I've been thinking a bit about the limitations of GNS theory. Namely, are there any identifiable meta-game priorities that are outside of the model that could lead to functional play?

Clearly, there are some that are solely disfunctional - consider the passive-agressive player intent on disrupting the game, acting as such because he was snubbed for the ball game the rest of the group played yesterday. I submit that he's not following a priotiy for play that matches anything estabilished. Not a surprise - it was not intended to model the (near) infinite capacity for dysfunctional play.

As a side note, if you can show that the above player does have a play priority that is within established GNS territory, then my following arguements will fail.


Now, a type of play that can be functional: Consider a player, Alice, who has brought along her younger brother, Bob, to the game she plays in. Being a keen advocate of RPG's, she spends her time trying to ensure that Bob has an enjoyable time at the game. This is accepted by the other players and the GM. In short, her meta-game priority can be phrased as: "Ensure that Bob has fun". Now this is not competative, nor otherwise gamist; it has no commitment to aspects of the explored world, so not sim; and it does not work with a theme or premise, and so is not narrativist.

Results of this type of meta-game priotiy might be to generate a character that is tied to Bob's, to assist and reinforce what Bob wants his character to do. With an established character Alice might bring Bob's character into situations, so that Bob is not left alone, and so on. In short - all good, socially cohesive stuff.

This type of play can be dysfunctional - the classic example would be "GM's Girlfriend syndrome", for example.

So, the point for discussion is, "Is this a real thing, or an overly streched example?", and, if real, does it correspond to one or more of the GNS modes, or is it truely out side it?

Addendum: The example given is one where higher social issues have a direct effect on play. It's not truely meta-game, more out-of-game. Does that make a difference? It does give good reasoning why it falls outside of GNS (it's a different thing), but in turn suggests that there is a significant set of such examples.

I've often considered the question you ask - such as a Social mode for play.

All of the non-GNS priorities I can think of occur at the Social Contract level. However, this actually puts them at a completely different level than GNS modes. I guess you could say the passive-aggressive guy is Gamist (the competition/challenge is how much he can disrupt play without getting caught) but I think that'd be over-stretching the definition of Gamist.

Hi guys,

This is a fair question... But one that misses a basic point of GNS: It doesn't claim to be the end-all model that explains everything.

Ron recently covered this in the GNS mega-thread over at RPG.net. I've cut a pertinent post so you don't have to wade through the whole thing:

(The emphasis is mine.)

*****

Quote from Ron:

Social Contract is the biggest box.

For people who don't know what I mean by "the boxes," think of it this way (from my recent Gamism essay):


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... a Venn diagram:

[Social Contract [Exploration [GNS [rules [techniques [Stances]]]]]]

Every inner "box" is an expression or realization of the box(es) it's nested in. For example, Exploration is a kind of Social Contract, and a given GNS mode is a kind (specifically, an application) of Exploration.

1. Everything occurs embedded in the Social Contract, which includes many things about play and not-play, especially the Balance of Power.

2. Exploration is the primary act of role-playing, composed of five parts with some causal relationships among them.

3. The "modes" of play (because they have to be expressed via communication and play itself, not just "felt") are currently best described as Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist play. Play (as opposed merely to hanging out with friends) cannot occur without such an agenda. I'm now using the term "creative agenda" to refer to the three modes as a concept, replacing the small-p "premise" term in the older essay.

4. Techniques of play include many different relationships among rules, people's decisions, announcements, and similar. "System" (or rather textual system) interacts with Techniques all the time, in terms of things like Currency, Resolution (including DFK, IIEE; see Glossary), and Reward systems. Which of these is inner or outer is debatable and probably variable, although I've diagrammed it in keeping with the idea that techniques are applied within a framework of rules. In keeping with the Venn concept, techniques are local expressions of Social Contract, Exploration, and GNS modes, just as rules are.

5. Actual play shifts quickly among Stances. Stances, unsurprisingly, are very local applications of rules and techniques, all in the service of Exploration and the larger-scale GNS mode in action.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End quote from Ron.

*******

So, you're right. Everything your suggesting about how the *group* is playing as a socially dynamic entity superceded GNS concerns. How the players are set up, how they're respecting boundries as siblings, lovers, buddies and whatnot comes *before* GNS concerns. But even once that's in place, I'd suggest GNS concerns might come up. (They might not, which would be good.)

And so... there you are.

