Not a challenge, just a request for ellucidation.

Ron, early in your article you go to great lengths to describe that the presence of a gamist element in what is otherwise a narrativist game doesn't make the game gamist and vice versa. You strive to make the point that there is one and only one overriding goal to which the others are just subordinate, and perchance coincidental concerns.

I know this has always been your position, but having it outlined so clearly leads me to ask...why? What is it that you are trying to say by making this distinction? Or put another way, what is gained in terms of superior insight or application by this that would be lost if the model simply allowed GNS aspects to blend without requiring one of them to dominate?

I'm thinking that "mostly Narrativist with a healthy dose of Gamism but only the scantist dash of Simulationism" might actually be a fairly powerful (if verbose) way of describing a GNS position...

Hey Ralph,

It all comes down to the unit we are describing. That unit is, when all is said and done, an "instance of play."

Thus a person, over many instances of play, may be exactly as you describe. A specific game design, over many aspects of its content, may be exactly as you describe. (Both of these comments are subject to the usual clarification about tendencies and facilitation, respectively.)

But how about a given instance? Let's take a gritty action sequence, in which I, as player, make absolutely damn sure that the GM and other players know that my (um) .357 magnum does XYZ damage, especially given my ammunition and the degree of practice I made sure to announce earlier (or now, as a flashback, whatever).

Anyway, what "am" I at that moment? My answer is that it's always about priorities. Given that it's me, I'd say that I'm concerned about the ability of my character to kick butt NOW THAT THE MOMENT HAS COME (as opposed to any old fight scene), and WITH THE MOST CHARACTERISTIC METHOD (that is, couched in techno-fetish gun-nut terms).

That, to me, is a Narrativist priority, especially the "moment has come" part. The attention to realism or cause or details is at the service of that priority, and as such is limited to specific moments or story-points. Another person could well demonstrate a similar niggling attention to those details at the service of a different priority (say, Simulationist, subset Explore-Character). What differ between us is when that attention is focused on the topic, how it is justified to the other players if necessary during the heat of play, and what we expect from them in terms of support or interaction regarding that attention. THAT is where GNS focus appears, and I claim that it is not a blended thing.

One last thing: as I stated in the essay, the length and content of "the instance" is not specified. Is this circular? Am I leaving the length and content of "the instance" vague in order to say "it's too big" when GNS stuff starts to diversify, or "it's just right" when only one mode is evident? I don't think so, but that would be a whole argument and thread of its own.

Best,
Ron

heh. I read that paragraph in the GNS several times but until you just pointed it out the references to "instance of play" didn't click. No doubt my brain edited them out as nothing more than a transitional phrase or bridge as opposed to a key concept.

I definitely like the "clustering around a goal" image. In fact, I think that short next paragraph could be expanded on greatly. The image of a GNS scatterplot of these "instances of play" might help eliminate some of the entrenched "single point apex of a triangle" thinking that has evolved.

With that said, and realizing you've left instance of play undefined, how would you characterize shifting between GNS instances within a single game session. We've come to accept Stance shifting frequently and without concious effort. Can GNS position shift so easily within a game? Can GNS position be tied to a specific aspect of a game?

As an example. Say Albert approaches his game from a decided Narrativist position...except for combat. He may throw simulation and cause and effect out the window when dealing with other situations, but combat for him comes down to calibres and trajectories and penetrations and if you're dead you're dead. Is this a "valid" (for lack of a more appropriate term) shifting of GNS between different instances of play? or is this not what you had in mind with the term "instance of play"?

Hey Ralph,

I think Albert's situation is quite possible, and that it does indeed permit the concept of shifting GNS modes (not just stances or IC/OOC or whatever) during a single session.

I want to emphasize that this is NOT "blending," which is defined as two or more modes being simultaneously satisfied (as priorities) by a single instance of play. We're talking about multiple instances within a session.

Two questions arise, however.

1) Does Albert really exist? Is there an Albert out there, or is he the kind of construct that my students like so much, which supports their position because he is tailored to exemplify it?

Lest I be considered an old cranky person, I hasten to add that he well might exist. But point #2, below, is even more important.

2) How important are the separate instances of play, to Albert? When he gets "all Simulationist," is this the payoff experience of play, for which he waits? Or is it his way of making sure that his PC survives through the combat, in order to get back to the priority-material that he favors in the non-combat scenes?

