Topic: GNS and Threefold comparison (specific)
Started by: MK Snyder
Started on: 11/8/2002
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 11/8/2002 at 9:45pm, MK Snyder wrote:
GNS and Threefold comparison (specific)
How does the GNS model differ from this application of the Threefold model?
It appears to me to be identical:
*Applies to play process, not game and not gamer
*Applies to priorities made in choices
*Is not "pure" G or N or S
*Is used to analyze potential player conflict in a game
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=5pnlco%24jf5%241%40nadine.teleport.com&rnum=14
On 11/8/2002 at 10:44pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: GNS and Threefold comparison (specific)
The main difference as I understand it is that the Threefold model claims to be about priorities as they relate to player goals. That is, one plays Dramatist to create Story in Threefold. In GNS we have no idea why the players do what they do, only that they do it.
This is important. The "problem" with the Threefold model is that it ignores the fact that there might be other motives besides World, Challenge, and Story, or that these 'goals' are not well defined. In GNS, we don't try to explain why a player sticks to Exploration, and doesn't head to the Gamist or Narrativist territories (Sim). Only that he does so, and that this is important. Because the behavior itself will either be acceptable to the other players, or it will not be. Again, who cares why the problem occurs, the important thing is that it does.
This is why there are no "Gamist" players, but only players who prefer Gamist play. We don't know, or really care why they prefer it, just that it's observable, and we can avoid problems by promoting or limiting these behaviors as neccessary.
Looking at Dramatism, for example, people will say that the players playing want story. Fine, but what does that mean in terms of actual behavior? How do players actually go about this. Well, turns out that there are a ton of different ways to do it. And many are completely incompatible with others in certain situations. Essentially what we here call Sim players and Narrativist players all want "story" by the Threefold definition. But players using these two modes to achieve "story" may bug the heck out of each other, potentially.
GNS distinctly defines such behaviors so that there is no ambiguity, and when one says that they prefer Narrativism and another says the same, these individuals will have no problem with each other's decision making techniques. The same cannot be said of two Dramatists.
This is not to say that Theeefold is useless. Just that it discusses things in terms of goals, and as such does not diagnose problems in play well. On the plus side, it's easier to grasp, as it's not as abstruse as GNS, and as such people can discuss general concepts in a more readily available manner. There are probably other advantages that I'm not thinking of right now.
Mike
On 11/9/2002 at 1:23am, MK Snyder wrote:
RE: GNS and Threefold comparison (specific)
The definition of Narrativism offered in Ron's essay, as explained by Ron, defines player behavior with respect to player intent:
"Narrativism is expressed by the creation, via role-playing, of a story with a recognizable theme. The characters are formal protagonists in the classic Lit 101 sense, and the players are often considered co-authors. The listed elements provide the material for narrative conflict (again, in the specialized sense of literary analysis)."
Ron clarifies the tense in this post: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4164
Since the players cannot, while in the process of play, have created a story with a recognizable theme yet...then they must be playing with the gola or intent of creating such a story...or playing in such a fashion that an observer assumes that is their intent.
C'mon, that's just ugly!
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 4164
On 11/9/2002 at 4:05am, Le Joueur wrote:
Why Not?
MK Snyder wrote: Since the players cannot, while in the process of play, have created a story with a recognizable theme yet
Why not? Are you saying that when I'm reading a book the theme doesn't exist until I'm done reading it?
Sorry, not buying it.
If something, anything, has happened, then theme can be addressed and story (however a fragment) has been created. Are you getting hung up on the Dramatism ideal of retroactively creating story? As a writer, I can tell you emphatically that story can be created in a single sentence.
Get over trying to poke holes in something you haven't taken the time to comprehend.
Fang Langford
(Who's grouchy, so he'll go to bed.)
On 11/9/2002 at 4:11am, greyorm wrote:
RE: GNS and Threefold comparison (specific)
No, they haven't created a story yet.
In fact, they may never create a whole story -- players switch games, move, join different gaming groups, whatever.
The "IMPORTANT THING" is that their decision -- in that instance, at that moment, addressed the Narrative Premise -- the action had actual human meaning in and of itself to outside observers.
Take any novel, go to a passage that highlights a premise in the book -- anything that makes you react emotionally or intellectually without reliance on previous information -- take that passage out. Is it still understandable, still enjoyable, still meaningful to someone who hasn't read the novel yet?
That is what Narrativism is talking about.*
*That's not all it's talking about, but I'm using the most black&white example I can to get the point across. Events which require some outside context to have impact (such as the relationship between two individuals providing the background to enjoy/fully comprehend the meaning of the scene) are also inclusory here.
