There's an interesting article on the rgfa Threefold Model at http://home.earthlink.net/~bgleichman/Theory/Threefold/rgfa.htm which raises some interesting points, some of which might be applicable to the Forge GNS model.

In particular, it suggests replacing the terms "Gamist", "Narrativist" and "Simulationist", on the basis that they are slightly loaded terms at best, misleading at worst. The suggested replacements are "Skill", "Story" and "World", respectively.

I must say I like this idea, since it makes what the three terms mean much, much clearer. For example, lots of people think "Simulationism" requires hyper-realism. Under the proposed amendment, "Simulationist" players are referred to as "World-oriented" players - folk who like to explore an internally consistent campaign world. Another example: some people think "Gamists try to win at roleplaying games". Under the new terminology, we call Gamists "Skill-oriented players", and it is obvious that they are not out to win: rather, they prefer games in which they encounter problems to be solved using their own skills.

What do people think of the article?

Wart wrote:
Here's an interesting article on the rgfa Threefold Model which raises some interesting points, some of which might be applicable to the Forge GNS model.

In particular, it suggests replacing the terms "Gamist", "Narrativist" and "Simulationist", on the basis that they are slightly loaded terms at best, misleading at worst. The suggested replacements are "Skill", "Story" and "World", respectively.

I must say I like this idea, since it makes what the three terms mean much, much clearer. For example, lots of people think "Simulationism" requires hyper-realism. Under the proposed amendment, "Simulationist" players are referred to as "World-oriented" players - folk who like to explore an internally consistent campaign world.

Another example: some people think "Gamists try to win at role-playing games". Under the new terminology, we call Gamists "Skill-oriented players", and it is obvious that they are not out to win: rather, they prefer games in which they encounter problems to be solved using their own skills.

I think the exact quote is, World-oriented goals "[value] the concept of game world events resolving as they would if the world had an independent and actual existence completely separate from that of the [gamemaster] or players." While it is not immediately obvious, this shows a strong bias away from aforementioned ‘immersive play’ (a style arguably associated with Simulationism). The problem is that immersive play doesn’t actually require a world that has a high level of verisimilitude or internal consistency, which is what this definition almost literally asks for.

Actually, Mike Gentry had an interesting observation about Brian's insistant use of the word "skill" as it relates to gamism, being his professed style of play.
Essentially, when Brian talks about skill being the important element of gamism, he uses examples (which no longer exist, as Brian deleted every post he ever made here) which range from combat-decisions (both individual fights & mass combats) to story-decisions. That & an argument about "rules lite" versus "rules heavy" led Mike (& myself) to conclude that when Brian talks about "skill", what he really means is "what I do is skilled & what others do, particularly with light rules systems, isn't". Since Brian maintains that what he plays is gamism (even if, from his descriptions of how he plays & what his priorities are, others have argued that he isn't necessarily a gamist player), gamism is, therefore, about "skill" & not about, as others have argued, "winning". But what "skill" means exactly is pretty vague.

Disclaimer 1: Brian considers me an "enemy". I don't consider him, or anyone else, an "enemy", but we've had our fair share of arguments on-line. So, take what I say about him as you will.

Disclaimer 2: Brian no longer reads or posts on the Forge, so any argument I or anyone else makes, he can't debate.

[ This Message was edited by: joshua neff on 2001-09-21 11:14 ]

[ This Message was edited by: joshua neff on 2001-12-06 19:22 ]

Wart wrote:

Fang wrote:
I think the exact quote is, World-oriented goals "[value] the concept of game world events resolving as they would if the world had an independent and actual existence completely separate from that of the [gamemaster] or players." While it is not immediately obvious, this shows a strong bias away from aforementioned ‘immersive play’ (a style arguably associated with Simulationism). The problem is that immersive play doesn’t actually require a world that has a high level of verisimilitude or internal consistency, which is what this definition almost literally asks for.

Well, we could keep the names but broaden the definitions. I for one think immersive play is a subset of World-oriented role-playing, in that one tries one's damndest to take on the role and act like a denizen of the campaign world.

Fang wrote:
p. s. Of course if we instead added Upstart-orientation, that would make it the WUSS model, but I don?t think we want to go there. (What? I can?t make a joke?)

Fang wrote:
(What? I can?t make a joke?)

Immersive has been considered a part of simulationism for as long as I can remember, and I don't see a problem with that. Any model of this type is going to have to make certain generalisations and I don't think that one is really all that big a deal.

I don't mean this in a funny way, but it seems to me that the increased focus on immersive play at this period in time may be causing it to assume a distinctiveness that it does not actually posess.

I can't say why three points seems such a good number, but I think it's better to try and collapse styles down before adding new points willy-nilly.

Hi all,

I've been around & about on this one more often than I care to remember, because it always comes back to one thing: by "immersive," people mean a whole range of different things. I have also decided it's a hot-button, meaning that any discussion about it tends to make people defensive and upset. But here goes ...

I want to remind everyone that the GNS notion is NOT supposed to account for any and all elements of role-playing. It's a set of generalized real-person goals, the "how to have fun" component of the activity.

For now, I'll suggest that IF by "immersive" we mean "fully identifies emotionally with the PC," then it doesn't really correspond to any aspect of GNS. It's a different issue, most likely related to stance.

However, I can also see that IF the stance that most often induces "immersion" is Actor stance, and IF Actor stance tends to be common for Simulationist goals (or a subset of them), then immersion would be ASSOCIATED with Simulationist play, at least in a "how often" sort of way.

And finally, if someone were to say to me that "immersion" is their role-playing goal, then I might say, "Well, then Simulationism of a character-driven sort would be your best bet, although certain brands of Narrativism might do well too if you don't mind a lot of metagame context to establish your immersive moments."

To name names, Jim Henley's excellent examples with Amberway II seem to me to fall into the former category, and Mike Sullivan's examples and recent work on The Framework would suggest to me the latter category.

So that means I agree with Knight in his assessment of the Simulationist connection, yet I also agree with Fang in thinking of immersion as another issue beyond GNS. How can this seeming contradiction be? Because we are seeing correspondence in multivariate space among sectors of different data-sets.

But overall, I have grown gun-shy of immersion-discussions, because the keyboard-equivalent of trembling lips and choked voices tends to override any value we get out of the time spent. I really hope this post doesn't set off another round of that.

Best,
Ron

1) I don't think the GNS loses anything from ditching immersive play per se; in fact as a player stance I feel it is only tangential to big chunks of GNS.

