This is my first post, so i figured i'd start with something i've already worked on. Please feel free to provide feedback and criticism...

Beginning canned essay...

I don't know if anyone will find this valuable, but i've found that it eases discussion of the intricate social aspects of gaming to use these terms. Credit where credit is due, i've stolen these concepts from a good friend of mine who is studying Sociology and Journalism so he sort of knows what he's talking about.

Gaming is divided into three levels. All players play on all three all the time. Some players focus on one aspect more than others, and generally someone who is all about the First Level prefers a different type of game than someone who loves the Second Level. No level is better than the other, they just have different focii.

The First Level. This is the game at the Characer level. This is point of view from within the game world. The game is real, this is the character's motivations, this is skills as they are described pertaining to the world itself.

The Second Level. This is the Player/Player Character interaction. This is the munchkin's level as well as the projector's level. This is what the Player wants for his Character. "I want Bob to be the best swordsman ever." "I want Bob to become a Deity." This is not the same as the First Level consideration of Character Goals and Objectives where the Character wants to avenge his family or whatever. This is the realm of number manipulation and other fun stuff.

The Third Level. This is the Player/Player interaction. This is the social aspect of the game, and it is reflected in many different ways. This includes all the inside jokes and running gags your group uses. This includes traditional animosity: Frank's characters always hate Jill's characters. This includes and truly physical considerations: what type of table do you use, what about the chairs, is there a particular order you sit in.

Each level brings a huge number of implications to the table, but it is the third level that is the most fascinating (to me anyway). Personally i think i've reached a point of balance between the three levels. I don't want to play one-on-one with the GM anymore, i've gotten to a point where my characters seem to drive themselves without my prompting or interference, and i still love tweaking the numbers.

If i was willing to take the time, i could probably write an major essay on the third level alone... Anyway, i hope that this will either help you to think about gaming in a different way than you have before, or help you put words to things you already thought about. What do you think? Was any of this valuable or did i just waste my time typing it up?

LordSmerf

Hi there and welcome,

Do you think the material in this thread:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=2802

and the threads it links to, pertains to what you're talking about? Or do you see your model as different?

Also, the basic GNS model says that we go from:

Social Contract -> GNS (how we play characters) -> actual play (of characters or whatever)

So I think that, unless I misread you, you'll find that the theory here matches yours very well.

Mike

This is an interesting take on stuff covered before. Not to put this down, mind you. A fresh perspective is always good.

Level 1 This seems to simply be Actor Stance

Level 2 This one seems to include many items such as Author and/orPawn Stance, GNS metagame priorities at least as it relates to the character.

Level 3 seems to be about the social contract as well as just general social issues.

I mention all this to bring these past discussions to bear on this perspective.

Wow... Yeah... There is one difference, but it is one that i have considered making in the interest of higher clarity and definition. The Second Level of the definition i use is well divided into 2 and 4, but yeah, it's pretty much the same idea. I guess the only difference here is that, whether through personal thought patterens/preferences or through some inherent difference in the definitions, i seem to focus upon the "Third Level." I find the social interaction to be particularly fascinating and compelling. Partially because the social aspect itself could be split into levels. I find that a lot of real-world social tension bleeds over into the Third Level when gaming and you'll start to notice a lot of things that, in normal company and circumstance, are repressed.

Anyway, i didn't think i was onto something completely original, but it was new for me...

LordSmerf

Well, I'd like to hear those "third level" thoughts. That is, the Social level is somewhat impenetrable in some ways. I mean it's all about everyday life to an extent.

There were a series of threads called the "Famous Five" that were all about the social level in a sorta "macro" way, but I've not really seen much on the ideaof how these things could be related to on a person to person level.

I mean are there social dynamics that are unique to RPGs? Are there things on the Social level that we can leverage off of?

Lot's of ground there to dig in.

Mike

All i can do as far as analysis of the social aspects of RPGs is going to be from personal experience. You can't quantify it in numbers (yet :)) and since this is more dependent upon the group than the game it is a little more eccentric. However, there are some common threads and the game does in fact have an effect upon the reactions of the group.

I don't know that there are any social aspects that are specifically unique[i/] to RPGs, but i definately feel that they are the most common purveyers of some social interaction. Take the story creation aspect. I've never run across this in any other social medium, maybe there is a similar give and take and shared creativity within the confines of a joint-writing project, but even that wouldn't be the same.

