a look at the other threads relating to simulationism and the FAQ (my 'long and bloody' one, & Supplanter's 'towards a sense if not a theory' one? We made a lot of the same comments you did, and I'd like to see your opinion of the results of those comments.

I simply wanted to add that despite my criticism of this GNS model as a Narrativist-advocacy model, it is certainly fair to the critical of the r.g.f.a Threefold as a Simulationist-biased model. I'm not saying that the r.g.f.a Threefold is perfect.

I just had in interesting idea. How about creating a new vertex called "Bad Role-Playing". That way, you can have all of the other models and sweep all of the negatives in to "Bad Role-Playingism". Don't like railroading? Into the "Bad Role-Playing" category. It certainly makes more sense than sweeping all of the negatives into a style that you don't understand and, as a side effect, it lets you tell people that they are engaged in "Bad Role-Playingism". :smile:

the current GNS is an advocacy model for the Narrativist style of play and that the authors don't really care if it models other styles corerctly.

they need to do is stop trying to adapt someone else's model that they clearly don't really understand (*)

I know you made a lot of the same comments and, frankly, I don't seem them being listened to or addressed.

I'm not convinced that people here really get that style of play. It would be interesting to see this discussion on r.g.f.a which is where many of the simulationist are.

Pyske,
Thank you very much for your comments. Rest assured, the rough spots will be smoothed. :smile:

John,

You make some very interesting points. I want to respond to some of them.

I know you made a lot of the same comments and, frankly, I don't seem them being listened to or addressed. What I see in the first article in this thread is that the current GNS is an advocacy model for the Narrativist style of play and that the authors don't really care if it models other styles corerctly. Basically, you can't describe someone else's style if you don't understand it or describe it based on the worst examples.

What I really think they need to do is stop trying to adapt someone else's model that they clearly don't really understand (*) and come up with their own model without worrying if it has three or four or a billion different vertices. I think a valid point can be made that Narrativism is different from other styles of Dramatism and that's great. But the way they are fitting that in to this model is defining Narrativism very narrowly as all of the positive things that they like and then they seem to be sweeping everything that they don't like under the Simulationist and Gamist rugs because they have no other place for it. That's a recipe for a very bad, very biased model useless for anything but advocating the annointed style of play. Basically the model gets reduced to an idealistic style of play and then two caricatures.

(*) The reason that I say the original Threefold isn't understood is that this thread starts with a complaint that the r.g.f.a model doesn't recognize the wonders of the Narrativist style of play and Theatrix in particular. The r.g.f.a Threefold was designed specifically to explain to David Berkman, himself, why other people have no interest in his style of play. It has clearly failed. Since the authors clearly can't understand why anyone wouldn't want to play in a Narrativist game (I see a resurrection of the old idea that if you'd just try it or do it right, you'd love it -- David Berkman's frequent and patronizing refrain), they can't really understand the original model since they can't grasp its purpose -- all styles are equally valid. I can't help but think of this as Berkman's Revenge.

On 2001-06-23 15:02, Logan wrote:
Yes, there is a certain amount of Narrativism advocacy. That criticism is fair. No sense denying it or crying about it.

That doesn't mean we give less weight to other styles - at least, I hope it doesn;t mean that. I care about the accuracy of the presentation.

If I didn't, I wouldn't bother to dig through rgfa posts. I wouldn't go out of my way to invite outside commentary or debate. I wouldn't try to negotiate a reworking of terms so that we get a clear, strong model. I want to portray all play styles accurately and with respect.

Our presentation is somewhat different from rgfa presentation because we have different goals and a different core audience.

Furthermore, just because a series of posts hasn't received a direct response doesn't mean it hasn't been read.

The primary reason much of Dramatism has been lumped under Simulationism in our model is because the behaviors are almost identical. The relationship between GM and player are practically the same.

Obviously, this area has already received a lot of attention and I will change the presentation in the next draft. The other stuff... Not everyone agrees with you. Some people think we're spot on. Some think we're way off. That's what makes debate so much fun.

This is the most interesting point of all. When did this come up? Before '95?

There's evidence of this assertion in some of what I've read, but no direct link. If you're right and this is somehow "Berkman's Revenge," I'm happy to be part of it.

On 2001-06-23 14:41, Brian Gleichman wrote:
In practice yes, but that isn't their goal. I consider the distinction rather important. I also think the corners must be defined in terms of their goals and not their reality.

It's also part of the whole "system does matter" mindset which is a major driving force behind G/N/S. Unless corners can be defined by their use of mechanics terms, a major goal of the model is lost.