Christopher

Stuart DJ Purdie wrote: In short, her meta-game priority can be phrased as: "Ensure that Bob has fun". Now this is not competative, nor otherwise gamist; it has no commitment to aspects of the explored world, so not sim; and it does not work with a theme or premise, and so is not narrativist.

Results of this type of meta-game priotiy might be to generate a character that is tied to Bob's, to assist and reinforce what Bob wants his character to do. With an established character Alice might bring Bob's character into situations, so that Bob is not left alone, and so on. In short - all good, socially cohesive stuff.

I want to emphasize John's point here. Alice may be playing with the priority of helping Bob enjoy the game, but why is Bob playing? If he's playing for Gamist reasons, she best helps him enjoy the game by supporting those goals for him, and so on.

--M. J. Young

A quick aside, Christopher: That quote is actually taken directly from the Gamism eassy. For me, the most important point was:

Ron Edwards wrote: Play (as opposed merely to hanging out with friends) cannot occur without such an agenda.

Hi DJ,

Yes. It's from the Gamism Essay. And Ron quoted it on the RPG.net thread, and I quoted it back here because he was specifically addressing Social Contract as being the bigger that GNS fits into.

Which is a round-about way to get it on this thread, perhaps. But there it is. It still, I think, completely covers the questions you had when you started this thread.

Christopher

I daresay that anyone who sits down to play has a creative agenda. It may not be overtly stated to others or eve to themselves, but it is there. Problem may be that it's not very focused. Not expressable in terms of what they do want vs in terms of what they don't want.

Hey, Bob, wanna play an RPG.

Sure.

Whaddya want out of the game?

I dunno. Not three hour combats.

OK, no combat, then

No. Combat's fine. Just not spending three hours on it is all.

Fine. No more than 2hr 59 mins of combat. What else?

I dunno. Whatever.

Stewart,

I have a completely opposite perception of the role of social motivations in terms of creative agendas. It seems quite clear to me that these agendas are not relegated to the Social Contract, any more so than any other mode. In particular, I've observed two distinct modes of social agendas, Socialist and Sexist (yes, I have too much fun with names). The former is what I consider group related goals, the most evident being "no one is going to have fun", or "everyone should have fun". The later is individual related goals, "Bob isn't going to be alienated and bored this game" or "I want to get the cute larper to come home with me." The nature of the play is distinct, and recognizably such, but it seems the real disagreement is the place where these agends occurs.

First, Social Contracts can determine social and personal goals, but they there is not necessity that they will determine either. Socialist or Sexist play does not imply a violation or implicit following of an accepted Social Contract. These approaches may be tacitly accepted, ignored, promoted, or even strongly discouraged, just like any other mode.

Second, social modes are not reduceable to personal modes. This is a vital distinction. There is a significant difference to someone intending to help someone have fun as a Gamist, than someone playing gamist. One major example is that of a player who wants to prevent other players from having fun, she will continually undermine the challenge of the game, by doing random things and "not trying" to cause the social prestige of victory to diminish drastically. It's like playing chess with someone who is trying to lose, no fun at all. But it is also clear that she isn't deriving any enjoyment from social prestige either.

Third, social modes subsume the perspective of the adherant. In the Alice / Bob example, it is clear that Alice will be primarilly focused on the condition of Bob's play, and not on any particular mode, even if Bob is clearly in possession of one. Rather that mode would be seen only through the perspective of Bob's play, analogous to considering gamist elements as a means to narrativist goals. This does not mean that the narrativist who does so is not playing narrativism.

The basic problem I see with lumping the idea of social modes elsewhere than the creative agenda is that the Social Contract is directly the interacted goals of the players, as related to each other by any number of methods. Social modes are interactive agendas in play. But at no point do these agendas become more under the scope of the Social Contract than any other agenda. Agendas, even interactive ones, are not necessarilly related to the group in any way. After all, all modes are on the basic level interactive, the distinction is that social modes originate from the interaction, while personal modes do not.

I hope that helps,

-Mendel S.

Hello,

Stuart, I think the key issue is that GNS modes are creative agendas for what you're doing with Exploration. If Alice is present in the room and never performs any Explorative interaction - just reinforces Bob about social stuff, kind of like a cheerleader - then GNS isn't going to apply to her. It's hard to imagine such a situation that concerns just one person, but I have played in many games in which a person was present whose only job was to provide cookies or otherwise be a host, but not to play.