In summary: it's about instances of play, not overall or end-point results.
Reading your other posts in the thread pointed to, MK, I think you're getting hung upon the idea of creating-a-story as Narrativism, thus seeing this problem with an "unfinished product" as you detail above, when what you are defining isn't Narrativism -- ie: Narrativism isn't about narratives (yay, terminology).
In fact, Ron stated in the thread you are pointing to: "What one does in Narrativist play, regardless of outcome...is defined by addressing an emotionally-engaging, broadly-applicable issue."
and
"Narrativist play is procedurally defined - 'to create' should be read as an in-play priority, not as a required product (as you are doing)"
which I believe is the exact quote about tense to which you are referring in your previous post.
But you missed the point of his answer, it seems, since you bring up the question here for clarification and in the posts from the referenced thread and this one, your statements are such that you keep talking about product, about what is produced.
You state, "[Narrativism is] the attempt to create...a story with a recognizable theme." No. It isn't about creation of a story.
Note the first quote of Ron's above, the key-word therein is addressing, followed by the phrase regardless of outcome.
Overall, a story result would be desired by the Narrativist player, yes, but the difference between Dramatism and Narrativism is WHEN the definition of what it is occurs: it occurs at the end of the game for the former and the instance of play for the latter.
In Narrativism, the definition occurs when the issue of the game (ie: the Egri-style Premise) is addressed by the decision of a player.
On 11/9/2002 at 7:47am, MK Snyder wrote:
RE: GNS and Threefold comparison (specific)
What I'm hung up on is the "defined by player intent, not really" aspect of the definition.
It's supposed to be a model of categorizing player behaviors and using it to aid the "fixing" of disfunctional gaming sessions. That is what I read as the goal.
Yet, narrativism is defined by intentional behavior (the players are judging current actions in light of a specific goal which may or may not be acheived it doesnt matter BUT THEY ARE PROBABLY THINKING ABOUT IT) and that intentional behavior being ascribed to them by the observer.
Hey, there's simpler ways to observe people and describe their actions.
There's certainly simpler ways of *discussing* observing people and describing their actions.
Plus "Tree falling in the forest" arguments about inherent meaning in text and stories that have been written but don't exist until read. Say what?
"Are you saying that when I'm reading a book the theme doesn't exist until I'm done reading it? "
The story didn't exist until the author wrote it. The theme didn't exist until life forms evolved for whom it was an issue. (Unless you believe in a Sentient Creator, but that's beyond the scope of the GNS model unless we are, in fact, God's characters). The theme didn't exist in your imagination until you read it.
Are you saying that I as an observer am expected to assume that you know the theme before you finish the book and are conducting your life in accordance with it? What if you get hit by a bus?
"As a writer, I can tell you emphatically that story can be created in a single sentence. "
Yeah, and if that sentence happens to be in Phoenician, damn few of today's readers will be able to accurately posit it from observation.
For somebody interested in furthering player communication so people won't be frustrating each other with assumptions, you got a funny way of writing, "Get over trying to poke holes in something you haven't taken the time to comprehend." Very inviting.
Is it really your goal that only those few who read Ron's essay with an immediate and sure understanding are allowed to *gasp* use the wisdom for the assistance of their fellow lesser blessed mortals? Perhaps those sad souls who are not, like you, writers?
On 11/9/2002 at 8:03am, MK Snyder wrote:
RE: GNS and Threefold comparison (specific)
Interestingly enough the definition of "dramatic" moved from a "during the game" decision in May of 1998:
"dramatic": is the esthetic of games which try to make the
action into a satisfying and coherent storyline. See
Part II of this FAQ for more on this style.
to a "judge by product" definition in 2002:
"dramatist": is the style which values how well the in-game action
creates a satisfying storyline. Different kinds of stories
may be viewed as satisfying, depending on individual tastes,
varying from fanciful pulp action to believable character
drama. It is the end result of the story which is
important.
...........................................................................................
A moving target for questions of comparison is difficult.
Well, it's probably because I haven't made enough of an effort to understand. But, since Fang will have written all the explanations by the time I'm dead, it's my fault for not already knowing.
There's a word for people in my profession who take a "blame the reader" stance.
Unemployed.
On 11/9/2002 at 8:36am, talysman wrote:
RE: GNS and Threefold comparison (specific)
MK Snyder wrote: What I'm hung up on is the "defined by player intent, not really" aspect of the definition.