2) Immersive play, the hardcore variety, IS different. However, after much bumping of heads with Immersive advocates, I don't believe it has anything to do with the quality or depth of the environment; I don't think that there is any necessary association between immersive stance and simulationist GMing. [that said, I think immersive players have a more interesting time of it if their GM caters to good sim]

3) Although there were severely negative reactions to it on the one previous occassion it was mentioned, I could make a fair case that deep immersion is a psychological disorder. Or a behaviour equivalent to a psychological disorder, which is not quite the same thing. However, considering that roleplaying in the broad sense has served mystics well in the pursuit of altered states of consciousness, I think its worth mentioning, because all this stuff does feed back in a real sense to the real mind.

4) System does matter to immersive players, but arguably less than many. I think that the key to immersive psychology (if there is such a thing) is that the boundaries of the box are known. Once those boundaries are drawn, the immersive is capable of stepping out of immersion to some degree, BUT the big deal is that they should not be "thrown back" into their "real selves".

I think of it being a lot like some experiences I had as a kid; on a Sunday afternoon, if my mother mentioned that I would need to go to school next day, my mood would collapse. While I maintained unconscious suspension of disbelief in my freedom, I was happy - once the Awful Truth was drawn to my attention, I was an unhappy boy.

For this reason, I think, Immersives can handle a certain amount of expected disruption; it is the unexpected disruption that overcomes their SOD capacity, so to speak.
I don't see the kind of conscious intervention reuired for Director stance being easily accessible.

Oh yeah.

As a passing note - and with respect for many aspects of Brian's essay - I think that the following associations are terrible, destructive misconceptions:
Sim = World/Setting
Nar/Drama = Plot
Game = System/Resolution

As I have said many times, ALL role-playing includes ALL of these elements: character, system, setting, color, premise, and situation. "Plot" in its most mild, neutral sense is merely what happens via play.

To repeat: Gamist play utilizes and cares about all of these things. Narrativist play utilizes and cares about all of these things. Simulationist play utilizes and cares about all of these things. The degree of emphasis among these things can vary widely within each of G, N, or S.

To associate any one of these things directly with any one of G, N, or S is a horrible absurdity.

Best,
Ron

Gareth (contracyle),

Brilliant post. I agree with every word.

Best,
Ron

Before I go into this, I should mention the epiphany I had this morning. Traditionally, I have heard both the GDS and the GNS models referred to as of use in categorizing gamemaster motivation for what can be literally identical acts. As far as that goes, I believe they serve well enough.

The problem is, again and again I hear the proponents of these models say that gamemasters should be in the business of facilitating play. How is that a problem? Simple, by categorizing the motivations of the gamemaster into Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist, you immediately turn away from their role as facilitator.

I realize now the main problem with trying to inject immersive into these models is by most definitions a gamemaster has no motive or need to immerse themselves. I also realize that because of all this it was rather foolish of me to liken the model I created in Get Emotional! to anything related to either the GDS or GNS model.

You see, what I attempted to capture in Get Emotional! was the styles of the players. To me, if you are truly going to facilitate play, your goal(s) should be to conform to the players (especially if that means seeking players you are good at conforming to).

A gamemaster cannot be immersive, but Simulationism is one way to facilitate immersive play (and not the only one).

contracycle wrote:

2) Immersive play, the hardcore variety, IS different. However, after much bumping of heads with Immersive advocates, I don't believe it has anything to do with the quality or depth of the environment; I don't think that there is any necessary association between immersive stance and Simulationist [gamemastering]. (That said, I think immersive players have a more interesting time of it if their [gamemaster] caters to good [Simulationism].)

I don't see the kind of conscious intervention required for Director stance being easily accessible.

Ron Edwards wrote:

I've been around & about on this one more often than I care to remember, because it always comes back to one thing: by "immersive," people mean a whole range of different things. I have also decided it's a hot-button, meaning that any discussion about it tends to make people defensive and upset. But here goes....

I want to remind everyone that the GNS notion is NOT supposed to account for any and all elements of role-playing. It's a set of generalized real-person goals, the "how to have fun" component of the activity.

For now, I'll suggest that IF by "immersive" we mean "fully identifies emotionally with the PC," then it doesn't really correspond to any aspect of GNS. It's a different issue, most likely related to stance.

However, I can also see that IF the stance that most often induces "immersion" is Actor stance, and IF Actor stance tends to be common for Simulationist goals (or a subset of them), then immersion would be ASSOCIATED with Simulationist play, at least in a "how often" sort of way.

And finally, if someone were to say to me that "immersion" is their role-playing goal, then I might say, "Well, then Simulationism of a character-driven sort would be your best bet, although certain brands of Narrativism might do well too if you don't mind a lot of metagame context to establish your immersive moments."

So that means I agree with Knight in his assessment of the Simulationist connection, yet I also agree with Fang in thinking of immersion as another issue beyond GNS. How can this seeming contradiction be?

Hey Fang,

Where'd the perception that GNS has any sort of specific GM focus come from? That ain't it, man, not even anywhere near it.

It's about people. Real people; I don't care if they are GMs or players or switch between those or what. Just the real people and what they call "fun" or "worthwhile" from a role-playing experience. Specifically, it's about DECISIONS and GOALS as expressed through play.

So to call a person "Gamist" is shorthand for saying, "This person tends to make Gamist-type decisions and promote Gamist-type priorities during play."

In most of my experience, we've mainly discussed players (as opposed to GMs), but since the theory is about PEOPLE, any people, then GMs are included too. The differing role of GM and player will then influence the SPHERES of the decisions, but not alter the GNS stuff one bit.

Discussions about my System essay have spun off in all manner of crazy directions - for instance, there was a while when people insisted GNS was about classifying the games themselves. It's not, directly, just via system-facilitation components. Thus, calling Hero Wars a Narrativist game is shorthand for, "Hero Wars' system and other features consistently facilitate Narrativist play."

This "GM as opposed to players" thing seems equally odd to me.

Best,
Ron

Whew! OK, on to other aspects of Fang's post, or some of them anyway.

[Here is a folded note which Fang is to read after his sense of humor has been implanted; it says, "Damn, bud, can't you present just one explosive idea at a time?" But he hasn't read that yet.]

Stance & terminology - yeesh, I am still resistant to replace "Actor" or any of the other stance terms at this time. I agree with you that perhaps the topic can merely be left to cool.

My "seeming contradiction" with you and Knight - I was under the impression that I had answered my own question in the rest of that paragraph. That is, it was rhetorical.

