Hi all,

I've noticed that the "Address Premise" thread has become a thread about whether "out of character" input matters to analyzing a game for a G, N or S pulse.

I'm curious about this. Genuinely curious. The model explictely places Social Contract as the primary element of play, followed by Exploration, then Creative Agenda -- even before G, N, or S becomes a possibility. Whether anybody likes it or not, this is the model.

But some people seem to want to avoid the Social Contract issues completely -- even creative agenda issues.

I'm not going to be coy here: its Marco and John. And guys, I'm not sure why. John wrote he suspicious of the value of OOC comments in informing checking for GNS heartbeat. How? The model demands it. Social Contract is a combination of all those elements of actual people interacting with actual people. It's how people lean in, laugh when someting does something "cool" (cool defined by Creative Agenda). It's how I add a detail to a scene, either by suggestion or spending an in game resource, even if my PC is not in the scene, to augment what's going on. It might be how I get up and go play a video game for a while. All of this is a reflection of how actual people are interacting with actual people during the course of play. Without all of these details I'm not sure how the group was behaving socially -- since the IC stuff is only a part of the interaction between these actual people actually intereacting together for four to eight hours.

Now, Marco and John, you can disagree with the model. You can ignore it. But it seems odd to be asking the model to explain GNS behavior, while dismissing how the model is actually constructed. The real concern of the model is social behavior. GNS priorities are an expression of the social behavior in question. So how can there be talk of GNS when the social concerns are dismissed?

Why do you do this? I'd really like to know.

Since I have no experience with on-line play, for the moment, if you decide to answer my question, could we stick with a discussion of table top play?

Thanks,

Christopher

John Kim wrote: Personally, I am skeptical of the huge importance placed on OOC cues. If I am analyzing a game, the combination of in-game play and player/GM intent are of prime importance to me. Social cues are definitely important as well, mind, but I'd look at them after the other two (although that is partly because they're a little harder to get after-the-fact or for someone who wasn't there).

Christopher Kubasik wrote: Now, Marco and John, you can disagree with the model. You can ignore it. But it seems odd to be asking the model to explain GNS behavior, while dismissing how the model is actually constructed. The real concern of the model is social behavior. GNS priorities are an expression of the social behavior in question. So how can there be talk of GNS when the social concerns are dismissed?

Why do you do this? I'd really like to know.

Hi John,

Good point. I overstated your priortizations as a dismissal.

Christopher

John Kim wrote:
Personally, I think I see OOC cues as being sort of secondary feedback. The ultimate goal of a game is the engagement and satisfaction of the participants; and the ultimate cause is their intent. What comes in between is the method, i.e. how the game is played. The primary means of satisfaction is (to me) the fictional in-game actions, aka the story in a broad sense.

Christopher Kubasik wrote: Hi all,

I've noticed that the "Address Premise" thread has become a thread about whether "out of character" input matters to analyzing a game for a G, N or S pulse.

I'm curious about this. Genuinely curious. The model explictely places Social Contract as the primary element of play, followed by Exploration, then Creative Agenda -- even before G, N, or S becomes a possibility. Whether anybody likes it or not, this is the model.

But some people seem to want to avoid the Social Contract issues completely -- even creative agenda issues.

I'm not going to be coy here: its Marco and John. And guys, I'm not sure why. John wrote he suspicious of the value of OOC comments in informing checking for GNS heartbeat. How? The model demands it. Social Contract is a combination of all those elements of actual people interacting with actual people. It's how people lean in, laugh when someting does something "cool" (cool defined by Creative Agenda). It's how I add a detail to a scene, either by suggestion or spending an in game resource, even if my PC is not in the scene, to augment what's going on. It might be how I get up and go play a video game for a while. All of this is a reflection of how actual people are interacting with actual people during the course of play. Without all of these details I'm not sure how the group was behaving socially -- since the IC stuff is only a part of the interaction between these actual people actually intereacting together for four to eight hours.

Now, Marco and John, you can disagree with the model. You can ignore it. But it seems odd to be asking the model to explain GNS behavior, while dismissing how the model is actually constructed. The real concern of the model is social behavior. GNS priorities are an expression of the social behavior in question. So how can there be talk of GNS when the social concerns are dismissed?