It's supposed to be a model of categorizing player behaviors and using it to aid the "fixing" of disfunctional gaming sessions. That is what I read as the goal.
Yet, narrativism is defined by intentional behavior (the players are judging current actions in light of a specific goal which may or may not be acheived it doesnt matter BUT THEY ARE PROBABLY THINKING ABOUT IT) and that intentional behavior being ascribed to them by the observer.
since you are taking exception specifically to Narrativism's definition, I'll restrict my comment to that; you don't mention a similar problem with the definitions of Gamist and Simulationist.
let's assume some players are playing Sorcerer, a game that fascilitates Narrativism, with a well-known general Premise: "what would you do to get what you want?"
the players will make decisions during the play session. if they are playing Narrativist, these decisions will turn their characters into protagonists, as if they are characters in a story.
if one of the players is playing Gamist or Sim, however, the story might be derailed and never completed. or other issues might break up the game. or maybe the game will be great fun, but might not turn out such a great story, just a series of interesting anecdotes... so the outcome is not guaranteed.
the players might be making their decisions because they are hoping for a good story at the end, or they might be only concentrating on their interpretation of the Premise (making any story that arises from their actions purely accidentally,) or they might be re-living some traumatic memory in their lives through the character, or they might just be making decisions that cause their friends to say "that was COOL!"
we do not know their motivations, unless we ask them.
and more to the point: their motivations are irrelevant.
we just know they are making protagonizing decisions, that is all. and making protagonizing decisions is Narrativism.
On 11/9/2002 at 7:14pm, Le Joueur wrote:
Just Skip It
MK Snyder wrote: "Are you saying that when I'm reading a book the theme doesn't exist until I'm done reading it? "
The story didn't exist until the author wrote it. The theme didn't exist until life forms evolved for whom it was an issue. (Unless you believe in a Sentient Creator, but that's beyond the scope of the GNS model unless we are, in fact, God's characters). The theme didn't exist in your imagination until you read it.
Have you ever created anything? Certainly the story existed before it was written, in the author's head. The act of writing is in concert with the intention to create a story. I hope you don't believe that theme occurs by accident, because that's terribly naïve. A writer generally sits down with some idea what they are going to write, how they are going to present it, and certainly what the theme and message will be. If they can't carry the theme and message into every passage of the story then, as a whole, it does have any consistency of theme or metaphor.
If you believe that theme cannot exist until the entire story has been communicated then you need to read more. I generally sense the theme of a story within the first chapter (if the writer has done his job), the metaphor too. What makes the story engaging is that the message hasn't been communicated. It follows like this; behind the story is a metaphor, as soon as the theme is established it basically poses a question, the body of the story answers that question.
And in a role-playing game, the players are god.
I would be greatly surprised if you believe that an author has no concept of what theme, message, or metaphor will be in their story until it is completed. This simply isn't how it works.
MK Snyder wrote: Are you saying that I as an observer am expected to assume that you know the theme before you finish the book and are conducting your life in accordance with it?
Yep.
Ya gotta problem with that?
I am a literate, voracious reader. I have 'a lot of books behind me.' When I pick up a book that will 'affect my life,' I can guarantee that I can tell what the theme is within the first chapter or less. Often, on top of all that, I identify with both the character and the metaphor (meaning I see some of me in the character and feel the metaphor corresponds with things central to my life). I read the story because I want to know what happens; does my identity 'within' the character get validated? Does the metaphor increase my awareness or does it instruct my perspective?
All of this happens right away. It also continues throughout the whole of the story. Honestly, if I had to wait until the end for the theme to make itself know, the story would be a tedious exercise in reading.
MK Snyder wrote: "As a writer, I can tell you emphatically that story can be created in a single sentence."
Yeah, and if that sentence happens to be in Phoenician, damn few of today's readers will be able to accurately posit it from observation.
You confuse message with messenger. The story (every part of it, if well written) carries the theme. Reading the story is an act of communication between writer and reader. Narrative doesn't exist except in the act of communication. Words are not story; paper is not story; grammar is not story. Theme is a fluid entity that exists in every part of this communication and I'm sad that you can't see that.
MK Snyder wrote: Is it really your goal that only those few who read Ron's essay with an immediate and sure understanding are allowed to *gasp* use the wisdom for the assistance of their fellow lesser blessed mortals? Perhaps those sad souls who are not, like you, writers?
Not at all.
My intention is that only people who take the time to comprehend an idea are allowed to attack it on its own merits. If you don't like whatever you understand the GNS to be, then drop it. No one asked you to accept the GNS (as it happens, I don't). Are suggesting there is wisdom in letting someone use a drill rig if they don't know how it works? Do you think it makes sense for someone to attack economic theory if they don't understand it enough to say what's wrong with it (and won't take the time to learn it)?