All GNS play is subordinate to (or, perhaps, derivative of) Exploration; all Exploration is subordinate to or derivative of real-people social interactions. Adding social interactions to the picture, which is basically what you're suggesting, is a no-brainer: more social stuff going on. It neither refutes nor changes the conceptual relationship called GNS.

If someone were to come up with a fourth (or however many more) identifiable creative agendas - pertaining specifically to what one wants and does with the five elements of play - then I'd say, "Cool!" and we'd have a GNSX model. No one's come up with anything yet; over and over, people do just what you did and shift "up" into the social interactions, which is fine - but not eligible for changing the GNS framework at its level.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

I don't see how Alice is necessarilly not involved in Exploration. There seems an impicit assumption that Alice is "playing the game" to benefit Bob. This implies, unless something very odd is going on, that she is involved in Exploration.

What is it about her agenda that makes it non-Explorative? Is it not possible for us to observe the game over the course of several sessions and see that she consistently makes choices in attempts to bolster her brother's enjoyment of play? What distinguishes this from other modes, besides it being an interactive goal?

I apologize if I'm being dense here, but I feel that these are points which should not easily be dismissed.

-Mendel S.

I can't help thinking that someone is confusing "motive for playing" with "creative agenda."

Alice's desire to support Bob may influence her decisions, but if she is actually participating in the Exploration those decisions are still made in the context of GNS. So she might cheer Bob's ability to Step On up or make it easier for him to win Challenges, or she might work to create Story Now, for him or just help reinforce his exploration of Dream. I suggest her own GNS preferences will determine which.

Alan wrote: Alice's desire to support Bob may influence her decisions, but if she is actually participating in the Exploration those decisions are still made in the context of GNS. So she might cheer Bob's ability to Step On up or make it easier for him to win Challenges, or she might work to create Story Now, for him or just help reinforce his exploration of Dream. I suggest her own GNS preferences will determine which.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: I daresay that anyone who sits down to play has a creative agenda.

She's with me; she has no idea what this is about but wants to find out. Let's create a character for her. No, she has no idea what she wants to be.

Mom said Joey had to come with me or I couldn't come, so he's going to play, too. I think he should be a fighter, because it's easy, so let's create a fighter for him and get started.

At this point I've seen two answers to my questions:

1) There are cases where social goals are not incorporated in creative agendas.

2) The circular argument that (a) social modes aren't creative agends since they don't involve exploration, (b) social modes do not involve exploration because they aren't creative agendas.

Admittedly neither of these is convincing, I'm sure that the people who are convinced that social creative agendas do not occur have a point, but I'm not sure they've made it clearly at this time.

Also note, that as far as I can tell the key distinction between motive for play and creative agenda is the later can be observed. I have observed exactly the creative agendas I'm talking about. Perhaps I am mistaken, this is why I want to know why so many people are convinced that such an observation could not occur.

I hope that helps,

-Mendel S.

Hi Mendel,

Not sure if you caught this:

If Alice is present in the room and never performs any Explorative interaction - just reinforces Bob about social stuff, kind of like a cheerleader - then GNS isn't going to apply to her. It's hard to imagine such a situation that concerns just one person, but I have played in many games in which a person was present whose only job was to provide cookies or otherwise be a host, but not to play.

Hello Mendel,

I have such difficulty understanding your posts that I think I'll have to take a day or two to review the thread. At this point, either I'm being very dense or you're presenting arguments about stuff that I haven't said, so I have to figure out which.

Best,
Ron

Hi folks, a few directed points first.

Christopher, yep, I dig you there, was just offering a direct pedigree, redundantly it appears. Oh, and it's Stuart - DJ are my middle initials, not some prefered handle.

Wormwood wrote: There is a significant difference to someone intending to help someone have fun as a Gamist, than someone playing gamist.

Ron Edwards wrote: If Alice is present in the room and never performs any Explorative interaction - just reinforces Bob about social stuff, kind of like a cheerleader - then GNS isn't going to apply to her.

Hello,

OK, I think I'm seeing it, but then again, there's a piece that makes no sense to me.

Bob is playing in some kind of GNS way. Alice is present and facilitating Bob - and my question is whether she is or isn't contributing to the Exploration at the table.

If she is, and if (as it seems) whatever she's doing only reinforces Bob's play, than whatever she's doing is defined, in GNS terms, as whatever Bob's doing. Bob plays X-wise. Alice helps Bob (and more than just delivering cookies or petting him when he rolls well, or stuff like that). Alice is, therefore, playing X-wise too. Stuart, why you and Mendel seem convinced that she's obviously not doing that is completely beyond me.