My point is that I don't want the fact that the rules exist to empower the player to be lost in the exchange. It is by the rule that the players override the GM's plans and it is by the rules that they meet their goals in whatever test of skill that is at hand.

Skill based.

There are many on r.f.g.a that agree with that.

On 2001-06-24 12:29, JohnMorrow wrote:
It isn't accurate. The fact that a lot of self-identifying Simulationists and Gamists feel that the model is wrong is strong evidence of that.

Our presentation is somewhat different from rgfa presentation because we have different goals and a different core audience.

I believe that I have some idea of what your goals are (though you should feel free to tersely restate them if you want) but what is your audience? Is it not "everyone"? If it isn't, then I'd suggest limiting the discussion and release to the desired community.

First, the logical reason to group gaming styles together is because they are in some way compatable. Simulationism and Dramatism aren't really compatable play styles. Indeed, the r.g.f.a Threefold started out as an opposition model between just those two styles in the form of "world-based" and "story-based".

Why not build a model up from scratch like r.g.f.a did?

But I think the real test is not whether Narrativists agree with the description of their style written by Narrativists but whether Simulationists agree with the description of their style written by a Narrativist.

On 2001-06-23 13:04, greyorm wrote:
For someone claiming that you don't see points being addressed or responded to, you apparently haven't read much of what I've said on the issue of pre-plotting and simulationism. In fact, it seems to me as though you have completely ignored those statements or never read them, or have chosen to disregard them because you perhaps disagree with their conclusions.

Also, I find your broad generalizations of "them" (ie: the writers) and "us" (ie: those who understand) rather insulting, as well as your very, very bold claims that the FAQ writers are just Narrativist advocates who don't really understand the model.

This is not a "them" vs. "us" situation, it is an attempt to explore and develop, and we would all do well to remember that, avoiding drawing lines in the sand.

Villification and broad generalization is not the way to conduct a discussion. It would be more proper and constructive to say the current FAQ seems to imply these things than to start pointing fingers and developing psychologies for individuals, let alone entire loosely-defined groups.

John,

Theatrix came out in 93. Now you say one purpose of the rgfa model is to discredit that one game and also the Narrativist style of play. As I think about it, it's a closed-minded and pathetic goal. It sends a miserable message, especially since some people most definitely are interested in that style of gaming. All in all, I'm glad you failed.

If there are problems in the expression of our model, we will work on them. That is one reason to have a faq.

I think there's something more to be said about advocacy. I think we advocate roleplaying as a positive activity in all of its forms and styles. I think Gamist games and Simulationist games, and all the games in between are every bit as important and entertaining as Narrativist games. If you're not understanding that, then my message isn't getting across. Fortunately, I can try again.

I will do what I can do, what I think is right to do. Ron will do what Ron does. People will agree and disagree. I've said from the beginning that whatever we do, it simply won't satisfy everyone. At some point, people will simply have to agree to disagree. Until that point, the debate goes on.

Best,

Logan

[ This Message was edited by: Logan on 2001-06-24 13:08 ]

Hi everybody,

This may be of interest to you:

All comments are being read and considered. Because Logan and I are minimally involved in this discussion doesn't mean the posts are being "ignored" or "not addressed."

Also, as I've said before, the current document is a rough draft, and it was not entirely satisfying to ME OR LOGAN when it was made available for comments. This point tends to get overlooked throughout this thread.

One food-for-thought: "about story" is much like "pornography" - it can mean anything or nothing. I am making a distinction between CREATING story (in its strict, Lit 101 form) and EXPERIENCING story (in say, the Call of Cthulhu sense). I know from vast experience that role-players engaged in one of these cannot abide the presence of role-players engaged in the other at the same table. Such a group cannot be effectively GM'd - it's like having two active, intense Gamists at the same table as an immersive/Sim fellow. Therefore I think employing the rhetoric-word "story" as a catch-all is not especially useful.

I should also point out that Theatrix is not, and has never been, a conceptual center for my thinking regarding Narrativism. I consider the paragon game for this style or mode to be Prince Valiant.

Best,
Ron

On 2001-06-24 12:44, Clinton R Nixon wrote:
And a self-identifying Gamist that I know (namely, me) feels that the model is spot-on. I don't see a lot of opposition--I do see one or two antagonists not involved in the two-year-long discussion that led to this model now poking up their heads and arguing.