Your take on immersion - seems to fit the XYZ thing referred to by me as Actor stance.

I'm time-constrained, at the moment, so my apologies for the one-liners. Your posts deserve more time & consideration than that, so I promise to follow up tomorrow.

Best,
Ron

Fang wrote:

What do I mean when I say immersive? While I do skew towards "[identifying] emotionally with the [player character]," I mean playing primarily from a first-person, individual point of view, not necessarily equating one’s emotions with those of the character, but deriving gratification from play that restricts player access to the game mostly to the primary contact point; the actions of one character.

Oh yes, I should also say that much of the conversation I was exploring was based on the question "how do I get you the player to tell me what you want from the game". And the answer was "You can't, as soon as you ask me that question I lose my character". Thius implies that not only would be Director stance be unavailable and unsuitable to such players, it would itself be the worst thing that could happen to them; it would destroy the experience for them.

[ This Message was edited by: contracycle on 2001-09-26 06:36 ]

contracycle wrote:

Fang wrote:

What do I mean when I say immersive? While I do skew towards "[identifying] emotionally with the [player character]," I mean playing primarily from a first-person, individual point of view, not necessarily equating one’s emotions with those of the character, but deriving gratification from play that restricts player access to the game mostly to the primary contact point; the actions [and experiences] of one character.

That is what I would expect from the term too, but I don't think it is what [self-defined] Immersives themselves are trying to describe. I think a much greater portion of the players consciousness is invested in the character, there is a much greater submission of the "host" personality.
[ Please forgive the insertions in both Contracycle’s and my quotes, I think they add important clarification. Snip of the interesting Aristoi example.]

In most discussions on Immersive play in which I have participated, there has been mention of players who are not routinely immersive but who have experienced immersion from time to time.
[Snip the personal experience.]

Part of the point is that this was substantially different from my normal In Character stance. I routinely employ Actor, flipping in to others; during what I think was an immersive experience I would not have been able to do this.
[Snip more personal experiences.]

Anyway, as I say I think the phenomenon described by Immersion is substantially different from simply assuming a first person viewpoint;

it is the extinguishing of the distinction between player and character on a temporary basis. As such it is a very, umm, profound behaviour, and I don't think it can be boxed with the more conventional player stances.

I believe that Contracycle's description of "Immersives" probably refers to the Turku (sp?) or e-thing guys and people of similar bent.

I think that desire for Immersion is a spectrum from heavily and more emotionally immersed to lightly and less emotionally. The E-thing guys and people like that are merely at one end of that spectrum. On the other end are those who couldn't care less.

So, I agree with Fang's definition in that the one thing in common is relating to the character in "first-person". In fact I agree almost completely with Fang, here. Again this falls into the player desire category. As Ron says GNS covers the decision making process essentially. So Simulationism (deciding things on verisimilitude) is the GNS mode that will most facilitate the fulfilment of this desire, and hence the linkage. Not to say that the other modes can't provide any fulfilment, just that it will be less easy, less common, and less effective to try and provide for this desire using these modes.

For example, in a Narrativist game (one with other players playing in a Narrativist fashion and using rules that empower them to do so) a player might only use narrativist director power to create things that are not at all related to their character if the player feels that use of this power in a fashion that relates to their character will destroy thier Immersion in the game. This player will probably get some satisfaction, but less than if they were playing a Simulationist game. Similarly, a Gamist can always play with the stats available, and try to power up their character in just about any type of game in order to satisfy their desire for such progress. Gamist games will cater best to this, however.

I think that syncretizes everyone's opinions here, no? What desire needs satisfying? What decision making process (GNS) will fulfil that need best? Immersion is best satisfied by Simulationism.

Mike

Gareth (contracycle),

I think your insights regarding the sensations of immersion are valuable. I completely agree with you regarding its incompatibility with Director stance, and in my experience much Author-stance play is severely discouraged by fellow players in this mode.

However, your reference of Actor stance as "in-character" or "first-person" play is skewed slightly, and so your conclusion about immersion and stance doesn't hold.

Actor stance is not synonymous with in-character or first-person play. *It means that the player makes all character decisions and determines all character behavior employing ONLY character knowledge and priorities.*

In-character can mean a lot of things, but I'll take it to mean "speaking with the character's voice," including gestures and so forth. This, frustratingly, is what corresponds to "acting" in the colloquial sense, but it is itself not Actor stance.

First-person means using "I" when describing a PC's actions, rather than "he" or "Sebastian." As I've said many times, first or third person diction is totally irrelevant to stance.

For those who are aggravated by my seeming reliance on private definitions, I sympathize - but attending to each and every nuance of RPG theory as a dissertation cannot be my priority in life. Believe it or not, a lot of the definitions ARE available in the right threads, and if you ask, someone will dig it up. As long as we continue to discuss these things in a civilized way, we'll get there.

Best,
Ron

Whoa - amazing thread. Reading my, Mike's, Fang's, and Gareth's posts, I'm pretty sure we're hitting on all cylinders. I'm with it so far.

The only minor bug is the "Actor stance" part, both in (1) the terminology itself, as Fang has stated; and in (2) its relationship to (a) Simulationism and (b) immersion. For #2, I'm pretty content with the way I've constructed it above ... any more discussion, so I can be sure?

Best,
Ron

Ron,

(Didn’t I say it might be apocryphal?) You are right that the GNS is neither gamemaster focused nor goals focused (at least you can say that now). Originally, way back in the days I still visited rpga, the GDS model was frequently argued about. Over time, the substance of each argument resorted to the idea that the rpga GDS model was about decisions (as well described back in More FAQ comments (long and bloody)) and then that it was only in how the gamemaster decided how to do things (you’ll have to do this rpga research for yourself).

I did find the point where you substantiate the idea that the GNS model is used to classify role-playing game players (in All-out dissection (LONG AND BRUTAL)), but even there you point out that it is about "role-playing DECISIONS and PRIORITIES." I haven’t really seen much where you expand on this (and feel free to correct me), so I’ll work from there.

Now, it is clear that the GNS is somewhat the product of the GDS (there are obvious similarities). So anything I projected on GNS about gamemaster-centricism is only partially historical (and that’s weak at best). I think a good case can still be made that GNS still leans towards the gamemaster point of view, but it is a very complicated implication.

