A person who I used to game with came up with the following framework that maybe fits within G/N/S...

There are three types of games - in terms of actual play (i.e. perhaps or likely independent from the games rule set).

1)Competitive play - wherein all the players are trying to compete with each other over whatever type of Currency the game offers (be it the spotlight, better spells/equipment, more kill xp, etc.) Characters can and often are 'at each other's throats' in this style of play.

2)Cooperative play - wherein all of the players cooperate with each other in the furtherance of some goal (typically the creation of a good story - whatever that means to the individuals involved) Characters are hardly ever at each others throat in this style of play - because that tends to hamper the team effort.

3)Collaborative play - wherein all of the players are involved in the background/color/history development for the game, and they try to collaborate on the overall direction of the story. Within that framework, individual characters may conflict with each other and have individual aggendas, but all of the players recognize that this is furtherance of creating a good story (again by whatever definition of story the group chooses to use).

So, if I'm reading the G/N/S model correctly, I see some correspondences here:

Competitive play corresponds to Gamist modes and mostly to the Author/Pawn stance.

Cooperative play corresponds to Simulationist modes and mostly to the Actor stance.

Collaborative play corresponds to Narrativist modes and mostly the Director/Author stances.

Does that seem about right?

Thanks.

I think there are elements of Competitive, Cooperative, and Collaborative play in all 3 GNS modes. They really don't map 1:1 in that way.

For instance I'd say that the number of Gamist games where players are actually "at each others throats" is pretty small.

The use of the word "competitive" under Gamism, drew a lot of flak because of its association with the player vs player mode you describe. But in reality competition is often just as strong when its internalised.

What distinguishes Gamism is really the level of impact on *character* success that the *player's* choices have. The games rules can be viewed as a series of toggles and dials. If I make a decision as a player where I am intentionally manipulating those toggles and dials in order to increase my characters "success" then I've made a Gamist decision. If this is where I draw the majority of my gaming enjoyment and is the type of decision I like making the most, then I am said to be a Gamist player, and I will probably enjoy games which have an effective set of toggles and dials designed for me to manipulate...a Gamist game.

As a very simple example of this one can take the ubiquitous statement "I ready my sword" found in many D&D campaigns as a stock answer to the DM's question "what are you doing?" What this is essentially is a toggle. Is my sword ready or is it not. If I as a player forget to ready my character's sword then when he gets attacked he'll be at a disadvantage. Therefor my ability as a player is directly impacting character effectiveness.

Contrast this with a Simulationist player who is more concerned with his character's abilities as they should be in a setting. If I as a DM inform him that he's been caught without a weapon because he forgot to say that he "readied it", a likely response from him would be "what do you mean...my character is a highly trained warrior with years of experience. HE isn't going to go into a dungeon without drawing his sword, just because *I* forgot to say it.

I offer this example to illustrate how Gamist decisions often (I'd say usually) don't involve PvP issues. In fact, many tactical engagements which are tremendous opportunities to manipulate toggles and dials involve a great deal of player cooperation. And even in the most gamist of games character vs character rivaly is often handled in a very collaborative method between the players.

Valamir wrote:
As a very simple example of this one can take the ubiquitous statement "I ready my sword" found in many D&D campaigns as a stock answer to the DM's question "what are you doing?" What this is essentially is a toggle. Is my sword ready or is it not. If I as a player forget to ready my character's sword then when he gets attacked he'll be at a disadvantage. Therefor my ability as a player is directly impacting character effectiveness.

Contrast this with a Simulationist player who is more concerned with his character's abilities as they should be in a setting. If I as a DM inform him that he's been caught without a weapon because he forgot to say that he "readied it", a likely response from him would be "what do you mean...my character is a highly trained warrior with years of experience. HE isn't going to go into a dungeon without drawing his sword, just because *I* forgot to say it.

Hello,

As a further counter-example, some discussion has arisen recently about how much character-against-character content shows up in Narrativist play, in this thread.

I can't begin to describe how much fun this is, at least in fairly small doses. In the last two months alone, I've seen more direct murderous interaction among player-characters in highly Narrativist circumstances than in all my previous years in role-playing ... and in every case, it was a real blast for everyone. It was cooperative or semi-cooperative among the players, but passionately hate-filled and agonized among the characters.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Yes. The whole competitive/cooperative/collaborative construct game up in regards to in-game character conflict. The idea was that the players would conspire to tell a 'good story' (insert definition here) - but that their characters would all have varying degrees of overlapping, orthogonal, and oppositional goals. All of this was done in the context of a highly Narativist supported game.

Thanks again for all the good replys. I'm learning a lot.