Hi all,

I believe there's a quote somewhere that says a model (or theory) is just a tool for understanding. The more tools you have, the better you can approximate reality.

With that in mind, here's some popular Forge theory rehashed from a different perspective.


CONTENT CLASSES

When thinking about GNS theory, it might be useful to divide the content of an RPG session into four categories: Group Content, Participant Experience, Personal Fantasy, and Shared Fantasy.

- Group Content is the body of every action and communication made by the actual participants in play. Group Content is almost the same as what Ron calls Social Contract, but a “contract” sounds like something finished and unchangeable, while “content” emphasizes a cumulative meaning.

- Participant Experience is each individual participant's internal landscape of ideas, interest, and emotional response to Group Content.

- Personal Fantasy is the fantasy elements suggested by each individual's imagination, whether shared with other participants or not.

- Shared Fantasy is the body of imaginary elements, which the group has approved. This is where the imaginary characters act and imaginary events occur.


All of these are related. Group Experience encompasses Shared Fantasy and Game System, while Individual Experience encompasses Personal Fantasy, which encompasses Shared Fantasy.

We might draw Venn diagrams:

[Group Content [Shared Fantasy] [Game System] ]

[Participant Experience [Personal Fantasy [Shared Fantasy ]]]

Of course, the correspondence of the circles of Shared Fantasy in both categories is an ideal, not realized in actual play. But it is the ideal used for RPG design. (A close look at the ways this correspondence breaks down might be very interesting, but I'll leave that for another time.)

These diagrams do not take any kinds of interactions between the classes into account. Much of Forge theory describes these interactions.


RELATING CONTENT CLASSES TO RPG THEORY

Lumpley Principle

The game system is the method of determining what is added to the shared fantasy.

A game system is agreed on by social contract and is part of Group Content. The key element of the agreement is the distribution of credibility and methods for resolving conflicts between desired additions to the fantasy.

The game system connects every participant's Personal Fantasy to the Shared Fantasy. In the Personal Fantasy realm, players conceive elements that they’d like to add to the shared fantasy and proposes them, in whole or in part, to the group. The group follows the agreed game system to accept, reject, or modify the proposal before it is added to the shared fantasy.


Exploration

Exploration, of course, is the construction of the Shared Fantasy content. I think Ron also uses it to refer to the Shared Fantasy content that has been created.


GNS Preferences

GNS preferences arise from Participant Experience. In particular, an individual has ideas (personal fantasy) from which he chooses those he or she would like to realize in play. In all cases of GNS preference, the main reward is the group confirmation or validation of the Personal Fantasy. (Otherwise we could all get our sole gratification from our personal fantasy.)

Preferences arise because a given player is attracted to a particular kind of fantasy.

So a player with gamist preferences may most enjoy realizing the fantasy of overcoming a challenge, while narrativist may like having some element of meaning demonstrated. A simulationist will most enjoy the actual elaboration of detail.

Also consider which Content Classes will best meet the needs of each preference.

Gamism

A player who enjoys challenge may find it in every Class except Personal Fantasy. He or she may find challenge at the real people level (Game Content), in the game system, or in the shared fantasy. Of course, a player who gets his or her primary gratification from bullying other players may not be welcome. Instead, the gamist player tends to gauge themselves by challenges in the fantasy, while comparing themselves to other players on the real level.


Narrativism.

A player who wants to create events with thematic meaning will find it only in the shared fantasy. But I would suggest that the narrativist very often looks at the big picture of all four content classes and the esthetic consequences when formulating a proposal, and when seeking a sense of gratification.


Simulationism

A player who wants to elaborate the details of their fantasy will again find most gratification in the shared fantasy area. But I would suggest that the simulationist player likes to minimize Participant Experience outside of shared fantasy, and gets some gratification from blurring the line between personal fantasy and shared fantasy.


Stances

All stance arise from Participant Experience. Whenever a player formulates a proposal to the game system, he or she makes it from one or more stances. A stance is defined by a combination of two variables. The first is the range of knowledge with which the decision will be made. The second is the range of creative power the decision assumes.

Actor stance, restricts information available for the decision to that which the player imagines is available to his or her character including the character’s own personality. (We might imagine this as a further subset of Personal Fantasy.) Actor stance also assumes a very limited range of creative authority, restricting available actions to those the player believes the character could do.

Author stance places no limitation on what information the player uses to formulate a proposal, but does restrict the player’s creative power, usually to the imagined capabilities of the character.

Director stance removes all restrictions, allowing the player to consider any information at every level of Participant Experience, and to suggest elements at every level of creative scope.


CONCLUSION (for now)

So does any of this provide new, useful perspective on GNS theory? I know I said some things that may also demand further exploration. Ask me about them and maybe we can develop them more.

Hey Alan,

Nice. Thought provoking.

Exploration, of course, is the construction of the Shared Fantasy content.

I'd submit that Exploration is actually the construction of the Participant Experience.

Paul

Paul Czege wrote: Hey Alan,

Nice. Thought provoking.

Exploration, of course, is the construction of the Shared Fantasy content.

I'd submit that Exploration is actually the construction of the Participant Experience.

Paul