As you said here, "it's about DECISIONS and GOALS," but I think a case can be made that anything which would be specifically and only ascribed to a player goal is always demoted to stance. Subsequently, I think that the whole set of stances seems entirely restricted to player style and then the relationship between stances and the ‘folds’ makes it clear that players are thus a lesser form of participant.

Simply put, a gamemaster does not practice immersion themselves, do they? That is a player practice, thus a stance (or more accurately, according to what I have read, a mode that is a sub-stance of ‘Actor Stance’).

Likewise, isn’t it stretching (as in a rare occurrence, perhaps simply an exception) to say that a player engages in simulation (as described in Simulationism)? While Simulationism may be what a player likes to experience from either their gamemaster or from the game itself, isn’t Simulationism mostly a decision or goal of the gamemaster? Thus it would be a gamemaster practice and it also happens to be a full-fledged classification in the GNS.

In several places, people talk about using all stances with all classifications, but ultimately things that player does appear to be stances and things that a gamemaster does (or a system does) appear as categories in the GNS model. Doesn’t it always seem as though the stances are subordinate to the categories? Given that, then the GNS does show a bias if not towards gamemastering at least away from (what should I call it?) playering.

Fang Langford

p. s. I realize that the "GM as opposed to players" thing might seem a bit confusing, but you have been working so deeply on the frontiers of Narrativism and ‘power sharing’ with players for so long, you might remember that out here in the hinterlands there are still clear differences between the two.

Ron,

I think that by "First-Person" we are not referring to diction so much as the computer game concept. That is in a first-person shooter, you see things from (and presumably then make decisions based on) the character's viewpoint. This is, BTW, almost exactly equal with your definition above of Actor mode. Defined thus, yes, actor mode and Immersion have a one-to-one relationship in their most basic meanings.

If I may, I see Immersion as an input to the player and Actor as an output. That is that Immersion is something the player recieves, while Actor mode is what he does. And yes, Actor mode is the best mode for players to be in to get Immersive feedback from the game. If the player does nothing to damage SOD then the player's SOD is heightened and the player is more Immersed.

I think again that the urge that I have to split this up into player input and output is what causes people like me and fang to talk about Immersion. We want to know not only what the player is doing, but why. By this model we'd say that the another motivation or input that a player can recieve is the satisfaction of an interesting portrayal of the character. This is the demonstrative thing that Fang refers to. The problem with the Stance terminology as it stands is that the demonstrative type may be just as satisfied being in other modes than just actor and may switch freely. Yet the term Actor does so imply the demonstrative activity to the uninformed.

Just to get the idea across, here is a model that might satisfy our objectives I think.

Motivations - Stance - Behavior Associated
-------------------
Entertainment, Socializing - Audience - Listening, absorbing, recording, slight participation

Play, Strategy - Pawn - describes character actions in a fashion designed to promote the pawn

Immersion, Safety - First Person - describes character actions designed to suspend disbelief

Demonstration, Approval - Actor - speaks IC, physically acts out character actions

Background Creation, Character Development - Author - describes previously unrevealed and new facets of character

Protagonism, World Creation - Director - describes results of character activities or anything else.

I may have missed a few stances, and there are certainly more motivations.

Mike

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-09-26 11:46 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-09-26 11:45 ]

Ron Edwards wrote to me:

Your take on immersion - seems to fit the XYZ thing referred to by me as Actor stance.

On 2001-09-26 11:38, Le Joueur wrote:
I think a good case can still be made that GNS still leans towards the gamemaster point of view, but it is a very complicated implication.

As you said here, "it's about DECISIONS and GOALS," but I think a case can be made that anything which would be specifically and only ascribed to a player goal is always demoted to stance. Subsequently, I think that the whole set of stances seems entirely restricted to player style and then the relationship between stances and the ‘folds’ makes it clear that players are thus a lesser form of participant.

Simply put, a gamemaster does not practice immersion themselves, do they? That is a player practice, thus a stance (or more accurately, according to what I have read, a mode that is a sub-stance of ‘Actor Stance’).

Likewise, isn’t it stretching (as in a rare occurrence, perhaps simply an exception) to say that a player engages in simulation (as described in Simulationism)? While Simulationism may be what a player likes to experience from either their gamemaster or from the game itself, isn’t Simulationism mostly a decision or goal of the gamemaster? Thus it would be a gamemaster practice and it also happens to be a full-fledged classification in the GNS.

In several places, people talk about using all stances with all classifications, but ultimately things that player does appear to be stances and things that a gamemaster does (or a system does) appear as categories in the GNS model. Doesn’t it always seem as though the stances are subordinate to the categories? Given that, then the GNS does show a bias if not towards gamemastering at least away from (what should I call it?) playering.

p. s. I realize that the "GM as opposed to players" thing might seem a bit confusing, but you have been working so deeply on the frontiers of Narrativism and ‘power sharing’ with players for so long, you might remember that out here in the hinterlands there are still clear differences between the two.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Le Joueur wrote:

I think a good case can still be made that GNS still leans towards the gamemaster point of view, but it is a very complicated implication.

I agree with Ron here. It's about decisions, no matter who makes them. Why did you have your character/game do that? Answer that question and you find your GNS predilection in that circumstance. To the extent that a player tends to go one way or another I personally find it useful to label them.

As [Ron] said here, "it's about DECISIONS and GOALS," but I think a case can be made that anything which would be specifically and only ascribed to a player goal is always demoted to stance. Subsequently, I think that the whole set of stances seems entirely restricted to player style and then the relationship between stances and the ‘folds’ makes it clear that players are thus a lesser form of participant.

I'd argue that a [gamemaster] can play [a non-player character] in a stance. I'm writing a [gamemasterless] game. It seems obvious to me that all people playing are under the same constraints and pressures.

Simply put, a gamemaster does not practice immersion themselves, do they? That is a player practice, thus a stance (or more accurately, according to what I have read, a mode that is a sub-stance of ‘Actor Stance’).

To the extent that I play the NPCs, I do when I GM. Also I get into Immersion of setting. Call it a God complex if you like.

Likewise, isn’t it stretching (as in a rare occurrence, perhaps simply an exception) to say that a player engages in simulation (as described in Simulationism)? While Simulationism may be what a player likes to experience from either their gamemaster or from the game itself, isn’t Simulationism mostly a decision or goal of the gamemaster? Thus it would be a gamemaster practice and it also happens to be a full-fledged classification in the GNS.

Nope, Simulationism is the decision to make in game decisions based on Verisimilitude (rather than challenge or plot). This is practiced by players and GMs alike.

