Arright, I've been lurking here far too long, time to post something...

So I read Ron's Gamism essay and the accompanying sample game and something struck me. Actually, nothign struck me, which itself struck me as odd. GNS and similar theories I'd run across here and there had always had some resonance for me. With only a basic description they "sounded true". They matched my experiences well. But, despite the fact that I have, since stumbling on the various classifications which use the term, identified as largely Gamist, "Gamism: Step on Up" and "Black Fire" did little for me. They seemed alien. So I thought about it for a while, and eventually came up with something which, while it may not be exactly right, does serve to explain this experience.

In the original GNS essay, Ron writes that "Ascribing any sort of geometric shape or variable-space to these terms" is one of the "common misunderstandings of GNS". I disagree with this. Well, properly speaking, I can't really disagree with it as its Ron's theory, using Ron's definitions and anything he writes about it is by definition true. But I think that this point divorces the theory from reality. Like I said, the three-way division of gaming thought has always seemed intuitively reasonable to me. I now think that the reason for this is that there is some fundamental truth that there are three general ingredients from which role-playing is made. The usefulness of the GNS model is in acknowledging that different people prefer the taste of different of these ingredients, and thus want more of their preferred ingredient in the mix they eat, er, play. But, it seems to me, that for it to come out as role-playing, a bit of all three is required. You can have more or less of each, but you have to have all three. Sounds like a variable space to me.

(I think I should point out that I'm not claiming that role-playing is a combination of "Gamism", "Narrativism" and "Simulationism" as those terms are defined in GNS- that would be impossible because of the way that those words are defined in that special context. However, I feel that those, or similar, words, in their English meanings do describe what I am calling the three "ingredients" of role-playing. This means that I'm really talking about an entirely different theory for describing role-playing games. Which means, now that I think of it, that this might not be the best place for this, but I'll leave it here on the grounds that it came about directly as a result of me thinking about GNS, and is in some ways a rebuttal of GNS, and is on that ground appropriate to a duscussion of GNS.)

Wargamers who have studied their hobby are likely to be familiar with what could be described as the "playable" vs "realistic" continuum. In some cases it is possible to have both, but in many more it is simply a matter of personal preference. This often manifests itself as an issue of complexity, ie: perhaps a given weapon should fail exactly 1 time in 53. This could be represented precisely with some sort of complex rolling method or the aid of a computer, or could be rounded to 2% and rolled on d100, depending on whether you wish to reduce handling time or preserve accuracy. In more general terms in can deal with the choice of topic. A very lopsided battle might not be very fun for the player of the weaker side if that player was looking for a fair test of skill, but would be very interesting to someone who wanted to know the "realistic" effects of one small change in strategy or conditions.

I contend (at least for the sake of explaining this here theory), that role-playing as a hobby was developed and flocked to by gamers who found no point on the game/simulation line to be wholly satisfactory. They created games which had a non-zero value on a "story" axis. The whole concept of increasingly harder battles leading up to a final "boss" fight is an example of a very small amount of story ingredient being added. The rising action leading to a climax is recognizable on a subconscious level as good story structure. This result might be achieved accidentally (or because it represented realism or good tactics on the part of one side or another) in a wargame, but specifically prioritizing it kicks the activity into the category of "role-playing".

This also goes to addressing the "Hard Question" posed at the end of the essay. "For the Gamist, the question is, why is role-playing your chosen venue as a social hobby?" Because they want some story with their game. They really wouldn't be just as happy playing chess. Even though the competition and demonstration of skill is the main attraction, the imaginary consequences for success or failure add meaningfully to the fun.

OK, this is way, way too long already, so even though it still feels largely half baked, I'm just gonna post it and see what happens.

-Steve Wampler

Hi Steve,

Great post, and welcome. I'm glad my essay prompted you to join in.

Here are some ideas of mine, interesting ones I hope.

1. Regarding disagreeing with me, please do. People do it all the time, and in a lot of cases, it affects my thinking greatly. The notion that I "can't" be disagreed with is a bit of an over-reading of the "GNS is Ron's" concept.

2. Regarding the vector or point-space of GNS, my comments that there is no graphic representation is historically descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, I am confident that, as long as we're talking about real things, a graphic representation is possible. The problem is that it's too early in the conceptual game for it, and all graphics I've seen so far are answering their own questions without solving them, or introducing unsupportable concepts (e.g. the "center" of the triangle).

The first question for the person who wants to propose a graphic for GNS is, what are the axes in which the modes represent outcomes in the variable-space (not axes of their own)? This is serious business, conceptually, because we have uber-variables (social contract) and subordinate variables (techniques and rules), both of which have causal relationships with GNS. Think of Social Contract and Exploration as selection or homeostasis; think of rules, techniques, and stances as cells and DNA - GNS then becomes the organisms ... how are you going to graphically represent organisms' relationship to one another? I can do this with biology due to two fundamental concepts (homology and investment), but we don't have any grasp on the equivalents for social, creative activities. I don't have much interest in the "it's all ineffable" argument (the usual fallback position of Humanities analysis), so I think there might be some sort of equivalents (not 1:1 correspondents), but as for what they are, that's a whole new topic of discussion.

So that leads to the second question - perhaps we can look at GNS "patterns" without knowing what the modes of are composed of, and see something useful anyway, which would then lead us to back-track and look for internal causality somehow. This kind of thinking is what led to the Scarlet Jester's concept of Exploration, or rather, to what I did with it. Can we do that some more? Sure ... but it requires care. Drawing a picture and then inferring from the picture is often one of the worst ways to go, in terms of historical analysis of concepts. It's what led to all sorts of funky psychological models of the mind which aren't worth the paper they're printed on, or dozens of bogus interpretations (which became "obvious" and highly entrenched, or were reacted to with great anger, to the extent of rejecting the issue itself) about genes and behavior.

3. I'm dubious about any single "story" axis. One of the points of the upcoming Narrativism essay is going to concern the incredible differences among what people consider stories to be, and what they might want them for. I'm almost certain, at this point, that thinking of "story" as a dial which spins from "none" to "lots" is mistaken. Just as I had to introduce new priorities in order to discuss Gamist play (which I didn't have to do for Simulationist play), I'm going to have to do the same for Narrativist play.

4. Back to those Hard Questions, I see ... again, as I mentioned to Michael in his thread, I'm not puzzled by why someone would like Gamist play. I think I listed lots of reasons for that. The Hard Questions are for people who play in the indicated fashion and don't like it, perhaps in kind of a muted or "this is as good as it gets" fashion. They're also for people who are carrying out some messed-up social thing with role-playing merely happening to be the venue. I think that's a widespread behavior in our hobby.

So if anyone reads the Hard Questions and says, "Duh, Gamists enjoy it because [fill-in-the-blank]," they just triaged themselves out of the Hard Question in the first place. Think of them as diagnostic - if you aren't "hit" by them, you're fine. If you are, then it's time for some reflection.

Anyway, those are just my current notions, and all are subject to gruesome dissection by the Forge Folks, so go to it. This is exactly what this forum is for.

Best,
Ron