It's the new game that's thrilling millions! "De-Contextualize the (GNS) Model!"

Starting with Ron's model for the social interactions that produce roleplaying, recently clarified in this thread, agile minds attempt to show that it either 1) applies to things that aren't roleplaying, or 2) doesn't apply to some things that are roleplaying. Thus, by seeking out potential weaknesses or holes in the model, insights are gained and everyone benefits!

Are you ready to play? Good!

First, take the basic Venn diagram that Ron has put forward:

[Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda --> [Techniques [Ephemera]]]]]

Bob: "Why don't we go see the new Matrix movie? That'd be way cool. All those explosions and chicks in tight leather pants!"

Joe: "Yeah!"

[Bob imagines explosions and chicks in tight leather pants. Joe shares this vision, created shared imaginary space. However...]

Joe: "...But wait! The last movie had all that talking in it. Booooring! The fight scenes and computer animation were cool, but way too much talking."

Bob: "Sigh. I guess you're right."

[Joe has altered their shared vision to include lots of boring talk. Bob agrees with this alteration and they share their vision of explosions/chicks/talk, though it is not really satisfactory to either of them. Then...]

Bob: "...Hey! But if we have a few drinks before we go, we'll be tipsy enough to ignore all the talking and it'll be 100% great!"

Joe: "Totally! Let's do it!"

[Bob has altered their shared imaginary space again, adding booze and "fixing" the situation by minimalizing the effect of Joe's "talk" addition. He could have simply rejected Joe's claim that "the last film was so talky," but he instead accepted it and offered to alter it, which Joe allowed him to do.]

Hi Jonathan,

Forgive me for being obtuse, but Creative Agenda, being a verb, demands the group is *creating* something.

In the example you give, what is the group creating?

BTW, in answer to your 1965 question, what I see is a model for improvisational theater. Not a beat went by that I didn't see that as the answer as soon as I hit your question mark.

Best,
Christopher

Hey John,

I'm on the record in the past as saying that the model - in general - can be applied to many things, not just role-playing. Social Contract is, the root of all human interaction.

But, as you pennetrate through the layers of the model, I believe it does become more specific. Frex, the creative agendas, the specific techniques, ephemera, the 3 Mode of Play boxes themselves, all allign the model in the context of role-playing. After all, the model is called "GNS," not "Ron's Universal Social Contract Model." ;)

If you want to reverse engineer the model to include replacement techniques and creative agendas, you can come up with the "Football Model," or "World Politics Model" or whatever. I even find it useful to do that in some circumstances. :)

Paganini wrote: If you want to reverse engineer the model to include replacement techniques and creative agendas, you can come up with the "Football Model," or "World Politics Model" or whatever.

Andrew Martin wrote: I'm fairly sure we can reverse-engineer kids playing "Cops and Robbers" out of it.

Hello,

Tomas ... either there's a language issue at work, or you have presented a contradiction.

1. I agree with all of your post regarding how to define role-playing, which is to say, let's not define it too distinctly or real-world data will leave us trapped in too-limited ideas.

2. But then you state that my model is somehow "weakened" by Jonathan's proposal (or point, or whatever it is). At this point, I am staring at you strangely. Your points about definition support my model, in full.

I think what's happened is that you're buying into the same mistake Jonathan has made. Because my model is not presented as a definition of role-playing.

Jonathan, when you say:

If this is supposed to be an accurate description of roleplaying, you should be able to work backwards from it and always get something that is "roleplaying."

Ron Edwards wrote: 1. I agree with all of your post regarding how to define role-playing, which is to say, let's not define it too distinctly or real-world data will leave us trapped in too-limited ideas.

Ron Edwards wrote: 2. But then you state that my model is somehow "weakened" by Jonathan's proposal (or point, or whatever it is). At this point, I am staring at you strangely. Your points about definition support my model, in full.

Ron Edwards wrote: Because my model is not presented as a definition of role-playing.