Christ in a milkshake. The discussion, and the release of the FAQ is limited to one community--www.indie-rpgs.com. We certainly aren't running around on other internet discussion boards and talking it up. In fact, the only times I see it mentioned on rpg.net, the other RPG bulletin board I read, is when someone reads it, disagrees, realizes they can't defend their argument in this environment (because we'll make them back it up), and posts on rpg.net because they know they'll get some "hear, hear" blind support.

This is not the r.g.f.a. model. Read that over and over. "World-based" and "story-based" are not concerns in this model--they're irrelevant. The GNS model is solely about system. In terms of relationships between GM and player dictated by the system, Dramatism and Simulationism are not very different.

We did. We spent two years on it. Some of the names are the same because they make sense in an RPG context. The definitions are in no way the same.

You'll have to ask the Simulationists. But once again--I'm a Gamist, and I completely agree with the description of Gamists.

To summarize--this model is for a select audience, which is not exclusive, and we'd love you to be a part of, but don't interrupt after two years of work and say, "by the way, I just looked this over and it's garbage." That's less than constructive.

On 2001-06-24 12:58, Logan wrote:
Theatrix came out in 93. Now you say one purpose of the rgfa model is to discredit that one game and also the Narrativist style of play.

As I think about it, it's a closed-minded and pathetic goal. It sends a miserable message, especially since some people most definitely are interested in that style of gaming. All in all, I'm glad you failed.

If there are problems in the expression of our model, we will work on them. That is one reason to have a faq.

I think there's something more to be said about advocacy. I think we advocate roleplaying as a positive activity in all of its forms and styles. I think Gamist games and Simulationist games, and all the games in between are every bit as important and entertaining as Narrativist games. If you're not understanding that, then my message isn't getting across. Fortunately, I can try again.

I will do what I can do, what I think is right to do. Ron will do what Ron does. People will agree and disagree. I've said from the beginning that whatever we do, it simply won't satisfy everyone. At some point, people will simply have to agree to disagree. Until that point, the debate goes on.

I read some and I skimmed some. I see a lot of the same complaints being recycled and I've seen some of the responses that don't seem to really address the complaint because they miss the point of it. It is entirely possible that I've skimmed over something important. If you want to point me to a particular thread and message, please do. I was primarily responding to what I saw at the top of this post.

The top article on this thread give the distinct impression that the GNS is an advocacy model.

The pop-psychology analysis elsewhere on this board suggesting that Simulationists have some sort of problem giving up control is similarly both laughable and insulting.

No problem. Can you go back and read my comments in that context and address the other issues, as others have, instead of my clearly imperfect way of expressing them. I don't believe that the finger-pointing or pop-psychology was important or central to what I was saying.

There is actually a fourth axis called "Social" that is rarely mentioned because most Social players don't trouble themselves with reading Internet discussions about role-playing style.

I don't think it is and I think the terminology is part of it. Don't think I'm singling out the GNS for this criticism. I think that the Threefold suffers from a similar terminology problem and see it much more clealry now that I've been discussing it with people outside of that group.

On 2001-06-24 13:43, greyorm wrote:
Don't take this the wrong way, but I will not do your work for you.

[other comments deleted]

What makes this worse is that you admit you only skimmed posts, yet your statements are broad and generalized, as though you HAD studied the available topic material.
Further, though your comments are written to be perceived as directed towards the FAQ and the overall Forge itself, but you admit here you are only responding to one message in this thread.

This known, there is no reason to take your comments seriously because they are invalid in that they lack a reasonable foundation from which to derive criticism. In this light, they could at best be considered a "knee-jerk" reaction.

Please, read the available material before you begin making comments like "no self described simulationist agrees with the description", when self-described simulationists HAVE agreed with the description.

*This was one of your broad claims, stated as fact, that no SDSs agreed with the model...I'm self-described, I do. Mytholder is an SDS as well, but doesn't.

This is why I commented about not drawing lines in the sand. It is not "us narrativists" vs. "them simulationists" or whomever. It quite obviously a difference of opinion about what the categories entail.

This thread is not the model.

That issue, you'll note, has already been dealt with.

However, I see these as the very cornerstone of your arguments, or rather the basis for them as criticism, as per the top of this message.

How can I respond to the issues you have raised when the premises those comments were made on are false or mis/ill-prepared? (Other than pointing such out so we can come to the same level of understanding and move forward together from common ground instead of rehashing the same issues again and again)

Also, for the record, I'm not saying that all of the wording in the GNS FAQ is bad. Some of it is quite good.

John,

Thank you. I think I (finally) understand your viewpoint a little better. A lot of it makes sense. I think it will take time to work some of this out.