Look at the typical RPG. You have Players who usually each control a single Character. You have a GM who controls the incidental NPCs as well as the Key NPCs. So you get a plot impetus that is shared between the GMs control of scenery and the Player's control of protaganists. Of course in some groups the dynamics are different with the Player Characters not being the Protaganists, but more of the "Robins" of this thread.

Beyond the story-telling aspect of RPGs there is the sense that since it "isn't real" anything goes. This may or may not result in people dropping social barriers. Of course this is a little less solid sense things could be real or artificial. You're characters tend to be homicidal maniacs? This generally indicates an strong sense of interest in homicidal things. Of course it could just be you playing to a stereotype held about you, or it could just be personal tradition.

I've never really thought about trying to leverage the Third Level, but it is likely that the Third Level is the key to pushing RPGs into the mainstream. If we can understand and manipulate the social aspects of an RPG then we can make it "socially acceptable." Whether this is something that we want or not is a different issue altogether.

Anyway, that's sort of a skimming-the-surface overview, and i know that i missed not only a lot of detail but a lot of scope as well... Feel free to comment or add your own analysis...

LordSmerf

So i was thinking about the Three Levels and realized that some version of Drift has set in on it. Originally the Three Levels were all focused on social and psychological interaction. We transvaluated these levels to describe focii we didn't have terms for (Numbers, Characters, Story, Social, all that). I think i'll try to get back to the original meaning of the Three Levels since that is more insteresting to me... And i haven't seen much discussion of it here... Not that i've read all that much...

Remember this is adapted from what was origianally an analysis of RPG play from a Sociological standpoint. All the lines blur, all the levels are social. The First Level actually does include Character/Character interaction, but it reflects unspoken things on the Third Level. Going back to my example of Bob's characters always hating Frank's characters... This reflects some aspect of the social interaction between Bob and Frank. Maybe there's some buried enmity, maybe they just think it's funny. Still, none of the levels are truly discrete.

The Second Level really is more reflective of the goals of the Player for the Character. These are things that the Character doesn't know about, but that the Player wants. For example, Bob wants his character to meet a hot chick, fall in love, and get married. Bob's character may only be looking at the "meet a hot chick" point. The character has no current desire to get married and is not actively pursuing it himself, however Bob is driving the character toward that goal at the second level.

I generally stick numbers and power gaming under the Second level because it is the best fit, but since the model is primarily a social one on all three Levels it doesn't fit all that well.

Thomas

I find this conversation especially interesting (by the way, hey Smerf, and welcome) because I'm considering coming up with a "Third Level" mechanic for Better Days. I'm toying with the idea of character interaction taking place in the form of social interaction among the players. The players, being the "present" versions of the characters in the memories, might have tensions and rivalries among them in the "real world", and I was thinking of presenting mechanics to simulate this on the "Third Level" of "Folks sitting around the table playing a game."

I think that's the part of this that interests me most. Can we find a way to harness that raw social situation and pull it into the game as well? Is there a way to wrap some "game" around that table-talk?

So after some further consideration i've come to the conclusion that the Three Levels in their original, pre-transvalued form are a seperate concept from Ron Edwards' GNS principle in its pre-transvalued form. Since we lack the terms for hard classification we tend to take terms that we are familiar with that approximate what we mean and use those. Unfortunately this results in a dilution of the actual meaning of the term and can, if not carefully watched, result in full transvaluation such that the term no longer means what it used to, and that the concepts it used to embody are once again hard to define.

Anyway, the more time i spend looking at the Three Levels the more fascinating i find them. Role playing had always been something that i just did, i'd never really looked at all the social implications. Now that i'm finally taking a serious look at such things, i'm finding them to be incredibly compelling. I am not quite sure if Ron is right in excluding the social aspect from the GNS model. I think that there is a mode of play in which the Social aspect does indeed drive the game. I make decisions, not in any of the GNS veins, based upon the reactions of the other players. Kelly is really hot, and i want her to go out with me, therefore my characters are her protectors, they do her character's bidding. I'm using Role Playing as a tool for furthering myself in a Social sense. The choices i make reflect that Social furtherance as the primary goal of play. I may use any of the three goals of classical GNS to support my Social goal, but as Ron says, if they are supporting then they are not primary.