Why do you do this? I'd really like to know.

Since I have no experience with on-line play, for the moment, if you decide to answer my question, could we stick with a discussion of table top play?

Thanks,

Christopher

Here's a thought from earlier today: if you're worried about the mechanical effectiveness of your character, you aren't playing Narrativist, but Gamist.

You can think, "Hmm, what would my character do?" make a choice, then act. Chances are you can see this as either Sim. or Nar. Or, you can think "Hmm, is my character willing to KILL in this situation RIGHT NOW?" decide, and act. This is answering the premise. You swing the sword. Snicker-snack. Once we all see the act in play, we can evaluate that. "Wow, that guy's a cold-blooded bastard! Or a hero. Or whatever. Premise answered. Narrativism. Neato!

The amount of time players spent on various scenes.
Overt textual cues - I'm guessing there's nothing to prevent players on IRC typing "Cool!" or similar.
Players (including the GM's) selection of scenes.
The tendency of players to kibbutz on other people's scenes.

Alan wrote:

John Kim wrote: Personally, I think I see OOC cues as being sort of secondary feedback. The ultimate goal of a game is the engagement and satisfaction of the participants; and the ultimate cause is their intent. What comes in between is the method, i.e. how the game is played. The primary means of satisfaction is (to me) the fictional in-game actions, aka the story in a broad sense.

To begin to understand, I need to clarify what you mean by out-of-character cues and in-character cues.

When I play, I use a wide variety of methods to communicate to my fellow players:
1) Acting out the character's gestures, expressions, and dialogue
2) Description of gestures, expressions, and dialogue in third person.
3) Describing character's internal state and memories
4) Telling players (player-to-player) relevant character background.
5) Editorial comments and suggestions: " hey, that's cool! Wouldn't it be great if ... and so on. (This includes non-verbal cues like body language, paying attention, interupting or not interrupting.)

I would guess that "in-character" only refers to my 1.

Hi Marco,

Thanks for the reply.

I know you carefully laid out your reasons for switching to in-game only transcripts for "labelling"... but I still don't get it. (I'm really sorry about this, by the way. Feeling thick is not my normal mode.)

The model is predicated on cues picked up between players on all levels of interaction. You've removed a lot of cues in the belief that you're still operating on at least a "minimal" set of cues. Is it possible you're now *under* the minimal set of cues needed for observation.

I guess I'm not sure how you've defined minimal in a model which says, "We need to look at everything."

What occurrs to me is that by playing this way (turning off OOC chat so that not only is there only a transcript of in-game play, but no one had a chance to talk to each other in any other form), you're setting up a Social Contract that says, "We deal with each other as ourselves as little as possible." Which is cool... But then there would have to be other details revealed to get a better understanding of what's going on: How did the players meet? Did they just log on as strangers and start playing? Was there any prepereration or is this an ongoing thing anyone can join?

See, these issues -- and many more, even without OOC records -- are all part of play. To try to ignore them is to create a hypothetical in a vacuum -- and the model is explicitely about not playing a vacuum.

So, to go further with your exampe, I'd have to know all of those details, and more above -- what is the Social Contract, what is the Creative Agenda, who are the players, do they know each other, how do they arrive, what kind of time commitment is involved....

Without that, you're seeing the model as some sort of machine to lable play GNS. That's not it at all. GNS issues are is how the Social Contract, the Exploration and Creative Agenda are engaged to manifest the Social Contract, Exporation and Creative Agenda between people.

Right?

Best,
Christopher

Marco wrote: I'm at a loss. I would assume that he means that the intent of the player will be born out in the observed behavior and that in functional play that will be assisted by the rest of the group--but Raven and Gareth were two of the major voices arguing that a player can't really know their own mind when it comes to knowing what they intend. This seems like an about face on that whole thread to me.

Hi Guys,

Having just read the refferenced thread in question, referring to Sorcerer stuff:

So, at the table, a guy says, "My guy does cool items X, Y and Z."

The GM gives him a couple of extra dice.

He rolls and doesn't succeed.

There's a look on his face. The GM says, "What?" He says, "After all that I botched it." "No," says the GM, "The issue is, your guy made a choice about killing that kid. That's the cool part."