In several places, people talk about using all stances with all classifications, but ultimately things that player does appear to be stances and things that a gamemaster does (or a system does) appear as categories in the GNS model. Doesn’t it always seem as though the stances are subordinate to the categories? Given that, then the GNS does show a bias if not towards gamemastering at least away from (what should I call it?) playering.

Motivations and behaviors. See my earlier post.

I realize that the "GM as opposed to players" thing might seem a bit confusing, but you have been working so deeply on the frontiers of Narrativism and ‘power sharing’ with players for so long, you might remember that out here in the hinterlands there are still clear differences between the two.

Of course there are differences. That doesn't change either model, however, IMHO.

Except when the decision is ‘because I (my character) feel it is the right thing to do." That kind of decision, if based on the mode of immersion, does not seem to fit well under the generalized intentions of Simulationism. You can make it fit, but that seems to be either a perversion of immersion or of Simulationism.

If I wanted to extend what I was trying to point out earlier, gamemasters practice Skills Testing-World-Story Orientation and players practice Skill Using-Immersive-Characterization Orientation. Saying that World Orientation and Immersive Orientation fit together neatly under a name like Simulationism doesn’t sound right. (But then who am I to talk, I am clearly against SWTs and TLAs¹ in general.)

I can understand that a gamemaster can play in a stance, but what I am trying to point out that it doesn’t seem like a player cannot. If there is no more connection between stances and whether to be player or gamemaster, then just as a gamemaster can play ‘stanceless’ so too should a player; is that more than just possible?

And by the way, is yours a Simulationist game? One game, while a good example of one way of doing something, does neither a trend nor generalization make (or break).

The idea I am trying to get at here (I did say it was complicated), is closer to examining which of the GNS parts would likely be played in a gamemasterless game. Clearly everyone could play immersive, but that seems mostly incompatible with both Gamist and Narrativist play.

Finally, if such were conducted, do you think it would be more accurate (and at least less confusing) to call it Simulationist or immersive?

I guess in one way I could be saying that Simulationism is not really in what a player does, were as immersion is not really something that anyone (or thing) does other than the player.

Do you consider this common enough to be representative or rather exceptional?

How do you deal with the emotional attachment to a non-player character when something happens to them? Are there many similarities to how (light?) immersive players do? Are you sure this is not the exception, because I have never encountered the like.

Remember, I am talking about a ‘leaning’ here. A trend, a weighting, a perspective, whatever you want to call it. I am not giving some kind of intolerant "the GNS is only about gamemastering and nothing else" statement. I am saying that the original source material has been used to categorize exclusively gamemastering decisions and that I felt there was still some of the sound of it in "this year’s model."

Likewise, isn’t it stretching (as in a rare occurrence, perhaps simply an exception) to say that a player engages in simulation (as described in Simulationism)? While Simulationism may be what a player likes to experience from either their gamemaster or from the game itself, isn’t Simulationism mostly a decision or goal of the gamemaster?

Doesn’t making decisions on the player level in favor of verisimilitude sound at odds with immersive play?

Supporting verisimilitude would be an external perspective to the game, right?

Likewise, (with the notable exception of ‘deep non-player characters’) is there a common practice of gamemasters that fits what I previously described as immersion?

Sure, Simulationism and immersion can be stretched to contain each other’s properties, but could the modeling of the practice of gaming not benefit from splitting them out separately? As in the above example, there could be three approaches to gamemastering and three different approaches to playing.

It didn’t really go that far into whether player behaviors are more often relegated to stance and if gamemaster motivations were mostly described by the GNS. What I am highlighting is the tendancy in this direction. I can’t see it as an all or nothing debate.

I am not saying does. I am asking, for the interests of clarity, if it might be better to elevate the ‘modes’ of play to equal status as the arms of the GNS rather than trying to subdivide parts into smaller parts.

I mean, if there is a bias towards immersion being a mode mostly ascribed to Simulationism, yet apparently almost exclusively a player issue, why should it be subordinate to the title Simulationism? Why not make them twins? (Especially considering that Simulationism - described by you as working towards the goal of verismilitude - would be at odds with immersion.)

Mike Holmes wrote:

Fang wrote:

Except when the decision is "because I (my character) feel it is the right thing to do." That kind of decision, if based on the mode of immersion, does not seem to fit well under the generalized intentions of Simulationism. You can make it fit, but that seems to be either a perversion of immersion or of Simulationism.

This I don't get, and seems to be a large part of the problem in communication here.

If I make a decision because I think that this is what my character would do, I am simulating the character. This is exactly Simulationism.

You say again later that acting with verisimilitude is not to be Immersive. How not so? If I want to Immerse myself in the character, I make decisions based on what I think the character *would* do given the circumstances. To do else would destroy the suspension of disbelief that Immerses one in the character and situation.

If I wanted to extend what I was trying to point out earlier, gamemasters practice Skills Testing-World-Story (SWS)* Orientation and players practice Skill Using-Immersive-Characterization (SIC)* Orientation. Saying that World Orientation and Immersive Orientation fit together neatly under a name like Simulationism doesn’t sound right. (But then who am I to talk, I am clearly against SWTs and TLAs¹ in general.)

Sorry. Totally lost me there.

I can understand that a gamemaster can play in a stance, but what I am trying to point out that it doesn’t seem like a player cannot. If there is no more connection between stances and whether to be player or gamemaster, then just as a gamemaster can play ‘stanceless’ so too should a player; is that more than just possible?

A gamemaster is always in Director stance when not playing a character. The GM is always in a stance as well. Almost the definition of director stance is doing stuff most often reserved for the gamemaster.

And by the way, is yours a Simulationist game? One game, while a good example of one way of doing something, does neither a trend nor generalization make (or break).

Sorry to use a personal example. But many games these days are sans Gamemaster. In those games, certainly, everyone has the same status. They just all assume director stance much more often.

The idea I am trying to get at here (I did say it was complicated), is closer to examining which of the GNS parts would likely be played in a gamemasterless game. Clearly everyone could play immersive, but that seems mostly incompatible with both Gamist and Narrativist play.

Finally, if such were conducted, do you think it would be more accurate (and at least less confusing) to call it Simulationist [and not] immersive?

I'm not positive that games without gamemasters do go best with one of G, N, or S, I suspect that they can do any of the three.

But the players have a lot of directorial power, FWIW. This would make them seem to have something in common with Narrativism. And it is much harder to be Immersed in these games because of it.