I should note, I have been using Google's search engine to check out the archives, so I'm sure there is stuff that I've missed.

Berkman was an evangelist? Not surprising. I think people should try all different styles of play just so they can see what they like and what's possible. Otherwise, we might get stuck playing D&D, only D&D, and nothing but D&D until the end of time. :roll:

Finally, I might have some tiny particle of authority in this discussion, but probably not. Mostly, I'm just a guy who wanted to see all these ideas pulled together into a cohesive document so we could show people where the discussion has been and propel the whole thing forward.

Best,

Logan

On 2001-06-24 16:02, Logan wrote:
I should note, I have been using Google's search engine to check out the archives, so I'm sure there is stuff that I've missed.

Berkman was an evangelist? Not surprising. I think people should try all different styles of play just so they can see what they like and what's possible. Otherwise, we might get stuck playing D&D, only D&D, and nothing but D&D until the end of time. :roll:

Finally, I might have some tiny particle of authority in this discussion, but probably not. Mostly, I'm just a guy who wanted to see all these ideas pulled together into a cohesive document so we could show people where the discussion has been and propel the whole thing forward.

I disagree. When discussions like this build up a tremendous amount of information over a long period of time,

OK. Part of the problem may be that the model fits you better than it does Mytholder, who seems to agree with my complaints. In the r.g.f.a model, are you a Dramatist or a Simulationist?

Dealt with or burried?

Then I think I'm doing a poor job of communicating all of my concerns. I'm not trying to destroy your model. I like models and would like to see this be a useful one.

At the very least, you should take my misunderstandings as evidence that your model isn't clear if read cold.

My specific suggestions are (A) to use terminology that is completely different from the Threefold and is suited to describing what this model describes, (B) to not limit yourself to three categories if your model needs more or less, and (C) to not confuse the "how" and "why" of decisions made during a game which still seems to be in there.

place anyone who agrees with the GNS FAQ into the "Narrativist" category, even if they describe themselves as something else."

John is not the only person to make that suggestion.

That viewpoint is commonly stated outside this forum when people talk about G/N/S. Intended or not, I think you have to live with the fact that this is indeed its appearance.

Brian, Raven,

You both make good points. There is no sense tearing each other up about it. I think we (meaning people working on the GNS model at this site) pretty much have to ignore what people are saying on other sites. I understand people will talk about it, but the people who have real interest in what we're doing have all been generous enough to post here. That is as it should be. I'm still very happy with the overall quantity and quality of responses we've seen, and I'm confident that the presentation of the faq and the impressions people have of our debate will evolve and improve over time.

Radical changes in terminology or huge shifts in the model itself shouldn't happen over night. For better or worse, people are used to the terms we're using. If we change them all and completely rework everything, then it won't be GNS or the Edwards model any more. That might sound good to some people, but it's not a great idea in practice. It would really piss people off.

I think this first draft of the faq has done what it was supposed to do. I think we've made some progress with it, and no one has any reason to feel bad about it. So now, unless people have new proposals or fresh thoughts about it, we should relax. Everything is just fine.

Best,

Logan

On 2001-06-25 00:14, greyorm wrote:
This is the last I'll say on this, hopefully to clarify. I suggest we take any further discussion of this issue to the private mail provided here on the Forge or e-mail.

Also, I have to say that much of the reverse advocacy for simulationism going on here is doing exactly the same as the narrativist advocacy is being accused of: narrowing the definition to one specific subset of the style.

In this case, "realism" is being argued as the necessary component for simulationism, entirely ignoring a fantasy simulationist game with dragons, monsters, gods, magic and weird shit from beyond space time. Any of that is supposed to be "real"? So the immediate response that springs to mind for me is: "What do you mean you can't have a non-real-world simulation?"

I can't simulate Arthurian fantasy? Bull. "Realism" and "the real world" has nothing to do with Simulationism as a big category, only as a subset of it.

On 2001-06-25 14:38, Logan wrote:
Radical changes in terminology or huge shifts in the model itself shouldn't happen over night. For better or worse, people are used to the terms we're using. If we change them all and completely rework everything, then it won't be GNS or the Edwards model any more. That might sound good to some people, but it's not a great idea in practice. It would really piss people off.

And if you had more styles, this wouldn't be a problem. You'd probably also address a big part of S. John Ross' complaint is that the Threefold and GNS pigeonhold gamers
into too few categories.

Can you simulate Arthurian Fantasy and be Simulationist in the r.g.f.a senese?