Ron Edwards wrote: I think what's happened is that you're buying into the same mistake Jonathan has made. Because my model is not presented as a definition of role-playing.

... you are doing violence to my ideas and to their point. It's aggravating, to say the least. I completely disavow any such quality to the model that you are using as the basis for your point.

Whether the model applies to other human activities is irrelevant to me; the point to me is that it does apply to role-playing. ...Which, if I'm not mistaken, completely undercuts this thread. I literally don't see any new insight to saying "Hey, role-playing has to accord with similar constraints and presents similar opportunities as other human creative stuff!"

Christopher Kubasik wrote: In the example you give, what is the group creating?

Paganini wrote: But, as you pennetrate through the layers of the model, I believe it does become more specific. Frex, the creative agendas, the specific techniques, ephemera, the 3 Mode of Play boxes themselves, all allign the model in the context of role-playing.

Tomas HVM wrote: - Players and characters
- A method of interaction
- An interactive setting
- The creation of a drama

...However; Jonathan Walton seems to be a man of sound mind. I consider him to have placed his thumb on a weak spot in the GNS-model.

Christopher Kubasik wrote: In the example you give, what is the group creating?

What does the group create in roleplaying? An imaginative experience. In this case, imagining what their evening could potentially be like. The two participants are imagining things together, interacting and manipulating the shared imagined experience by adapting to each other's input. It's like the very beginning of a game of Universalis, the one which begins to form the shared imagined space.

Matt Snyder wrote:

, but I don't see that as creating anything, well, creative. What am I missing? Is the movie irrelevant to your point?

You could say that they are 'creating' a good time in their shared experience. That's a very tangible thing.
Just my 2 pennies.

The GM wrote: But isn't anyone who watches a movie with someone "creating" a good time, whether they made a game out of it or not?

Matt says:
>>I think it's misleading to characterize one's enjoyment as the result of being an audience member / reader / onlooker of art / listener / etc. as "creation" equivalent to the thing being watched / listened to / looked at, etc. <<

I didn't say that is was equivilant, just that it was 'creation'. Something did happen as a result of said actions in the example, it was tangible, it was created. Now, if we have a threshold as to what the minimum amount is required for 'creation' to be valid, that changes things.
Really, I'm being slightly contenscious, but I very well see the other poster's POV. I'm bowing out of this one, but I really don't think that the original poster's view is a wrong one in theory.

Hello,

Tomas, all of the phrases you are objecting to are directed to Jonathan, not to you.

Jonathan, I get it, but I don't get much out of it. So let the thread continue, and best of luck to everyone who wants to participate.

Best,
Ron

Speaking as someone who has tried to apply bits of the Creative Agenda Model to computer games, made small noises about it's application to toher collaborative media, and who regularly muddies discussions by bringing goddamn Star Trek into everything, I have to say my response to this thread has been a raise of an eybrow while waiting for the big revalation.

The model is descriptive of a range of collaborative creative processes that have historically been grouped together as role playing games. The fact that it approximates a description of collaborative creative processes in general shouldn't come as a surprise, no more than the fact that some dramatic, filmic, literary or ludic theories and models have an interesting relationship to the practice of role playing.

That the model suggests some modes of play that I've not considered before is something I find interesting: whether the model can be stretched to include guys choosing whether to get drunk before watching a mediocre film is frankly uninteresting on about as many levels as I can think of.

It's kind of like my reaction to Fritjof Capra's Tao of Physics. It's a great book... for anyone who doesn't know much about Taoism or quantum physics. To Taoists and quantum physicists, it's deeply annoying and obfuscatory.

Oh well, if I must join in... The matrix guys aren't creating a good time, they're selecting and consuming one.

Matt, I agree with you 100%, but you're missing my point completely. The two guy going to the movie is not, in my view, creation or modeled by Ron's description. It's EVERYTHING BEFORE THEY DECIDE TO GO THE MOVIE. All that negotiating. All that imagining. That's the creative process. Going to the Matrix drunk is not necessarily creation (though Lisa does have a few good points), but imagining what it would be like to go to the Matrix drunk IS. That's my point.