Of course, at this stage of the game i'm not quite sure how prevalent Social play is. It may be so marginal as to be ignorable. If this is the case then there is no problem with Ron's omitting it.

Let me go ahead and say that i'm not trying to be disparaging here, in fact i'm quite grateful to Ron for his explaination of the GNS concepts since they have seriously helped me in furthering my own theories.

We could of course discuss the Social aspect of gaming at the GNS level and be perfectly justified. However, just as we could for any of the three GNS aspects, we can also go into more detail. This is what i'm doing with the Three Levels.

The First Level. This is the social interaction that is seen between the characters themselves. Bill's characters always flirt with Jill's characters. There is animosity between Frank's and Bob's characters.

The Second Level. This is probably the hardest to quantify, this is a glimpse at the inner workings of the Player through his Character. It's generally difficult to play a character that you don't identify with, therefore there are pieces of the player within most of his characters. This won't always be the case, but i believe that it is true often enough (the vast majority of the time) for us to consider it. Ed's characters tend to be incredibly skilled in combat and not much else. At the risk of overanalysis this may indicate that Ed wishes he were a martial artist, or perhaps that he has a violent nature or something. Kelly's characters tend to be megalomaniacal, perhaps this indicates a dominating nature. I think that the Second Level is best seen in the interaction between characters and NPC (in a traditional "GM is god" game) since there is little interference from the First and Third Levels going on.

The Third Level. This is the interaction between players in their role as Players. Some of the third level interaction would not be seen in another setting. In a similar way to locker room humor and mixed company humor being different, Players will act differently since they are Players. This is the most apparent and easy to observe Level of social interaction. It is seen in the things the players directly say and do.

So, now that that's all written down i'd like some feedback. A couple of question come to mind. Does anyone else think that it might be appropriate to consider the Social factor as yet another aspect of the GNS reasons for play? Is there enough social drive in decision making for it to be considered on the same level as Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism? Do these make sense, are the Levels concise and defined enough to be easily seperable? Does this seem accurate, from your experience and perspective do the Three Levels reflect reality, or are they instead the mutterings of a fevered mind?

Thanks for your time, and i hope this proves useful to someone besides me.

Thomas

Hi Thomas,

You are boggling me.

I am not quite sure if Ron is right in excluding the social aspect from the GNS model. I think that there is a mode of play in which the Social aspect does indeed drive the game.

It is possible, maybe even likely that i'm missing something very important. What i'm getting at here though is something i feel is more explicit than what i understand you to be saying. This is the idea of a specifically Social consideration on the same level as the Gamis, Narrativist, and Simulationist motivations. I'm saying that there is the idea that you will choose the Social motivation as the primary motivation in any given instance. I choose not to kill character X because he is played by my good buddy, even though my character would kill him (which violates Narrativist) and it would give me victory and provide me with a tone of XP (over riding Gamist). Am i really missing the point? Maybe what i'm doing is elaborating on something that you didn't go into detail on.

Am i making any sense here? What i'm trying to say is that this Social motivation may over ride the three "traditional" GNS motivations. If this is the case, then i feel that such should be pointed out. That though all role playing is, by its nature, social; it is also true that the motivation at any given instane may also be primarily social.

I'm sorry, i don't feel that i'm being very clear. From what i understand of GNS everything is social, but that social consideration is kept seperate from the motivations of Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism. Maybe i just don't understand...

Of course, i don't really care all that much about the idea of the Three Levels as they relate to GNS theory, i was just curious to get people's ideas regarding Social motivations being on par with the big three GNS motivations. I really wish i had a good thesis statement, i'd love to put together some sort of comprehensive essay on the Three Levels as they relate to role playing, possibly as an analog for real life... I don't know...

Thomas

Hi there,

Yeah, you're missing something pretty important.

Think of a big category, we'll call it Schmoo. It contains all sorts of things.

We'll look at one of the things in it and not consider so much about the others. This one thing is called Hoddle. Remember, Hoddle is just one way to Schmoo.

Looking inside Hoddle, we see three ways to Hoddle: Kitchie, Koochie, and Koo. They're all Hoddling, and as such are all still Schmoo in action, but each way has some distinct features.

Schmoo is Social Contract. Hoddle is Exploration. Kitchie, Koochie, and Koo are Gamism, Narrativism, Simulationism (GNS).