I'm not sure where you are going, but I only brought up the Gamemaster-less games to demonstrate that there are games in which you cannot differentiate between players and GMs.

How do you deal with the emotional attachment to a non-player character when something happens to them? Are there many similarities to how (light?) immersive players do? Are you sure this is not the exception, because I have never encountered the like.

I'd say that if one doesn't empathize with one's characters at all that one is missing something. That said, my Immersion is very light on the average, and I don't break down and cry when I lose characters be they [non-player characters] or [player characters]. I will hazard a guess that many people feel this way.

Remember, I am talking about a ‘leaning’ here. A trend, a weighting, a perspective, whatever you want to call it. I am not giving some kind of intolerant "the GNS is only about gamemastering and nothing else" statement. I am saying that the original source material has been used to categorize exclusively gamemastering decisions and that I felt there was still some of the sound of it in "this year’s model."

Well, personally I've always been of the feeling that GNS applied to a whole lot more. At least in extrapolation.

As Ron would say that by Gamist we mean a player who makes Gamist decisions more often than not. This is to me actually the most important factor of GNS, that if you can identify a proclivity in a player you can cater to it more effectively. My players for the most part do not like Narrativism (and aren't comfortable making Narrativist decisions as it tends to crush the light Immersion that they are after), so I don't run Narrativist games for them.

Doesn’t making decisions on the player level in favor of verisimilitude sound at odds with immersive play?

Supporting verisimilitude would be an external perspective to the game, right?

This is addressed above. My players make Simulationist decisions. They Simulate. They are Simulationists. This means making decisions in favor of verisimilitude. Verisimilitude is the cornerstone of suspension of disbelief, which is what causes Immersion.

What is an external perspective of the game? To some spectator?

No, verisimilitude is for the benefit of the participants, both player and Gamemaster alike.

Likewise, (with the notable exception of ‘deep non-player characters’) is there a common practice of gamemasters that fits what I previously described as immersion?

Probably not. So? Your example isn't enough? I can certainly imagine such a thing however, and it certainly doesn't seem unreasonable. The model should be able to handle all possible types of play if possible, not just extant ones.

Sure, Simulationism and immersion can be stretched to contain each other’s properties, but could the modeling of the practice of gaming not benefit from splitting them out separately? As in the above example, there could be three approaches to gamemastering and three different approaches to playing.

I make no attempt to equate the two things. In fact, in my previous post I explained how I thought that Immersion was the motivator for a certain stance. That motivation is simply most easily satisfied by Simulationism, IMO. They are patently different things.

They are also related in my opinion. Not one-to-one either. I think that there are a whole lot of other desires that are satisfied by Simulationist play. I need a Ven Diagram here....

It didn’t really go that far into whether player behaviors are more often relegated to stance and if gamemaster motivations were mostly described by the GNS. What I am highlighting is the tendancy in this direction. I can’t see it as an all or nothing debate.

Well, I may sound dogmatic, but I'm just trying to get my viewpoint across. As I indicated in that previous example, it was just an organization of the model that would fit my particular understanding. In displaying it I hoped that people would see what I was getting at.

I am not saying does. I am asking, for the interests of clarity, if it might be better to elevate the ‘modes’ of play to equal status as the arms of the GNS rather than trying to subdivide parts into smaller parts.

I think that they are just different and related things, and that there is no hierarchy. I don't mean to imply one.

I mean, if there is a bias towards immersion being a mode mostly ascribed to Simulationism, yet apparently almost exclusively a player issue, why should it be subordinate to the title Simulationism? Why not make them twins? (Especially considering that Simulationism - described by you as working towards the goal of verismilitude - would be at odds with immersion.)

Good summary. Each of these points is addressed above, I think. I hope that I'm advancing the understanding of the problem, but I sense we are going in circles possibly. Let me know if that is the case. Keep in mind that my understanding of such things is certainly imperfect, and that this is just my attempt to sort them out into an order that I can find use for.

Ah, no. I thought after reading Contracycle’s description of immersion (and my point that it was the extreme), it would be clear that immersion is a little different than simulating a character.

As above, making a decision about character action because it makes the character ‘fit’ in the verisimilar campaign is Simulationism. Making a decision in spite of the verisimilitude of the character’s action is how immersive play violates Simulationism.

Does that help?

I honestly think there is still more to gamemastering than just director stance. Simply? I might suggest its things parallel to having author stance with the entirety of the game. (Director stance works on a game within it; gamemastering calls in external factors as well as a grand overview external perspective that I think is absent in even the highest level of player director stance.)

Clearly director stance is outside of immersive mode, right? Then gamemasterless games that employ it are outside of a discussion on immersion, right?

The idea I am trying to get at here (I did say it was complicated), is closer to examining which of the GNS parts would likely be played in a gamemasterless game. Clearly everyone could play immersive, but that seems mostly incompatible with both Gamist and Narrativist play.

Finally, if such were conducted, do you think it would be more accurate (and at least less confusing) to call it Simulationist [and not] immersive?

I'm not positive that games without gamemasters do go best with one of G, N, or S, I suspect that they can do any of the three.

So do I, "can do." That’s why I said "mostly incompatible."

But the players have a lot of directorial power, FWIW. This would make them seem to have something in common with Narrativism. And it is much harder to be Immersed in these games because of it.

And that’s not "mostly incompatible?"

‘Where I am going’ is that the only gamemasterless games founded on immersion are germane to the discussion of immersion. They do exist. In fact, I prefer playing live-action role-playing games this way; they have very little director stance and usually behave almost entirely immersive.

Are you sure you are not confusing sympathy with empathy? This relates to the subtle difference between Simulationism and immersion. In simulation, you have sympathy for the character’s emotions. In immersion (as I have been describing it), you have empathy; you (in some fashion) feel their emotions (at least some of them). You can identify (the term I prefer) with a character without empathizing (or even sympathizing) with them, and that is what I think would be the "missing something" of which you refer.

But any extrapolation either stretches the terminology beyond the obvious meaning or changes the model. For clarity’s sake, I am advocating a different model. If you have to extrapolate Simulationism so that it becomes capable of including immersion (which, in the above, doesn’t seem to fit your verisimilitude concept) then you have changed the model as much as I suggest except only by adding unconventional meanings.

This gets back to the other point I was trying to make. If you have players who like for you to run a Simulationist game so they can play immersively, and yet they are not actually playing in a (verisimilar) Simulationist way, does it make sense to call them Simulationists?