How about this example:

There's a meeting of the UN. World leaders are trying to decide how to deal with crisis X. The United States suggests declaring war on crisis X and goes into a detailed description of how this would be carried out.

Every member of the UN imagines the US solution, including the positive and negative side effects. In turn, they each share their thoughts, creating a shared imagined space in which all possible outcomes of the US plan are explored (or, even, Explored). Members float alternative suggestions. Members condemn aspects of the US plan which are then changed or dropped. Everybody has their own Creative Agenda, wanting to create a plan that best suits their own desires and needs.

I imagine that the UN has a rather disfuctional style of play, but that doesn't matter. The point is that everything they do, all this imagining that predates any real vote or decision, is all described by Ron's model. And here's the part that people don't seem to be getting. THIS IS INDEPENDENT OF ANY DECISION OR ACTION.

They don't have to actually DO anything about the crisis. Exploration of shared imaginary space is all that's required. They're creating plans in their heads within the shared imaginary environment. They're exploring the possibilities. And that can be described, according to this model, in the same terms as roleplaying.

Is that clearer, Matt? Pete?

Ok, so what we're looking at is:

People interact socially
They explore some imagined event / situation
They bring with them their own agenda relative to the event / situation which colors their social interaction.
They engage in various techniques in pursuit of their agenda and those techniques could be broken down further into various ephemera.

Observing the individual ephemere can tell us something about the techniques they're using.
Examining the combinations of techniques they're using can give us insight into their Agenda.


And this overall model can be applied to a variety of social interactions where where there is a shared imaginary space (like negotiating over what the implementation of a contract or policy decision will actually look like once its in place).


Is that pretty much the idea?
If so you get no real arguement with me, you've just constructed a generic social interaction model out of a specific roleplaying model.

You'd need to substitute different things for "what's being explored", and the types of techniques and ephemera used and a different selection of Agendas.

Now that you've had this epiphany, what are you thinking of applying it to?

Jonathan Walton wrote: Matt, I agree with you 100%, but you're missing my point completely. The two guy going to the movie is not, in my view, creation or modeled by Ron's description. It's EVERYTHING BEFORE THEY DECIDE TO GO THE MOVIE. All that negotiating. All that imagining. That's the creative process. Going to the Matrix drunk is not necessarily creation (though Lisa does have a few good points), but imagining what it would be like to go to the Matrix drunk IS. That's my point.

Is that clearer, Matt? Pete?

Well, the idea would be that if Jonathan's supposition were correct that we could apply theory from the linked areas of activity to RPGs. But I think that happens already. I mean, we already do disuss psychology as it pertains to the different levels of the model.

I guess my point is that we sorta already do assume that it's all connected and bring in applicable theory from other areas. Is there some area that we've ignored? If so, that's probably less because we didn't think it was applicable, and more because we just hadn't thought of it.

Mike

Matt Snyder wrote: I may just be misreading or mis-remembering. I think in the other thread you said this model applied to any collaborative creation. Now you're saying it's "shared imaginative space." I do not agree that those two terms are synonymous...

Mike Holmes wrote: Well, the idea would be that if Jonathan's supposition were correct that we could apply theory from the linked areas of activity to RPGs.

Valamir wrote: Now that you've had this epiphany, what are you thinking of applying it to?

Well, its no big surprise that roleplaying and social interaction overlap.

Most every person you know spends the majority of every waking moment of their lives roleplaying.

In the meeting at work where you play the part of dedicated employee who fully buys into the new corporate initiative. To the lunch with your co workers where you play the part of the disgruntled employee who thinks the corporate initiative is a bunch of crap.

How many of us have played the part of the dutifull spouse when what we really want to do is say "screw this I'm going out with my friends"?