Especially, if they don't need any drilling or investing?
You don't like the GNS, fine; neither do I. Why bother attacking it and trying to show its flaws, if you don't comprehend how it works (or doesn't)? I was not blessed with "immediate and sure understanding;" it took many months of tedious explanation before I got it. However, at no point did I conclude that I had 'got it' and could rightfully launch harsh salvos based on its flaws. Not until I was told multiply that I definitely had it, only then did I renounce it with authority.
If you can't take the time to respect it and learn it, skip it.
Fang Langford
On 11/9/2002 at 9:39pm, MK Snyder wrote:
RE: GNS and Threefold comparison (specific)
"Certainly the story existed before it was written, in the author's head."
No, it didn't. Not in its entirety.
Very few writers compose in this fashion. Surely you as a creative writer find yourself developing your text and your ideas during the process of writing, in the active engagement of querying yourself that is the process?
I haven't attacked the GNS model at all. How can I, if I do not understand it?
What I am attacking--or criticizing--is the *expression* of the model as being bad writing. It is imprecise. It is actively misleading readers. It has, in fact, apparently generated a sufficiently consistent corpus of misreadings that responses to my questions rebut arguments I haven't even made and assume definitions I haven't even read.
Curiously enough, in answers to my questions, I find the very advocates of "you're not putting enough effort into reading what I wrote" responding with...
not putting enough effort into limiting themselves to reading what I wrote. Ron himself answered a post of mine with a defense against arguments made by others to such an extent that his post made no sense at all.
I have a post in the Theory Thread that isn't about GNS being criticized in terms of GNS.
When I *start a whole new thread* to get clarification *on just that problem* what happens? Vide this thread. I start a thread asking for clarification and actively engaging in the process of refining that clarification, not only for my benefit but the benefit of others, and Fang jumps on me for not taking enough time to attempt to understand...yo, Fang, that's what I'm doing. This is how I do that.
Is that what this forum is about? "Rigorous discourse as long as you read our minds and agree with what we say."?
If you don't want to read my posts, go ahead and don't read 'em. I'm not holding a gun to your head forcing you to read them. You don't want to answer questions? Don't answer them. Shake your head and mutter, "Them damn newbies, cluttering up the forum, stubbornly trying to enter the arena of discourse, fibberty floo."
Fang, you've made a lot of assumptive statements about who I am, what I think, and what I do. I can tell you right now, that's guaranteed to make me angry and lose respect for you on a personal basis and it is poor forum manners in general.
If my style of developing my understanding is a problem for you, leave the gaming table and play with people who share your stylistic priorities. [note: that was self-referential humor there, people.]
On 11/9/2002 at 10:02pm, greyorm wrote:
RE: GNS and Threefold comparison (specific)
MK Snyder wrote: in light of a specific goal which may or may not be acheived
Incorrect, MK; this repeated idea is the very problem what I have been attempting to point out for you: the end-point goal thing.
It isn't about accomplishments, it isn't about achieving or succeeding at anything; GNS is about attempts, instances of play, moments in time, decisions at the moment they occur in play.
"Are you saying that when I'm reading a book the theme doesn't exist until I'm done reading it? "
No, I'm saying precisely the opposite. [emph. for importance]
When a Narrativist player riffs on the game's Premise, that's how you can tell it was a Narrativist decision.
Not knowing how much experience you have with N-style gaming, I'll briefly outline the way Narrativist play is constructed at start:
A group starts play with an Egri-style Premise to address, agreed upon by the group in advance as what the game is going to "be about"...sometimes Premise just happens, as with my current 3E game: where the Premise or theme which developed in play is "the importance of family." (This, however, was not intentional, as we were not striving for a Narrativist game and so developed no initial Premise.)
Further, you can even have multiple Premises in a game; all this isn't a big deal...the important thing is that instances of play highlight and bring illumination to the Premise. Instances of play = singular actions and decisions.
The reason my 3E game is Narrativist is not because a Premise was developed, but because the actions and decisions of the players illuminated and focused upon the Premise. This, in fact, is how I realized we were playing overall in a Narrativist fashion...studying the decisions the players were making, and the actions and scenes they felt were important or interesting, I found this repeating theme of family and its importance.
Yeah, and if that sentence happens to be in Phoenician, damn few of today's readers will be able to accurately posit it from observation.