Or for that matter, has anyone considered running a Narrativist game with power sharing tilted almost completely to the gamemaster so the players can play immersively? I hate to say it, but that’s mostly what I wind up doing. (That’s right, I do all the care and feeding of the story by myself, as a story, without railroading; my immersive players prefer it that way. And it’s not easy, considering how cognizant and sensitive they are to railroading.)

implying that all suspension of disbelief causes immersion. While it seems likely that this has to do with an overly broad definition of immersion as it applies to gaming (what I call identification with a character); considering the above, do you believe that all suspension of disbelief results in immersion (or are you using ‘immersion’ in place of ‘character identification’)?

What is an external perspective of the game? To some spectator?

Nah, that’s just a fancy way of referring to things including what is often termed as meta-game concerns.

If, by this, you are implying I stand against verisimilitude, you aren’t getting my point. I like verisimilar games. So do Simulationists, I believe. I do not believe that verisimilitude always results in suspension of disbelief, nor do I believe that suspension of disbelief always results in immersion.

Verisimilitude can result in suspension of disbelief, but it can also merely provide for a likable game without it. Suspension of disbelief can result in immersion, or it can simply cause play within the context of the sequence of in-game events.

In reverse, immersion rarely happens without suspension of disbelief, but play within the context of the sequence of in-game events can. Suspension of disbelief can be hard to maintain without verisimilitude, but you can like games without it.

Then you agree with me? If they are patently different things, then how can you call an immersive player a Simulationist? As they are clearly not attracted to Narrativist or Gamist pursuits either, this means they are divorced from the GNS model.

I also believe they are related, perhaps nearly parallel. That is why I suggested first that the GNS seemed thus more gamemaster-centric and then that perhaps a twin of it should exist for players. (Possibly suggesting them in reverse order, I think.)

I do see your viewpoint, and, believe it or not, take it very well. All I wanted to see was how you interpreted the immersive play mode as I described it. We have gotten into what looks like an argument because I have not communicated it very well. Is it clear now?

I think that they are just different and related things, and that there is no hierarchy. I don't mean to imply one.

We are definitely circling. Until I get a grasp on your attitudes about the differences between (what should I call them?) sympathetic and empathetic play (perhaps simulating and emulating a character?), I can’t really understand your opinion on what I originally said.

Okay, we seem to finally getting to the (hoped for) point on which we agree to disagree.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Fang Langford wrote:

Ah, no. I thought after reading Contracycle’s description of immersion (and my point that it was the extreme), it would be clear that immersion is a little different than simulating a character.

Well, then we disagree over a definition.

As I spent a whole couple of posts trying to explain, this definition is pointless.

It doesn't help me out at all.

Whether you act a certain way because the motivation is the character's, or because you've become the character, the action will still seem Verisimilar. How could it not?

As I've said, I consider the motivation for a particular style of play to be a separate thing from the style itself. So, Immersion is the motivation, and Simulation is the style used to best satisfy that motivation.

What I would agree to is considering Deep Immersion and Immersion Light to be different motivations and consider the ramifications of that separately (though at this point I'm not sure that I can see any obvious ones).

As such, you could extrapolate that there was a style that followed from this reason for making decisions, let's call it Immersionism. But then you'd also have Portrayalism, Safetyism, and any other ism that you'd care to make of a motivation.

The point of GNS is that these motivations are broad and do subsume a number of similar motivations. Why? Because it is a high level model.

I honestly think there is still more to gamemastering than just director stance. Simply? I might suggest its things parallel to having author stance with the entirety of the game. (Director stance works on a game within it; gamemastering calls in external factors as well as a grand overview external perspective that I think is absent in even the highest level of player director stance.)

This is the reason that I brought in games that have no Gamemaster. In those games the players do have all of the power of the Gamemaster. The stance model pertains to all types of play.

‘Where I am going’ is that the only gamemasterless games founded on immersion are germane to the discussion of immersion. They do exist. In fact, I prefer playing live-action role-playing games this way; they have very little director stance and usually behave almost entirely immersive.

OK, these are Simulationist then, I'll bet. That is players make decisions in the games that make the characters act "naturally". I'll bet there are some in it for the portrayal and a few to author as well, though. And most will have at least a bit of each.

Are you sure you are not confusing sympathy with empathy? This relates to the subtle difference between Simulationism and immersion. In simulation, you have sympathy for the character’s emotions. In immersion (as I have been describing it), you have empathy; you (in some fashion) feel their emotions (at least some of them). You can identify (the term I prefer) with a character without empathizing (or even sympathizing) with them, and that is what I think would be the "missing something" of which you refer.

Off topic, but you're right, I sometimes do some of each, but to be fair, I sympathize a lot more than I empathize. Still, the effect is the same and game design would be accomplished the same way to support either, so I'll use Simulationist tactics to get me there.

Narrowing further is not useful in coming up with a whole mode of play.

You haven't refuted anything that I've said.

We are definitely circling.

Any better now? Probably not. eh

I'm tired of quoting.

Deconstructionist, eh? I shoulda known. Deridas (sp?) himself said something to the effect that the essence of deconstruction is to invalaidate everything, even itself. Yes, our entire discussion is formed around the fact that we are products of Western Society and as such our dialect is biased by that (which is where deconstruction usually leads to in the end). So what?

As an example of the futility I see in this, I could further deconstuct the model that you'd begun and find that there were honest immersionists and dishonest immersionists. Not that there would be any good reason to do this that I can think of. Yes, Fang, I'm a construcionist if you will. I am looking for models that we can use to have dialogs in which we can understand each other, and have no interest in trying to find new definitions for things such that we can no longer discuss them clearly. Yes, I have sucumbed to the Culture of Ron Edwards in accepting his definitions. Why? Because it's been fantastically useful to me, and I cannot see a downside to doing so. I haven't been enlightened by your deconstruction so far, and it's not for lack of debate, obviously.

Now, I'm not saying that we can't delve deeper, or that the terminology is absolutely inviolate. But until I see some utility in the move I cannot in good conscience support you. Again, I think that we have a very similar perspective on many things and we seem to be getting hung up because it rankles with you to say things like Simulationism supports becoming Immersed.

You point out that several things are just my opinion. Well, in addition to opinion I have the support of the establishment here, for wahtever that's worth. What have you to support your opinions? Yes, if you attack my assumtions and say that they are incorrect, then all I have left is that those assumptions are just that. You have me trapped, sir, where can I go? On the other hand, you have no firmer ground to stand on yourself, and therefore, yes, we will have to simply agree to disagree if we cannot agree on any assumptions.