A Simulationist works to simulate the setting while the Dramatist works to simulate the stories.

Wow - I went away for a long weekend, came back to see this massive thread, and started reading. People making good points, misunderstandings, near flames . . . ah, the very essence of internet conversation :wink:

Seriously, there's a lot of thought and effort here, and I'll start by thanking everyone for that. I selfishly see this whole discussion as the background which can help me understand better how to 1) pick games I and my friends will like, and 2) play them in a manner that we'll find fun. Number 2) definetely includes such things as "scenario" design and GM tips, but I'm not sure if I'm ready/want to take the plunge into "game design" - maybe that makes me an oddity here.

So, what I really want to communicate to John and Brian (as representives of the "you're all Narrativists" opinion) is this: I identify as a Simulationist under this model - I might be a bit "tainted" by Narrativism, because I see where I've really enjoyed it when bit's and pieces of that crept into my games, and I'm very interested in exploring it further. I'm not sure if I would identify as a Simulationist under rgfa - it comes close, but I'm not sure I really identify as anything under rgfa. I confess to a very light skim of the "original" material on rgfa, but based on references in the debate here and at other rpg sites, nothing really seems to fit that well. Simulationism, as defined here, matches well what I've done over the last 10 years or so. Gamism fits (mostly) what I did back in the late 70's-early 80's (best as I can remember).

Note the "mostly" and the "matches well". Those are meant to indicate I'm not COMPLETELY happy with the GNS model, but it feels like the right direction to me.

Anyway - I guess that's it. Oh, and I understand the frustration around this (GNS) definition of Simulation, 'cause it is non-intuitive in many ways, but as (I hope) my posts elsewhere supporting the GNS definition indicate, I've come to believe it really is a "better" description of a set of gaming styles/behaviors that share a common base. It is quite different from the rgfa definition, and certainly can be critized on those terms - but I've not yet seen it (or my afore-mentioned posts) challenged on its' (their) own basis in a substantive way.

Love to see someone do that, as I figure it can only help me understand more/better . . .

Gorodn C. Landis

John,

I think somehow you and I speak different languages. I say something that I intend to mean one thing, but that's not what you hear. Changes won't happen over night. That doesn't mean changes won't happen. I expect changes will happen, but slowly and without pissing people off.

I think you want a revolutionary approach, but we take an evolutionary approach. That is a big source of friction. If you condemn GNS for that... Oh, well. You strike me as a guy with a lot of ideas about how things should be done. Maybe you should write your own model. That's what Scarlet Jester did. He didn't agree with us or rgfa, so he went on his own journey. You could do that. Just remember 2 things:

It's easy to criticize, far more difficult to actually do something.

-and-

Everyone's a critic, so make sure you've grown a very thick skin.

Best,

Logan

[ This Message was edited by: Logan on 2001-06-26 08:46 ]

I prefer to look at the G, N, and S as the vertices of a triangle (kudos to James and Ron for this idea) that represents the possible range of RP gaming behavior and design. As quasi-Aristotalian points, the "pure" -isms probably describe very few people and very few actual games. Dramatism, for example, falls somewhere between the N and S poles. I suggest most of us would find ourselves at a point in the triangle that corresponds with our particular mix of styles and preferences. Worried about game balance? That to me is a Gamist concern. Stressed about whether the world's verisimilitude has been breached? Simulationist. Has the dramatic tension of a scene fizzled? Narrativist. In nearly every game I've participated in, I've had all three of these concerns. Though I describe myself as Narrativist, I'm quite the adulterated version and thus am somewhat closer to the center of the triangle than to any one vertice (maybe a tad nearer the N-S side).

The process versus outcome dichotomy Brian mentions is interesting, but I see it as a behavior watershed that can be found within each "ism." Story-oriented goals aren't necessarily outcome-oriented, in my opinion. They are all about conflict resolution and try-fail sequences. If the GM fudges to permit a rigidly predetermined outcome, it's railroading, pure and simple. Railroading isn't confined to Narrativism -- it's not even a necessary component. I'll go further and suggest all RP games are primarily process-oriented. Some may have a more defined reward structure built into the rules, but experience systems or the like don't make a game outcome-oriented. Some GM styles may be to chain the players to a fixed plotline, but again, that choice is not a necessary component of any of the model's vertices.

What does seem to be a necessary component of the model is a determination of the relationship dynamic between GM and players for each vertice, i.e., what level of centralized direction comes from the GM versus decentralized direction from the players. Direction versus collaboration might be a more concise way of explaining this dynamic. Another issue certainly is the degree to which the rules affect the direction-collaboration balance.