Straw men are inappropriate in this discussion, MK, please refrain from using them. The issue of language is seperate from the issue of theme in story...if you can't read Phonecian, then OF COURSE you won't get the theme, you won't even be able to read the story. That doesn't mean there is no theme in the story.
"Get over trying to poke holes in something you haven't taken the time to comprehend." Very inviting.
A phsyics professor writes an advanced theory on his blackboard. A first-year physics student tears it apart as ridiculous. Should the professor take heart to the student's criticisms of the validity of the theory?
Merely think of any other situation where one individual has more knowledge/understanding of a topic than another, who chooses to criticize it.
I bring this up because I've seen it occur a number of times during my college years...though perhaps a Philosophy professor would be a more appropriate choice, as the same occurs every day in such -- first-year Philosophy students shouting down degreed professors because the student doesn't GET the reasoning behind a philosophy, yet they think they do or believe themselves qualified to do so (rather than trying to get it first, THEN criticize).
Let's put it this way, do you take the medical advice of your frehman college friend over that of your doctor?
Simply, you are asking: Is the unstudied criticism of someone worthwhile?
Not everyone's opinion is equally valid. That may set off your culturally-instilled equality alarms or not, but it is a provable fact, acceptable or detestable.
If there is anything I've learned in life so far, and in tech support, it is, yes you can "blame the reader" because often it is the reader who is to blame. For many of the same reasons, I don't hold to the "customer is always right" schtick...no, they aren't. The customer is an often an idiot.
I'm not advocating hostility to such, merely pointing out that the reader and his/her perceptions are not always right...especially since even well-written text can change in meaning between two intelligent, reasonable readers.
Simply, in regards to this situation, if you aren't willing to believe you don't get it when people who do get it are saying you don't (even people like Fang, who do get the theory but don't agree with it), perhaps this isn't the conversation to involve yourself in, for I can see nothing productive arising from such a situation.
On my own count, I am attempting to help you "get" it, so you can discuss it. I hope you will be receptive to the help and mull over what I've said and why I feel as though I keep responding to the same criticism of Narrativism by you.
It took me a few years to understand the theory myself, and in the interests of civility, I suggest you take a break and a few deep breaths considering your harsh responses to Fang, to decide if this is all really worthwhile or productive to you or to the discussion.
Not to mention I suggest the same for Fang, who is behaving rather grouchily.
On 11/9/2002 at 10:14pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: GNS and Threefold comparison (specific)
Hi there,
I shall moderate now: Fang and MK, get the hell off of one another's backs. Please bear in mind that "He hit me first!" carries no weight at this site.
Also, MK is dead on target when she identifies Narrativist play as practically guaranteed to produce a story if it goes on for a while. Given starting conditions, that while can even be pretty short. This is a fair observation. However, the difference between procedure and product is key.
I'd like to point out that some folks who were ... shall we say, vehemently certain that "Edwards must be barking mad" are now active at the Forge and perhaps even on this thread. It was discourse that brought folks (including me) to points of agreement and improved clarity. I was patient with you, and changed pips and points of my own when it mades sense. You should be patient with others now.
Best,
Ron
On 11/9/2002 at 10:31pm, Le Joueur wrote:
To the Point
MK Snyder wrote: "Certainly the story existed before it was written, in the author's head."
No, it didn't. Not in its entirety.
Very few writers compose in this fashion. Surely you as a creative writer find yourself developing your text and your ideas during the process of writing, in the active engagement of querying yourself that is the process?
Don't be an extremist. Who said anything anout "entirety?" I keep asking, "does theme exist before the story is entirely read?" I say it does. You keep implying that no theme exists until every scruple of story is conveyed?
Is that what you want to say?
"There is no theme until the story is completed."
Is that it? If it is, I disagree in the strongest possible terms.
MK Snyder wrote: Fang, you've made a lot of assumptive statements about who I am, what I think, and what I do. I can tell you right now, that's guaranteed to make me angry and lose respect for you on a personal basis and it is poor forum manners in general.
Name one.
That's all I ask. Name one assumption I've made about any of these things. I'm really getting tired of your 'arguing about arguments' technique of 'developing an understanding.'
Let's drop all assumptions, pretense, and otherwise. Answer one simple question.
Do you believe that a theme does not exist in a story until the whole thing is completed (writing, reading, or otherwise).
Can you do that?
Fang Langford
p. s. My tone is dependant upon the respect I'm shown. Quote single lines and then make assumptions without the benefit of context and I'll become stern. Give a simple answer to a simple question and expect respect in return.
Edited to note I cross-posted with Ron.