You have pointed out that your deconstructionist attitude is not aimed at creating generalizations, or other synthetic analysis, may I ask what it is you seek? You mention understanding, but I believe that will be difficult if you refuse to accept definitions that are assumptions. Again, from where do we go logically without some assumptions?

My apollogies in going on about this so, but I have had to deal with some people that claimed deconstruction as the reason that they couldn't get into arguments before, and when this happens I often find myself lamenting the fact that I haven't had the chance to create any meaning with these people. Obviously anyone who can understand deconstruction is someone of a mental acuity that I'd like to deal with. Yes, I'm flattering you. Not to win this argument, but because I would hate for something as silly as this debate to get in the way of us (and others here like us) from coming up with neat stuff.

FWIW, I would like to clarify something about gamemasterless play. In a way this is a misnomer. To be precise, the games I speak of SOAP, my game, etc. are actually gamemasterfull. Or rather every player is a gamemaster. Or even more precisely every player is fully and completely empowered to employ any stance that they would like (subject to the game's particular rules). In my game (played again on Thursday night) players rarely come down out of director mode.

I have to do one quote:

yet my usual brief tone has lead to what appears to be another attack on the GNS model.

Some Clarifications

re: the "behaviour equivalent to a psychological disorder" stuff; although hard, this should NOT be read as a perjorative. I am NOT suggesting that Immersive players are psychologically disturbed; I am suggesting that they are accessing a "deeper" layer of mental function than merely "in-character thinking". I think humans do this under other circumstances too, such as channeling, being the "horse" of a spirit, that sort of thing. This is an altered consciousness, not insanity. I just want to make that plain.

Fang Wrote:
> While in Contracycle’s extreme example the line dividing > player and character is extinguished completely, I know
> of several occasions where the line becomes only a little > blurred. In this kind of immersion, the player performs a > sophisticated adoption of the character’s identity. While > not believing one is their character, nor letting things > like die rolls spoil suspension of disbelief, the player > practices first-person thinking.

Not so much in my view as how I have learned the term employed. In the context in which I ran into it, Immersion was proposed as an alternative to an existing schema featuring In Character mode and Deep In Character mode, which was re-termed Immersion. From this perspective (tip of the propellor beanie to Ron) old In Character mode seems much like Actor. This is the "thinking as the character" stance, IMO.

However, I do think that what Fang is describing as Immersion is not how I understand it; I think the concept of Immersion Lite is valid, but strikes me as reverting to ground well trodden by the In Character and DIC modes discussed above. Personally, I don't feel a need to distinguish IC/Immersion Lite from Actor stance.

Some Clarifications

re: the "behaviour equivalent to a psychological disorder" stuff; although hard, this should NOT be read as a perjorative. I am NOT suggesting that Immersive players are psychologically disturbed; I am suggesting that they are accessing a "deeper" layer of mental function than merely "in-character thinking". I think humans do this under other circumstances too, such as channeling, being the "horse" of a spirit, that sort of thing. This is an altered consciousness, not insanity. I just want to make that plain.

Fang Wrote:
> While in Contracycle’s extreme example the line dividing > player and character is extinguished completely, I know
> of several occasions where the line becomes only a little > blurred. In this kind of immersion, the player performs a > sophisticated adoption of the character’s identity. While > not believing one is their character, nor letting things > like die rolls spoil suspension of disbelief, the player > practices first-person thinking.

Not so much in my view as how I have learned the term employed. In the context in which I ran into it, Immersion was proposed as an alternative to an existing schema featuring In Character mode and Deep In Character mode, which was re-termed Immersion. From this perspective (tip of the propellor beanie to Ron) old In Character mode seems much like Actor. This is the "thinking as the character" stance, IMO.

However, I do think that what Fang is describing as Immersion is not how I understand it; I think the concept of Immersion Lite is valid, but strikes me as reverting to ground well trodden by the In Character and DIC modes discussed above. Personally, I don't feel a need to distinguish IC/Immersion Lite from Actor stance.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Deconstructionist, eh? I shoulda known. Deridas (sp?) himself said something to the effect that the essence of deconstruction is to invalidate everything, even itself.

So what?

As an example of the futility I see in this, I could further deconstruct the model that you'd begun and find that there were honest immersionists and dishonest immersionists. Not that there would be any good reason to do this that I can think of.

I'm a constructionist if you will.

I am looking for models that we can use to have dialogs in which we can understand each other, and have no interest in trying to find new definitions for things such that we can no longer discuss them clearly. Yes, I have succumbed to the Culture of Ron Edwards in accepting his definitions. Why? Because it's been fantastically useful to me, and I cannot see a downside to doing so. I haven't been enlightened by your deconstruction so far, and it's not for lack of debate, obviously.

Now, I'm not saying that we can't delve deeper, or that the terminology is absolutely inviolate. But until I see some utility in the move I cannot in good conscience support you. Again, I think that we have a very similar perspective on many things and we seem to be getting hung up because it rankles with you to say things like Simulationism supports becoming Immersed.

You point out that several things are just my opinion. Well, in addition to opinion I have the support of the establishment here, for whatever that's worth. What have you to support your opinions?

Yes, if you attack my assumptions and say that they are incorrect,

we will have to simply agree to disagree if we cannot agree on any assumptions.

You have pointed out that your deconstructionist attitude is not aimed at creating generalizations, or other synthetic analysis; may I ask what it is you seek? You mention understanding, but I believe that will be difficult if you refuse to accept definitions that are assumptions. Again, from where do we go logically without some assumptions?

My apologies in going on about this so, but I have had to deal with some people that claimed deconstruction as the reason that they couldn't get into arguments before, and when this happens, I often find myself lamenting the fact that I haven't had the chance to create any meaning with these people.

FWIW, I would like to clarify something about gamemasterless play. In a way this is a misnomer. To be precise, the games I speak of SOAP, my game, etc. are actually gamemasterfull. Or rather every player is a gamemaster. Or even more precisely every player is fully and completely empowered to employ any stance that they would like (subject to the game's particular rules).

I have to do one quote:

yet my usual brief tone has lead to what appears to be another attack on the GNS model.

If I am understated, you are now a comedian. Brief tone? I understand what you mean, but under the circumstances it is an ironic statement to say the least. Was it meant as a play on words?

I am reminded that in the past that I have been wont to say that we may find that discussions of particular motivations to be more important in the end than the overall GNS model. And if you feel so inclined I would love to move on to doing so.