Yet another issue is the emphasis of the rules themselves. I'm still thinking this through, so it's very unformed, but here's an interesting question (interesting to me, at any rate): What do the rules at each vertice protect?

Let me explain. In Gamist games, rules should presumeably be fair in order to protect game balance, to ensure players face a challenge measured to their capabilities. In Simulationist games, the rules strive to reflect the reality and credibility (which could be genre-specific) of the game setting. In Narrativist games, the rules aim at encouraging colorful event description and maximizing dramatic tension.

I've thrown out these ideas because I see the argument as having become a comparison between the rgfa model and the GNS model. I agree we need to clarify our definitions, but I like the basic structure of the GNS model. Three poles work for me. As I've said, human beings are cognitively wired to think in threes. Subdividing RP behavior and design ideals into more and more boxes seems to add unnecessary complexity to a model that has a lot in it already. In terms of the triangle, I submit we can find any of our behaviors or design goals in that triangle.

The only behavior I've heard that doesn't necessarily fit is the social gamer. However, I'm not convinced social gaming is an RP concern. Social gamers, if I've understood correctly, are not there for the game. They're there for the group. Therefore, I don't think their inclusion adds anything useful to the model.

My ten cents.

Best,

Blake

On 2001-06-26 08:28, Logan wrote:
I think somehow you and I speak different languages. I say something that I intend to mean one thing, but that's not what you hear.

Changes won't happen over night. That doesn't mean changes won't happen. I expect changes will happen, but slowly and without pissing people off.

I think you want a revolutionary approach, but we take an evolutionary approach. That is a big source of friction. If you condemn GNS for that... Oh, well.

You strike me as a guy with a lot of ideas about how things should be done. Maybe you should write your own model. That's what Scarlet Jester did. He didn't agree with us or rgfa, so he went on his own journey. You could do that. Just remember 2 things:

It's easy to criticize, far more difficult to actually do something.

Everyone's a critic, so make sure you've grown a very thick skin.

On 2001-06-26 12:55, Blake Hutchins wrote:
I prefer to look at the G, N, and S as the vertices of a triangle (kudos to James and Ron for this idea) that represents the possible range of RP gaming behavior and design.

The process versus outcome dichotomy Brian mentions is interesting, but I see it as a behavior watershed that can be found within each "ism." Story-oriented goals aren't necessarily outcome-oriented, in my opinion.

They are all about conflict resolution and try-fail sequences. If the GM fudges to permit a rigidly predetermined outcome, it's railroading, pure and simple. Railroading isn't confined to Narrativism -- it's not even a necessary component.

What does seem to be a necessary component of the model is a determination of the relationship dynamic between GM and players for each vertice, i.e., what level of centralized direction comes from the GM versus decentralized direction from the players. Direction versus collaboration might be a more concise way of explaining this dynamic. Another issue certainly is the degree to which the rules affect the direction-collaboration balance.

Let me explain. In Gamist games, rules should presumeably be fair in order to protect game balance, to ensure players face a challenge measured to their capabilities. In Simulationist games, the rules strive to reflect the reality and credibility (which could be genre-specific) of the game setting. In Narrativist games, the rules aim at encouraging colorful event description and maximizing dramatic tension.

I've thrown out these ideas because I see the argument as having become a comparison between the rgfa model and the GNS model. I agree we need to clarify our definitions, but I like the basic structure of the GNS model. Three poles work for me.

As I've said, human beings are cognitively wired to think in threes. Subdividing RP behavior and design ideals into more and more boxes seems to add unnecessary complexity to a model that has a lot in it already. In terms of the triangle, I submit we can find any of our behaviors or design goals in that triangle.

Another early version of the .advocacy Threefold triangle. This is the one that more people remember.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=f61038e1a857e3f9,49&start=10&ic=1

John,

Thanks for the feedback and links. I am not familiar with the history of the other model. I'll check out your links and get back to the boards here in more detail after I've had a chance to digest things.

A couple of quick points:

"Fudging" is a different issue than railroading, and I submit it does happen in all game styles to one degree to another.

Whether or not a character's instant and unexpected death violates story-oriented games depends utterly on the game. I've had it happen in my games, and it was a great direction for the story. Narrativist games may provide more metagame options for players to alter fortune mechanics to dodge the bullet (so to speak), but they do not, in my opinion, encourage outcome-oriented fudging from GMs more than the other corners of the triangle.