Conversely, if what she's doing is not about the Exploration at all (maybe she answers Bob's cell phone and screens his calls, I dunno), then she's not actually playing (even at one step removed) and the GNS issue is moot, as I pointed out above and which Stuart acknowledges.

So I'm seeing a no-brainer here and you guys seem excited about some weird new thing or phenomenon.

Tell you what - let's get practical. Give me Alice, Bob, and three other people in the room. Tell me what game they're playing. Tell me what is happening in terms of the game-events, the system as it's used, and how the real people are interacting. Then I can help. At this present level of abstraction, I'm beginning to lose the very notion of what you (or anyone) is actually seeing in their mind regarding your example.

Best,
Ron

Hi Stuart,

Yes. I missed that until I'd posted. Sorry.

As for the thread: I'm leaning forward waiting to find out how it ends.

Christopher

Ron,

I think the idea of Alice not actually involved in Exploration is something of a communal mental burp, as it's essentially tangential to the main point.

Simply put, where we disagree is that key idea: if Bob is playing mode X can Alice be playing mode Y, a different mode. Or to put it more generally: if Bob is playing mode X, can Alice be supporting him by playing something other than mode X? (It's reasonable to require Alice to be not playing any of the three modes, otherwise, well she is playing one of the three modes, which kind of negates the point)

My answer is an emphatic yes, and the example are easily found, but typically in the "wilds" of GNS, namely functional incoherence. I've seen cases where one player will play towards simulationist, while another player will attempt to expedite the unfriendly elements of the game to that player's approach by leaning much further towards gamist than is normal. Then if the first player decides to get involved in more challenge related elements, the second player will often relax her mode, and maintain the simulationist elements that the first player may have dropped. Rarely are two players so well coordinated, but this does happen. In particular this is the effect of mode crossing, players developing synergy by playing two different modes between each other. In fact this effect is one of the key observable elements of much functional incoherence.

O.k., for an example - I'll relate a game which occured last night.

Four Players: myself, J, K, N, and the DM, L. Of all of these people, I'm the only one actively familiar with GNS. The game is D&D 3rd ed, the setting is a magical version of paris before the launch of a spelljammer ship. At the present scene, I am writting up J's followers, so I'm not directly involved with the action. J and K are dating, and L is an experienced player who has never run a game before (and we're all aware of this), K has played one game before, under a different system, so is learning the game as things go on.

J is in control of an NPC follower, Koba, who has a decent information gathering skil, as well as his main character Marcus, a weaponsmaster. K is in control of a priestess of Bast, who also happens to be the combat "heavy" of the party.

At this point these characters are searching for another character, who lobbed a bomb at their ship. First they visit a shop (mechant run by L), where Naiobi (K's character) buys a prism, and some information. She is distracted by the opportunity of several cat shaped glasswares, but is told by Marcus that they are running short on time (which comes from no where and is subsequently dropped). Then they follow the merchant's lead and speak with a one legged beggar (run by L), J permits both Koba and Marcus to stand back as Naiobi mends the beggar's cup and fills it with stew (magically). At this point K is enchanted by the fact that she need not roll anything to cast spells.

The beggar then relates a fairly protracted story, and all the players listen to L relate it (in my opinion she does a good job at this). Then the three characters follow the beggar's lead to find a prostitute in a red dress. On the way, they encounter a flower girl and Marcus buys five flowers for Naiobi. When they read the "red light" district, where they are immediately accousted by a variety of prostitutes, especially Koba, with his charisma of 18. One such prostitute manages to strongly catches Marcus' eye, and he makes plans to meet her later. K decides not to have Naiobi take significant askence at this, and play continues through a scene where Naiobi is offered one of the male prostitutes at the brothel. Eventually Marcus uses his mercenary experience to bribe the madam to get them up to the room where the prostitute they are looking for is working. J's haste on this matter, seems directly related to the discomfort of K's character.

Once up at the room they interrupt the prostitute with the cloaked man that they suspected was the bomber. At this point I took control of Koba, and so was no longer able to simply observe the play.

To my mind, it is clear that J was supporting K through play, and that this support crossed GNS lines at various point during this action. At times J uses a simulationist approach, at times a gamist one, and in one case offers K a narrative hook to build on. J also discourages a later hook, but in this case to prevent K's discomfort.