If the answer is that he is equally prioritized (to coin a horrible word) during each and every instance, such that the priorities change but the attention/effort/interest does not, then he's switching modes. If, on the other hand, it's one of the two possibilities I describe in the above paragraph, then Albert is simply a plain, vanilla, GNS-focused kind of a guy.

Best,
Ron

In part Albert was a construct design primarily to help me get a feel for your intention of Instances of Play. i.e. if we were talking about when I played Cthulhu I was X, while when I played Sorcerer I was Y as being instances. Or whether we were talking about last Sorcerer session I was Y but this session I'm more Z as being instances. Or whether we were talking 5 minutes ago I was Y but now I've shifted to Z.

Your response clarified it as any of the above.

On the other hand Albert isn't entirely mythical to my experience. I did play a campaign of Palladium's old Recon game which involved alot of free form inter character relationship sans rolls ala Platoon but when it came time to actually hit the bush we scragged Recon and pulled out the old Charlie Company miniature rules and played out our patrols in glorious wargaming detail.

While in the former "mode" (whether it was truly Narrativism or just character exploration I can't really say as the difference is still rather cloudy to me) we were all about character. In the wargame, our characters were identified and we as players experienced an amazing meta game "morale check" when it came time to charge the bunker or hunker down and let someone else do it (our roleplaying episodes made us far more interested in self preservation of our characters then if we were just playing a straight minis game). However, there was no fudging or saving characters from getting gacked just because their cool RPing story line would end if they didn't make it back.

So this example would probably fall mostly as Simulationist with (perhaps) Narrativist elements as a whole. But taken out of context each part could be defined as one of each.

This I guess is what is a little confusing to me. With no hard guidelines for what constitutes an Instance of Play it becomes possible to arbitrarily define instances such that all of the effects of "blending" are realized without "technically" requiring 2 simultaneous modes. Or conversely to disprove any examples of blending simply by dividing the instance up into smaller homogenous pieces.

All of which makes for an interesting mental exercise but doesn't seem to bear much analytical fruit.

An instance can be as small as one decision, Ralph. So I can make a gamist decision, immediately followed by a simulationist decision. What I can't do is make a Gamist/Simulationist decision simultaneously. That's what Ron means by no blending.

IIRC :smile:

The use is the same as always. A particular mechanic works well for one and not for another. For example, the simulationist mechanics of the wargaming part of your example work to make creating story difficult as people buy the farm at inoportune times. So the game slants toward the Simulationist, because it prioritizes that Simulation of combat. If not, you'd have mechanics for saving your characters' butts or something to ensure that the story was kept at the highest priority.

What effect of this sort of rapid shift that you call blending makes this not true?

Mike

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-10-15 14:35 ]

Its not the truth I'm questioning, but rather I'm asking why the distinction is important. If, as you say, the instance can be as small as an individual decision so that one can switch back and forth rapidly, why make the distinction at all? If the net effect is to mix G with S (or what have you)what is added to the analysis by insisting that these are seperate and discrete rather than simply blended.

To use chemistry as an analogy: either way represents a Mixture of the compounds G, N, S. It seems to me that Ron is insisting that this mixture is a Suspension rather than a Solution.

I'm not saying it should be one way or the other, just asking why this distinction is important to our analysis (obviously I understand its importance to science).

Is this just a personal preference, i.e. a convenient and consistant way to think of such mixtures? Or is there some added insight that can be gleaned from thinking of it as a Suspension that would be lost thinking of it as a Solution.

I guess from my standpoint, I see acknowledging that a Mixture is possible is important, but I am not currently seeing the utility in getting more specific than that. But the GNS chapter gets very specific on this, and I'm just wondering if I'm missing something or if this was just a personal preference issue.

The latter is perfectly acceptable as Ron indicated the whole document was his personal preference, I just like to be clear about such things.

On 2001-10-15 16:23, Valamir wrote:
Its not the truth I'm questioning, but rather I'm asking why the distinction is important. If, as you say, the instance can be as small as an individual decision so that one can switch back and forth rapidly, why make the distinction at all? If the net effect is to mix G with S (or what have you)what is added to the analysis by insisting that these are seperate and discrete rather than simply blended.

To use chemistry as an analogy: either way represents a Mixture of the compounds G, N, S. It seems to me that Ron is insisting that this mixture is a Suspension rather than a Solution.

I'm not saying it should be one way or the other, just asking why this distinction is important to our analysis (obviously I understand its importance to science).