I thought your point about facilitation was an interesting addition to the description of GM-player behaviors. How would you define it? My guess is that it falls somewhere between direction and collaboration in terms of the centralization dynamic.

My understanding is that research on argumentation and rhetoric shows that people respond best in recalling and understanding models and arguments using three components. It's certainly true that in terms of perception, the ability to compare and contrast two qualities seems to be the most basic level of wiring.

Best,

Blake

[ This Message was edited by: Blake Hutchins on 2001-06-27 13:32 ]

On 2001-06-26 08:28, Logan wrote:
what you hear. Changes won't happen over night. That doesn't mean changes won't happen. I expect changes will happen, but slowly and without pissing people off.

If you condemn GNS for that... Oh, well. You strike me as a guy with a lot of ideas about how things should be done. Maybe you should write your own model. That's what Scarlet Jester did. He didn't agree with us or rgfa, so he went on his own journey. You could do that. Just remember 2 things:

On 2001-06-27 13:19, Blake Hutchins wrote:
"Fudging" is a different issue than railroading, and I submit it does happen in all game styles to one degree to another.

Whether or not a character's instant and unexpected death violates story-oriented games depends utterly on the game.

I thought your point about facilitation was an interesting addition to the description of GM-player behaviors. How would you define it? My guess is that it falls somewhere between direction and collaboration in terms of the centralization dynamic.

My understanding is that research on argumentation and rhetoric shows that people respond best in recalling and understanding models and arguments using three components.

I think you can get close to the r.g.f.a Threefold if you categorize why a GM might Fudge.

I would think that a random meaningless and unsatistfying death would almost always violate the sensibilities of a story-oriented game.

(Facilitation goes beyond) collaboration. It is when the GM's role is simply the allow the game to happen without asserting any will over it. An extreme example has the GM acting simply as a rules referee and the moderator of random rolls deciding what happens next. It is the absence of the GM asserting any will over what happens in the game.

My point is that a model should have the number of components that it needs, not an pre-fixed number of components within which everything must be sqeezed.

On 2001-06-27 21:57, Blake Hutchins wrote:
I'd think it would violate the sensibilities of any game. If a character is crushed to death by a stone slab minutes into a game because he failed to check for traps or he missed his die roll, I submit that only the most hardened players would find enjoyment in it.

Likewise in any Simulationist or Gamist game. In fact, in the case of old school DnD, I'd suggest the resurrection spells were put in place as a workaround to take the sting out of randomized, unsatisfying deaths.

Interesting. Thanks for the info. So (to clarify) you have no story or desire in mind for your games? Do the random rolls require any judgment on your part (i.e., deciding what to roll about, setting the odds, etc.) or do the players make those decisions also?

I agree completely. However, I don't think GNS needs more components. It certainly does not need them for the sake of distinguishing it from a separate, albeit related model. Nor am I convinced that harmonizing it with the r.g.f.a. model is a desireable or even pertinent goal, though the comparisons and history are interesting. Neither would I change terminology purely to distinguish the two. (I don't suggest you've called for such changes, incidentally.)

The crux of the debate over the GNS model revolves around the definition of Simulationism, and we've opened several avenues toward resolving this issue. It may be the term itself will change following a clearer, more commonly acceptable definition, but we'll have to wait for the next iteration of the FAQ.

Names please.

After all, people coming here could well claim that Forge regulars (John and me) agree with them that G/N/S has major flaws.

I think it likely that your refusal to name them is due to fear that I'd go ask them to confirm the disagreement which would result in you eating your words.

Raven also doesn't back up his claims. Hope you don't mind when people discount them as a result.

On 2001-06-28 03:59, greyorm wrote:
I seriously, SERIOUSLY doubt that there is any degree of complete agreement about the model on RGFA, and I rather suspect there is as much debate there about what fits into what category, and what is which, as there is here.

Thus, to me, to say "Well, RGFA says this" is specious and just looking for trouble since you immediately marginalize anyone who doesn't agree with your presented viewpoint, whether or not they should be.

You will not catch me playing "The folks in this camp here are the One True Followers of the Great Model, and these folks over here are just confused or blasphemous heathens."

Frex, "Bhuddists believe that Bhudda is not divine" ignores that certain large sects of Bhuddism believe Bhudda IS divine.

So if I state the latter and you say real Bhuddists don't believe that, and ask for names, you would be guilty of trying to present your beliefs as God's Own Truth and detractors as unimportant annoyances who refuse to accept canon.

I'm not going to do that.