At this point the player might smile, say, "Oh, neat," and scoop up the dice for the next Humanity roll. Or he might say, "No. I really wanted to kick this guy's ass." This second comment might lead to clarification about what expectations everyone at the table has for that night's fun (and future night as well.)

See, right there, that's a lot of behavior at the table that revealing Creative Agenda. It all matters. It's what its all about.

We're not doing Black Magic here, nor some Behavioral Science techniques on par with the Foundation's Psychohistory. It's just a matter of, you know, people hanging out, working and playing together to make somethihg happen.

Best,
Christopher

Marco,

I think the focus on IRC play is a red herring in this discussion. I have done an extensive amount of IRC role-playing over the last four or five years, and in my experience, the biggest problem with it is that without any of the nonverbal cues, you can't figure out expectations, and thus wind up with the most dysfunctional, incoherent play. This is more or less what GNS predicts, and is therefore actually supporting the model as expressed.

The limitation is one in IRC itself, not in GNS.

As a side issue, it's been made clear by every example of behavior that the only behaviors that matter are those that reveal intent (and most such examples feature the player explicitly saying what his intent was). But do we really want to resurrect the intent vs behavior debate again at this point? It seems like a dead horse to me.

Edit: greyorm, I have actually had IRC play work for me on occasion. However, it's only been through extensive "OOC" discussions on what everyone wants. For me, anyway, trying to figure it out on the fly during play is essentially impossible. But I don't want to make this into a discussion on IRC.

I utterly and completely disagree with Justin's assessment.
Having played on-line via chat, with a large selection of different groups and people, much of that via IRC, I find that the non-verbal cues of players are replaced with other cues more suited to expression via the medium.

Being that these cues exist, play can be examined and expectations realized, or apparently the whole of my gaming life for the last decade is unexaminable from a GNS standpoint -- which I do not believe because it is provably untrue.

However, as Justin says, I find the whole "IRC issue" a red herring precisely because of this. It is clouding the actual question by enforcing a medium upon it, and discussion of whether or not it provides or fails to provide these cues not only belongs in an entirely seperate thread, but only serves to further confuse things here.

Justin,

This isn't a question about the validity of the theory in predicting a coherent play session (or about proving the theory "wrong"). I certainly agree that the more OOC conversation there is, the greater chances of a good game. I don't need a theory to tell me that though.

The reason it's relevant is this:

If the definition of a GNS mode of play *requires* more information than you'd find in an IRC channel log then you get some very strange situations. You get games where the protagonists constantly address moral issues but can never be labeled Narrativist. You get games that are constant hack and slash but can't be labeled Gamist. You get games of exploration with neither moral nor challenge issues but they can't be labeled Sim.

Why? Because (and C. Edwards suggests this is true on the other thread) you don't have the data.

The common usage of the terms (Matt's example of Sim vs. Nar) here, IMO, is at odds with the technical definitions of the terms.

That is, the terms don't apply to intent--but what the player worries about, thinks, or intends is usually the start point for the explanation and the assumption is made that this will produce observable behavior that is easy to interpert correctly.

-Marco

Marco wrote: If the definition of a GNS mode of play *requires* more information than you'd find in an IRC channel log then you get some very strange situations. You get games where the protagonists constantly address moral issues but can never be labeled Narrativist. You get games that are constant hack and slash but can't be labeled Gamist. You get games of exploration with neither moral nor challenge issues but they can't be labeled Sim.

Why? Because (and C. Edwards suggests this is true on the other thread) you don't have the data.

Marco,

I think you're running after a big fat red herring. "What the protagonists do" has no bearing on whether or not an instance of play is Narrativist. That was the whole point of my original thread about fatalist characters. Narrativism is about what the players do. In the words of Ron, it's about the meta-game priorities of the real people. I play on IRC constantly - many of our games are Narrativist. In some cases, prioritization has been as explcit as a pregame statement of "OK, here's the premise that we'll address in this game."

Marco,

Hey, I had an idea that might help. Think of it this way:

There is no "in-game." All role-playing is "meta-game." There's no such thing as "in character," because there are no "characters." There's only a bunch of people sitting around imagining.