I could probably provide more direct example, but this one is fresh in my mind, and evidences my suspicioun that this is a common occurence in functional incoherence.

I hope that helps,

-Mendel S.

Hi Mendel,

OK, I do see all that, but I think your perception of a variety of GNS modes in this example is questionable. I wasn't in the group or at the session, obviously, but I don't see any evidence of Narrativist or Gamist play in your account at all. The characters encounter some NPCs and follow up on some clues, and as they do, they gain some information: plain ol' Exploration of Situation. I also don't see any interesting distinction between J playing the NPC-follower vs. his "own" character, if that is supposed to be the case-example of the "supportive" play.

Also, and more importantly, none of what you describe is relevant to what I understood Stuart to be discussing in the first place. He was talking about another mode of play entirely, which is to say, either a GNS-level mode that was not G, N, or S, or social-contract interactions that were not themselves a creative agenda. That's what I'm trying to sort out with the Alice and non-Exploration issue - which isn't at all what you're talking about, apparently.

Stuart, can you sort this out a bit?

Best,
Ron

Ron,

From Stuart's last post he indicates that the point we are both attempting to make, (he is, possibly making other points as well) is that in the Alice and Bob example, Alice is not playing in any existing mode, regardless of what Bob is doing. Whether this is a different mode in the same sense that the GNS modes exist is not the immediate concern. The real issue is whether this form of play is within an existing mode, or even reliably within a mode based on the player being supported.

Evidently my example from last night was not convincing, I worried as much when I wrote it, but I have two difficulties giving you direct evidence of this point, (1) I did not take notes sufficient to make these things clear during the play, and (2) I am assuming internally experienced play is not reasonable evidence due to experimentor's bias. I have significant experience of using this form of interactive mode in real play, primarilly as my own mode of play. I am loath to place that as an example, since that requires a perceptive interpretation on several levels.

Consider instead the other offered example, Player 1 leans towards gamism, removing challenges in play from affecting Player 2, who can then proceed uninhibited in an immersive manner. This form of mode insulation can be seen in many levels, often involving a polarization of modes. This particular example is actually fairly common for functional introduction of a player into a game which does not match their typical preferences. Over time the polarization may diminish, as the new player takes interest in new agendas, and hence will begin to lean back into the supported mode of the game.
Stuart, I apologize if I'm causing this to drift off topic and misreading your earlier remarks.

Well, I hope that helps,

-Mendel S.

Hi there,

Let me get this straight - Alice is not playing in any existing mode? Why not? Tellin' you, man, this is extremely opaque to me. Especially when in your last paragraph, the "helpful" player is identified as playing in a given mode, just a different one from the "helped" player.

Your overall point, if I'm not mistaken, seems to confuse Coherence with "everyone plays the same mode." That's not the case - Coherence just means fun play, especially not marred by constant negotiation over agendas. If play is proceeding with several or shifting GNS modes going on, and it's Coherent (fun), then groovy.

However, that point doesn't disagree with any aspect of my essay or model at all. Which is why I'm confused.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

The key distinction is the meta-game elements that help comprise the GNS modes. At first glance, Player 1 may be said to be a gamist, or at least being playing in that mode. However this is not supported by the metagame evidence. In fact that player is not interacting with the metagame elements of the gamist mode, i.e. is not Stepping up, but is participating in the challenge, this is because the metagame componants for Player 1 is the insulation of Player 2. If Player 2 is sufficiently insulated, Player 1 steps back, regardless of prestige loss. This is most definitely not a gamist mode of play. Essentially, while Player 1 leans towards gamism, she is not necessarilly a gamist, and rather fails several key features of being a gamist.

As far as coherence, I apologize, I've been in too many threads where it was used as homogeneity. And alas I don't memorize definitions so I need to pick them up from context.

I don't think the purpose of this thread is to dispute any of the major points of your theory, but rather to extend the idea of creative agenda to a class of modes which, tend to be under-valued, but have a key effect on game play. (Technical Play digression - from the mindset that play is learning directed, social modes provide a distinct material to learn, that is different from the other modes, because it is ultimately learning about players.)
Well, I hope that helps,

-Mendel S.

Oh - well, it strikes me that Social Contract is extraordinarily nuanced, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. If all we're saying is that it's full of layers, then that's peachy. Not really a windfall concept, though.

I do think that identifying the GNS stuff involved isn't as hard as folks seem to think, though. As far as I can tell, there isn't any reason to think that Player 1 or 2 were playing Gamist in the first place, so I don't see where the "surprise" factor lies. Instant conclusion: no Step-On-Up = not Gamist.