I am reporting what I have experienced, and that is that a couple RGFA regulars differ in opinion as to what is encompassed by RGFA Simulationism than you do.

Dropping names is unnecessary to support the statement.

Note they agree with your position that system and style do not affect one another. This simply further supports that even RGFA is not a homogenous mass of Borg-like individuals who all agree on the "proper" interpretation of the model.

For were that so, this would be becomes nothing more than an argument by appeal to authority.

FYI, the first mention of Gamist that I could find (and I believe it is the first) in a thread titled 'Definition of Simulation (was Re: Proposal to retire the term "IC")'. The title of the thread as well as the discussion contained in it (which considers "gamism" to be a variation of "simulation") are relevant.

But, again, you miss the central point which is beyond my or Brian's personal opinion. The original Threefold developed out of an opposition model...

When you spend a half-decade and thousands of posts discussing a model, it is just possible that you might understand it, don't you think?

Brian and I are not talking about Bhudda. That's a nice red herring. We are talking about a model that we watched developed and that I've used for about a half-decade.

Some people believe the world is flat.

Of course you aren't. That would spoil the whole holier-than-thou tone, wouldn't it?
...
Whatever.

FYI, the first mention of Gamist that I could find (and I believe it is the first) in a thread titled 'Definition of Simulation (was Re: Proposal to retire the term "IC")'. The title of the thread as well as the discussion contained in it (which considers "gamism" to be a variation of "simulation") are relevant.

Okay. It's enough. Everybody put the shovels down. Brian, thanks for showing restraint. It's good that people like John and Brian are here. They add historical insight and new perspectives to the debate. People may not always agree with everything they post, but that does nothing to reduce the value of their presence. Let's not waste time antagonizing each other.

Logan

Gad, yes. I think letting one's capillaries relax is a necessary thing. It's all too easy to let tempers flare when discussing a subject about which you're passionate. Then it becomes less about the topic of debate and more about sharing your aneurysm with all your Forge buddies.

On another note, seems like we have several distinct building blocks to the model: stance, goal, motivation, GM-player dynamic, goal-optimizing mechanics, metagame, mode. Perhaps it's possible to assemble the model from these building blocks and reconcile the various styles of play.

Thoughts?

Best,

Blake

On 2001-06-29 01:08, greyorm wrote:
I'm saying, "Hey, look, these other RGFA guys disagree with you about this 'a simulation must be realistic' bit, since one can simulate genre."

I'm also not dropping names because discussion with one of the individuals revealed a serious, serious dislike of of Brian (FYI, this conversation took place last month, before I'd really interacted with Brian). Actually, it was more like undying hatred and disgust.

Knowing this, and naming him, will likely bring nothing more than heated flamage or insult from Brian as he attacks the individual rather than the idea.

The individual is a regular (or former regular, not certain which) who was around when the model was first created and helped in its development, or so I was lectured.
I have no reason to distrust him on this, and we're certainly not friends, though you would have reason to distrust because it's problematic for you to have someone you can't tear down personally playing counter-point.

In fact, I know RGFA doesn't completely agree on what the model represents, and I know that your narrow view of Simulationism is not the end-all, be-all of the RGFA model, despite your fervent claims to the contrary.

You might want to ask yourself that in regards to the GNS model and Ron's understanding of it before you go ahead and start tearing his model apart...but wait, you can't do that since it means your arguments are invalid by that criteria, since Ron has spent two+ years and who knows how many posts and time developing GNS.

But hey, he's wrong about his model despite that, but you're right about yours because of it. Interesting.

[snip]

On 2001-07-01 22:49, greyorm wrote:
Logan said, "Drop the shovels."
How does this not apply to you in particular?

You should feel free to stop responding to me whenever you want. I'm done if you are.

I'm putting responsibility on all of you:

- John Morrow: I'm glad you're here and another member of the Forge. I would appreciate some respect towards everyone else, and no more name-calling or line-by-line arguments (a technique that, in my experience, only leads to flames, and is really bad form here).

- Raven: I appreciate the sentiment, and understand how a thread like this can annoy everyone, but please don't ask people to leave. This is a free place to talk, people will be asked to leave only under the most extreme circumstances, and it will be done by this anonymous account (Forum Admin) only.

- Everyone else: Well--drop the thread already. Nothing's being accomplished here. If you can think of a way to build on this, go for it. If there's another non-constructive post in here, I'll lock the thread.

--
Forum Administrator
The Forge - indie-rpgs.com

[ This Message was edited by: Forum Admin on 2001-07-02 09:51 ]