So Narrativist play (for instance) is automatically a particular brand or application of Exploration, and also, automatically, an expression of the Social Contract in action. But this also means that Exploration & Narrativism (in this case) are subject to the entire Social Contract, with all of its features and details and confusions and agreements - all the real-people interactions going on.

We talk a lot about Social Contract at the Forge. I've made a big deal and fought some pretty hard battles to establish just the point you're making: that Social Contract is the most important, most inclusive thing. "Rules" are just little formal pieces of it. Interactions like who's giving whom a ride, or who can be teased and who can't, or who is secretly smitten with whom ... all of these are the primary engine of the hobby, just as they are the primary engine of any social, leisure activity.

Best,
Ron

Ok, i see what you're saying, and fully agree. Perhaps my misunderstanding resulted from my own interpretation of the GNS breakdown as being exclusive. Perhaps this is a case of you writing too concisely since the GNS breakdown covers every way of playing i could think of. The only problem was when the Social Cotract stepped in and overrode the other three motivations for any give Instance. This one decision was made for social reasons.

I see now, however, that the idea that Social is on the same level as GNS is pretty silly. Mainly because GNS are secondary considerations, they are subsets of the Social level itself. So while Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism within role playing are valid paths for play; they are nothing without the social aspect that holds it all together.

Thanks for taking the time to explain to me just how wrong i was. I still think that it should be noted (and perhaps it has been and i just missed it) that often times the motivation of any given Instance within a game will be the overtly social one (don't make him mad, he's your ride) in which case the GNS model can't attribute a specific motivation as primary since none of the three are the motivation.

Again, thanks.

Thomas

Agreed on all counts, Thomas. As you browse through old discussions (which I recommend), you'll see that I consistently say to people, "No, that's not a GNS issue, that's a Social Contract issue," just as you suggest.

Here are a couple you might find interesting:
Examples of GNS in application w/respect to play
GNS decisions, I think I'm starting to get it enough to talk
pondering further preferences
How do you prevent the "GM/players from hell?"
Breaking up is hard to do
Purpose of rules (look for lumpley's post in particular)

Best,
Ron

LordSmerf wrote: The Second Level. This is probably the hardest to quantify, this is a glimpse at the inner workings of the Player through his Character. It's generally difficult to play a character that you don't identify with, therefore there are pieces of the player within most of his characters.

Hmm... That is one way of looking at it. I made the point purely from personal experience (i've worked with maybe five or six different groups of players, but all of them are from the same geographic area). I guess you are right though. However, the fact that there must be some relation, even if it is just that you find the character interesting to observe and develop will serve the purpose of the Second Level. If we can see that you like or dislike character X and what qualities you specifically like/dislike then we can gain a better understanding of you as a player. In fact this doesn't nessecerily have to be between a character and his creator, it could be someone elses character and a player. That's kind of interesting.

Thomas

LordSmerf wrote: If we can see that you like or dislike character X and what qualities you specifically like/dislike then we can gain a better understanding of you as a player. In fact this doesn't nessecerily have to be between a character and his creator, it could be someone elses character and a player. That's kind of interesting.

I don't know about partitioning a character as part of yourself. That would seem to indicate that there is some essential difference between playing characters that you have created and those that other people have created. This is true to some degree because characters you create are "yours" in some sense. However, i've found that i am often at least as fascinated by characters of other people's design. For instance, i'm incredibly intrigued by Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time character Matrim Cauthon. He's simply engaging, and i wouldn't mind playing him in some RPG if the oppurtunity arose.

What about interpretation or vision of a shared character? I've got a couple of characters of shared design. A friend and i got together and designed a matched set of about a dozen characters. Each of us has a few preferences (i like charcter X, he doesn't; he likes character Y, i don't), but there are some of these characters that we both really enjoy playing.

I guess it could be argued that we have different versions of the character "partitioned." I'm not saying that the idea that the character has a relationship with the player is invalid, i'm just not quite sure that it is valid in any appreciable number of cases.

I think that it's interesting that most Universalis players consider a character to "belong" to certain players while villains are shared. I've found that villains can be as compelling as the "good guys." Besides, it seems to me that Universalis is one of the few games suited to a play style that doesn't lock you into one side of the conflict being "good" and the other being "bad." That's one of the things that looks the most interesting.

Anyway, i'll have to spend some more time thinking about the Second Level interaction since it is, for me anyway, the hardest to grasp and understand.

Thomas