Best,
Ron

Hello all,

Ron Edwards wrote: Bob plays X-wise. Alice helps Bob (and more than just delivering cookies or petting him when he rolls well, or stuff like that). Alice is, therefore, playing X-wise too.

Hi there,

Thanks, Emily. I've written pretty extensively about how motive isn't an issue when discussing GNS stuff. It's about behavior.

I'm feeling a bit like a broken record, but talking about GNS always means talking about social stuff - the former is a manifestation of the latter.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Certainly the Social Contract contains nuances. Some of these are creative agendas. Many people on this site might argue that these nuances are quite an important concept. I am suggesting that in this domain of the Social Contract, other elements exist which behave equivalently to the accepted creative agendas, but are clearly distinct via play observation. As a result it is natural to call these creative agendas as well.

I have argued that at least one of these social creative agendas exists in the following ways:

1) as a motive

2) as a meta-game element observable from actual play

3) as a in-game element observable from actual play

Yes, this implies the social modes are related to the Social Contract layer, but I've yet to see any way in which they relate to that level differently than the personal (standard) modes.

I don't believe this is a new idea, rather I believe that it is an undervalued one, and will provide significant utility in the analysis of games which do not lie within well determined standard modes. By treating the social modes as actual creative agendas, albeit second tier ones, their application to play can be expanded, and the analysis and modelling of these arenas can be increased.

I apologize for my apparent denseness, but I feel much like a broken record on this issue as well. I suspect that there is some perceptual disjunction between our positions, but I've yet to locate it's source.

I hope that helps,

-Mendel S.

I think I see something that might help clarify this. Let me quote what

Ron Edwards wrote: Bob is playing in some kind of GNS way. Alice is present and facilitating Bob - and my question is whether she is or isn't contributing to the Exploration at the table.

If she is, and if (as it seems) whatever she's doing only reinforces Bob's play, than whatever she's doing is defined, in GNS terms, as whatever Bob's doing. Bob plays X-wise. Alice helps Bob (and more than just delivering cookies or petting him when he rolls well, or stuff like that). Alice is, therefore, playing X-wise too.

Mendel S. a.k.a. Wormwood wrote: Or to put it more generally: if Bob is playing mode X, can Alice be supporting him by playing something other than mode X? (It's reasonable to require Alice to be not playing any of the three modes, otherwise, well she is playing one of the three modes, which kind of negates the point)

M.J.,

I essentially concur with your adjustment to the model. Well with the exception of the implicit motive. We can observe that Alice treats the game in favor of Bob's mode, but not that she recognizes this goal per se, rather her actions could be solely directed by her observations of Bob, and not of the "respect matrix" of the game. The extension I'm suggesting attempts to take the remainder of your observations further.

Consider:

Facilitative submodes can be observed through play. What happens when the play is chaotic in the standard mode, but one player can be identified as playing facilitative consistently. In this case it makes more sense that this player be considered playing in a facilitative mode (which due to it's implications of group facilitation, I've called Socialist).

Second, facilitative submodes have a definite and observable direction, sometime facilitation is directed at a given player, other times it is directed at the group as a whole. This distinction suggests a finer structure to facilitation, than simply a binary mode subtype.


In either of these cases, there is good reason to consider the facilitative sub modes as hybridizations with the standard modes and additional interactive modes. This extension is the crux of my suggestion. It is clear to me that the majority of discussion does not require this extension, but selected minority would be significantly benefited, and perhaps more discourse on less common topics could be achieved with the availability of a theory extension of this type.

Thank you for your time,

-Mendel S.

Mendel--it seems to me that facilitative gamism is still gamism, and is entirely distinct from facilitative narrativism. As someone who is usually behind the screens (far more so than out in front of them) I'm always involved in facilitiative play, and whether I'm facilitating gamism, narrativism, or simulationism is clearly very different in how I play/referee.

Also, I think it's established that one doesn't have to "know" that one is playing gamist to be doing it. Ron's point about "$#!+, I'm playing Narrativist!" puts this into stark relief. (I also agree that this supports his argument that "motive" is not the deciding factor.) If you're playing to explore an issue or theme, and I'm playing to help you explore that issue or theme, how is my play (as play, apart from my reasons for playing that way) not narrativist? If you're playing to impress the other players with your skill, and I'm playing to facilitate that, how is my play not gamist? The point is that we have agreed as to what makes the game "fun"--whether that's exploring theme or rising to challenge or experiencing realities. Even if what has happened is that I have recognized that this is what makes play fun for you, and am acting in a facilitative manner so that you will have fun, that still puts me solidly in whatever mode you are playing, as my actions must be consistent with your objectives.