There are two layers here... what the individual player imagines in his private thoughts, and the group output that consists of the combied expressed thoughts of the group as a whole.

Examining a single participant's contribution to the group output tells you what that participant wants the group output to be like.

And, that's pretty much all there is to it. "What players want" is the same thing as "prioritizing." All GNS does is identify and classify them. GNS is a catlogue of "things to want." If several players simultaneously want incompatible things, then you've got incoherence.

So yeah, you should be able to identify a player's GNS priorities by just observing the shared reality. But it *is* the shared reality that you have to look at. We're talking about indicative trends here. Isolated examples (such as have been posted) are insufficient.

Also, even though simply observing the shared reality is *sufficient* to determine GNS priorities, doing so presumes that actual play has already concluded. I.e., you can identify GNS priorities after the fact, but by then it's too late - any incoherence has already happened.

It's all about what the players do. Sure, what they do with the imagined reality can tell you what you want to know. But what they do *outside* the imagined reality can help out a lot. It can make things clearer faster.

We want YOU to stop incoherence before it starts!

;)

EDIT: Sorry, Marco, this came out way more snippy sounding than intended, so take the attitude perceived with a grain of salt.

Marco wrote: If the definition of a GNS mode of play *requires* more information than you'd find in an IRC channel log then you get some very strange situations.

Hi Marco,

Let me take a stab at this... The idea for you is, what matters is the "text" of the "story"? Is this right? Is this why you've made the above claim that greyorm quoted?

Now, if this is true... And I'm not trying to impose anything on you, just trying to understand -- can you in turn understand that his is not what the Model is about? It's *not* about the resulting story. It's about *all* the interactions between the actual people.

This may be why many people are suggesting you're expecting the model to be what it is not. You want something that sums up the "output" of the players only in terms of Exploration (color, characters and so on) but the Model is about all human interaction pertaining to the group. (You might want to check out my "I Get It!" thread.)

If this is the case, if you actually want some model that does something with only the Exploration Output Data -- which again, is not what the model is about -- would it make sense to stop suggesting that the current Model is faulty for not providing accurate diagnostics doing something it simply is not designed to do?

Best,
Christopher

Paganini wrote: Marco,

Hey, I had an idea that might help. Think of it this way:

There is no "in-game." All role-playing is "meta-game." There's no such thing as "in character," because there are no "characters." There's only a bunch of people sitting around imagining.

There are two layers here... what the individual player imagines in his private thoughts, and the group output that consists of the combied expressed thoughts of the group as a whole.

Examining a single participant's contribution to the group output tells you what that participant wants the group output to be like.

And, that's pretty much all there is to it. "What players want" is the same thing as "prioritizing." All GNS does is identify and classify them. GNS is a catlogue of "things to want." If several players simultaneously want incompatible things, then you've got incoherence.

And but look at how carefully he says "play priority" and "play preference"! Ron, are you suggesting that many play-priority Simulationists are play-preference Narrativists or Gamists? Who might be, because their play priorities don't match their play preferences, sad?

Oy vey. This is long and complicated. Read carefully.

Marco wrote:
I think there's a common assumption that determining the mode will tell you what the players like and then how to improve the game. But that's based on the idea that:

The "intent" "problem" again. Sigh. We have discussed this at gereat length, Marco.

I'm at a loss. I would assume that he means that the intent of the player will be born out in the observed behavior and that in functional play that will be assisted by the rest of the group--but Raven and Gareth were two of the major voices arguing that a player can't really know their own mind when it comes to knowing what they intend. This seems like an about face on that whole thread to me.

As far as I can tell, neither need be true from the model. This is a key example of how I think the model is used in ways that it kinda seems to address ... but definitionally doesn't.

contracycle wrote:

I have vigorously objected to this mischarectersiation of the point before, and will do so again. This is a straw man argument: attacking a position the opponent does NOT hold because it is easier to attack than the position the opponent DOES hold.