Looked at another way, I've decided that whatever I do will help Mendel enjoy the game. If Mendel is gamist, I'll set up challenges for him "because Mendel would enjoy that." If Mendel is narrativist, I'll work on addressing theme "because Mendel would enjoy that." If Mendel is simulationist, I'll try to make the world more real "because Mendel would enjoy that." My motivation for doing what I'm doing is in each case that I think it would make the game more enjoyable for you; but I'm still moving into the GNS categories to accomplish that. I can't make the game more enjoyable for you without making it align with your GNS preferences, and therefore I can't do it without playing within that mode myself, whether actively or facilitatively.

Again, this is why Ron decries "motivation" as the foundation for GNS categories: it doesn't matter whether I'm playing narrativist because I want to create a good story which I will enjoy or because I want you to be able to create a good story which you will enjoy--what matters is that the in-game choices I am making facilitate narrativism.

So I'll agree that the distinction between active and facilitative play is important, but I don't think you create different GNS modes--just a different reason for being in a particular mode and a different way of expressing it which is already established as a viable aspect due to its use by referees.

--M. J. Young

M.J.

It is quite clear that facilitative gamism is distinct from facilitative narrativism, but in the same vein sim supported gamism is distinct from sim supported narrativism.

I agree that motive is largely irrelevent (well at least overt motive, that which we can observe), I was simply pointing out in your original post that you were implying specific things about motive, and that those were not necessarilly the case. As far as recognizing that what makes the game fun there are two things occuring, first the game play recognizes that two things make the game fun, first the standard mode, and second the facilitation. This later element is kept weaker, but is no more so than Sim supported games.

All in all I see many similarities between claiming that facilitative play does not imply a supporting mode and claiming that simulationism doesn't actually exist per se.

The key element where we disagree is when you mention that you are not able to help me enjoy the game other than to facilitate my mode. I find this worrisome, it's turning the accepted positive that you can do so, into the negative that there is no other option. In essence it refutes my arguement by assuming it is invalid in the first place, begging the question if you will.

I too have spent much time "behind the screen" in my experience facilitation is far more complex than you make it out. I beleive this avenue of investigation is preferable if only to afford facilitative play something other than the red headed step child status.

In my experience one element of facilitation that evidences itself in the Exploration derived meta-game (firmly entrenched in the same "level" as creative agenda, and hence a valid consideration for a mode) is that of test facilitation. Namely a facilitative player tests different options to determine what the targeted player(s) would most enjoy. This is a continual process, whose meta-game componant involves evaluating player enjoyment.

I think this area deserves further consideration.

Thank you for your time,

-Mendel S.

What I was looking at was an example where Bob was playing in a defined mode (say, Gamist), and Alice was doing something different, and therefore not Gamist), but was strongly tied. I couldn't put that in one of the three modes.

I think I got myself in a corner with a fallacy based on shorthand (like most GNS queries tend to be). Namely that Alice can't be playing gamist - she is not aiming to have her character engage in challenges, and is doing something quite different from Bob.

Ron Edwards wrote: If she is [engaging in exploration], and if (as it seems) whatever she's doing only reinforces Bob's play, than whatever she's doing is defined, in GNS terms, as whatever Bob's doing.

A question: Is there another imaginable scenario in which we can see 'facilitative play' OTHER THAN introducing a new player to RPG?

I worry that this is such a specific case that the scenario cannot be generalised.

In reading the above thread, I would essentially agree that Alice is not engaging in a GNS mode. She is not exploring for her own enjoyment; her own behaviour is subordinated, IMO, to a non-GNS priority: Bobs Fun. So I would agree with that position, given the specific scenario.

I definately agree that if I am introducing a new player, I compromise my own stylistic preferences to facilitate the new players engagement with the game per se. But: is this the ONLY meaningful example? If so then I do not believe it is a general case which requires specific attention; it can be treated as the special case employed when introducing new players and can exist as an exception to the general rule of what RPG players do most of the time when they are playing autonomously.

Stuart,

I would agree the the major distinction to what we've been calling a social or interactive mode(s) and the standard or personal modes is that the former necessarilly requires the interaction element. I don't view this as an indictment against them as actual modes, rather as a reason to consider them an extension rather than as part of a base theory. In particular, few play examples of modes exist in an interaction vacuum, (the degenerate case of single player games aside), so I don't view this as a problem. During interaction these modes act very much like the standard modes, interacting with exploration in observable ways, in my book this at worst makes them pseudo-modes.

The real issue, it seems to me is whether the facilitation of other modes is always subordinate to the supported mode. Certainly the basic form is, but in some ways this is the definition of facilitating gamist, etc. Earlier in this thread I mentioned a gamist - simulationist trading to facilitate. If that discussion is understood correctly, then if the psuedo-gamist is at all concerned with Step on Up, then they are in fact playing gamist, where as if they are not overtly concerned with this, they are in fact playing simulationist. In fact, it is conceivable that the meta-game distinction (the only place where such a distinction exists) is unobservably different. In the very least it can be observed when this distinction is very difficult to make in practice. Further the same problem can arise in any cross-mode facilitation. This indicates that facilitation is very much it's own thing, and shouldn't simply be lumped in with the other forms.

It seems reasonable to extend the definition of mode to permit these entites, and in doing so, permit a discussion of their properties, rather than to disqualify them on unclear technicalities, and hence make the theory more cumbersome in this sense.


contracycle,

I'd offer an emphatic yes. Consider the following situations:

Synergistic players who work well as a team passing between them elements of the game best attuned to the players preferences.

A GM trying to decide what everyone is "really" in the mood for today.

Getting to know a player in expecation for any number of other elements, namely romance, later working together, improving friendship, or curiosity due to a recently unexplained change in play style.

Because you enjoy facilitating the game for the other players and constantly wish to re-evaluate your methods for this purpose. This to my mind is the key element, people can enjoy facilitating the game, regardless of standard mode, this enjoyment can be as great as that from any mode, and yet exploration takes place. This is the strongest indication to me that such a play type exists as a mode, even if a strange one.

Thank you for your time,

-Mendel S.

I said this earlier, in a different way, but the point got lost:

I think GNS preference is about _means_ of decision-making not motive.

A preference for a GNS mode is like a preference for using one's dominant hand. If Alice wants to help Bob into the rollercoaster, she's likely to use her right hand.

The motives for participating in play are at the social level - outside the Exploration, even though they may be epxressed within the Exploration. Everyone has them. Most often the motive is simply to have fun.

Alan,

Social modes are means to decision making. I've posted on this several times in this thread. Likewise, while there are motives which tend to be relevant to social modes, these are not the concept of social modes entire, just as the motives of personal modes are not those modes entire.

I think the confusion on this matter lies in the fact that in a specific example of this sort of play, there is a motive. But this is also the case for any specific example of a standard mode. The generalizations of those examples do not require the use of those motives, and rather attempt to describe the process (i.e. decision making) regardless of motives.
Thank you for your time,

-Mendel S.

Hi Mendel,

What I'm confused about is the "confusion" you mention. I don't see any confusion. M.J.'s supported my points, and (I think) you've agreed with him. So I don't see any point of contention or even of lack of clarity.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

The confusion I mentioned was the apparent assumption that social modes are purely based on motive.

The key issue in this debate is whether it is actively incorrect and / or unhelpful to broaden the class of creative agendas to include social or interactive creative agendas. I've agrued that this does not damage the existing model as an extension, and this has been largely ignored. Rather I've been told that this is an incorrect concept of the model because creative agendas are assumed to be the G, N, and S. Obviously this limitation needs to be removed or relaxed to permit an extension in that region of the model.

Is this relaxation warranted? No one has yet disputed the utility I have attempted to demonstrate. As such I propose to generate the extension, GNSI, which incorporates one or more interactive creative agendas in addition to the standard model of GNS. I will then attempt to demonstrate the utility of this extension through analysis application, both on site and otherwise. I believe this extension will provide a clearer understanding of such elements as drift, facilitative play, and effective play forms. I also suspect that it will shed sinificant light on observed hybridization and other aspects of simplifying the theory. Only time will tell.

As far as much of the debate on this thread, it has convinced me quite simply that interactive modes are not something which can easily be a part of GNS as such, an explicit and clear extension is required. It requires a significant amount of reanalysis, and will likely take some time before application, but is a necessary step to overcome the inadequcies of GNS for prescriptive modeling of play and game design.

Thank you for your time,

-Mendel S.