I have never said that the player CANNOT know their own intent. I have never claimed that intent does not exist. I have only claimed that for methodological purposes, SELF-REPORTING OF A MENTAL STATE IS NOT DATA. There are too many potential reasons that impinge on why a particular players mouth moves and they say "I prefer sim" for us to assume that the self-report is reliable and accurate. Therefore, I reserve the right to disagree with a players self report. Behaviour, however, even if subjectively assesed, is at least behaviour and that provides a sounder basis for any decision. Thats all there is to it.

Are you really so arrogant as to believe that the complex psychological states that affect so many people leave you alone immune? Are you so arrogant as to assume that you, alone, have the clarity of vision to insightfully inspect your own thoughts and motives without bias or self-endorsement or self-interest.

Then I bow to you, and ask you to go out and heal the sick with the hem of your gown, because this is fucking miraculous.

Hi Marco,

I've read this whole thread twice and I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to get at. It must be important to you to spend so many words on. So let me share some comments.

Marco wrote:
If the definition of a GNS mode of play *requires* more information than you'd find in an IRC channel log then you get some very strange situations.

Marco wrote: You get games where the protagonists constantly address moral issues but can never be labeled Narrativist. You get games that are constant hack and slash but can't be labeled Gamist. You get games of exploration with neither moral nor challenge issues but they can't be labeled Sim.

I think I get where Marco is driving to here, Marco can of course confirm or deny.

No one deny's IRC roleplaying is substantively different from tabletop roleplay - in the way that they might with LARP and CRPGs. What Marco seems to be worrying at is that IRC seems to contain less GNS diagnostic stuff that other forms of play.

Which might suggest that IRC gaming isn't all that similar as an activity to tabletop roleplaying as we tend to presume or that GNS seems to have a blindspot - that is doesn't apply to roleplaying universally.

I don't want to spend any energy on counterpoints unless that is the point. Marco, yay or nay?

contracycle wrote: The "intent" "problem" again. Sigh. We have discussed this at gereat length, Marco.

contracycle wrote:
I have only claimed that for methodological purposes, SELF-REPORTING OF A MENTAL STATE IS NOT DATA. There are too many potential reasons that impinge on why a particular players mouth moves and they say "I prefer sim" for us to assume that the self-report is reliable and accurate. Therefore, I reserve the right to disagree with a players self report. Behaviour, however, even if subjectively assesed, is at least behaviour and that provides a sounder basis for any decision. Thats all there is to it.

Excuse me, but "intent" is accounted for in the model.

You are free to insert the term wherever and however you see fit in order to clarify to yourself what's going on. As long as you don't replace or dismiss any of the other terms, it's no big deal.

I say this over and over. Few people seem to read anything except "Ron says there's no 'intent' involved," and go "aaacckk!"

Best,
Ron

Huh. See, here I am amid a flurry of posts and threads, placing stakes in the ground, defending this, decrying that. And you know what? I'm still learning. I'm happy to admit that, and I made a (hopefully) conciliatory post today to Marco about labeling.

So, Ron, I'm still learning, even though I'm pretty confident on a lot of issues. Can you help me with this intent business. Specifically, I want to know, when and where are people (and I don't care whom) -- especially lately -- misapplying intent?

Similarly, I know at least one post you made in reply to John Kim that said, "Sure, call that intent. That's perfectably acceptable and compatible with what I've said." I'm not sure at all what you meant there. Can you clarify?

In other words, I'm begging for a more detailed clarification of intent, if you're willing. Or, should all this stuff just have to wait 'til the Nar. essay? Maybe that's for the best!

Hi Matt,

See Behavior vs. Intention for some background.

My only claim is that "intent" cannot be used as a unique explanatory term, in the model.

Anyone can point to any single term in the model, or any set or sequence of terms, and say "There's the intent!" That is 100% cool beans.

It is not valid to omit a term (and its qualities) and replace it with "intent." Nor is it valid to place "intent" into the model to play a unique role of its own.

But otherwise, hey, be happy and apply as you see fit. I have no doubt that people will do so in a wide variety of ways, but given the parameters I describe here, it shouldn't mean a thing to keep us from being on the same page.

Best,
Ron

Ok, actually, that helps quite a bit, Ron. Thanks.

EDIT: Wanted to also say that I had completely forgotten about that thread. Thanks for the link -- it should be insightfull "looking back" like that.