With one group of friends you tell raunchy, disgusting, tasteless jokes. At Grandma's house your jokes are so clean as to be corny.

What are all of these if not roleplaying. One might say that what makes our Roleplaying different is that the world we're sharing is an imaginary one. Hmmm, seems to me the world of the dedicated employee and dutifull spouse is also often pretty durned imaginary too.

So no surprise at all to me that structureally these activities have a lot of similiarities.

But where I think they depart from each other is when one starts to break open the little black boxes of the Venn diagram.

I don't think "Gamist, Simulationist, or Narrativist" has any real meaning for a broader social context. Sure the "Agenda" box is still there; but it isn't the same selection of Agendas.

Likewise I think the "Explore" box is also there, but the elements being explored aren't character, setting, situation, system and color.


I think the framework may have some universal application, but the contents of the individual boxes are very specialized for RPGs. To apply to other activities one would need to invent different contents for the boxes IMO.

Jonathan Walton wrote:
-- "Freeform" or "systemless" roleplaying is perhaps the most natural, the most instinctive thing there is. *snip*

-- It's really, really easy to reach Exploration, if you accept the Social Contract that already exists. How easy is it to walk up to somebody you know only vaguely and ask them to imagine something with you? You ask them "What do you think about Hamlet?" and, through your conversation, your agreements and disagreements, you create an shared vision of what Hamlet is like. Even if you don't agree, your vision includes the disagreements and you gain a greater understanding of each other. Taken to extremes, almost all interactions are, in some way, Exploration, because they deal with constructing mental images of other people through what they say and do. However, very rarely do we, as designers, trust that these kinds of interactions will produce interesting play. We create systems to facilitate or inhibit them. In some ways, we take all the processes that already work and have been "playtested" for years and years and hotwire them to work in unnatural ways. This can be fun, sure, and broadens the possibilities of interaction, but doesn't have to be the only way.

I'm afraid I think there is a massive practical difference between shared imagination and a creative agenda, and that the categories are not as broad as they appear.

I think that deciding whether to go see a movie or not does constitute shared imagining, but it does not consttute a creative agenda. And that has an important consequence for the *significance* of the coherence of the imaginative space. That is, if you are going out to implement something, you have a vested interest in everyone sticking to one concept; coherence of the imaginatiove space is important where there is an actual CA, whereas this is not true of every act of shared imagining.

It is precisely because there is a disagreement in the shared imagining about the movie that the proposed action, to see it, is NOT enacted. The plan fails becuase the participants do NOT agree in the imaginative space.

Now, if you set out with a social contract to achieve a specific thing, then this form of disagreement is not possible. A better example would be something like Scrapheap Challenge: mechanics let loose on a junkyard have to build some device to achieve a specific goal. The other night they were trying to curl mini's across ice. For each team to even go out an scavenge components, they must all first agree what the machine is going to look like and on its operating principles: without such knowledge, they cannot make useful selections from the available junk. Failure to agree on an shared imaginative space means failure to even start building the machine.

It is the intent to create which gives the need for a coherent imagniative space its bite. Without that context, the problems inherent to a contradictory imaginative space are not important problems, and you can go onto something else. The social contract is governing real people in the real world with a real objective, not merely a notional or abstract interest in creativity or exploration broadly.

I'm with Paganini: I've long said that GNS categories apply beyond roleplaying games. (I've also said the same about DFK mechanics.)

Most sports, the vast majority of board games and card games, and many war games are gamist in their priorities. This is hardly surprising. No, they aren't fully integrated into the theory because in most cases the amount of imaginative creativity is very low--but given gamist priorities, those are generally the "trappings" of the game, the context in which we place our competition. It's a bit like the difference between a miniature golf course which lays out difficult golf-course-like "sand" and water traps versus one that has moving dinosaur statues to play through--it's background to the game, not the point of the game.

Improvisational theatre frequently represents narrativist priorities, but there are other types of games and interactive entertainments that do.

Simulationist priorities can be found in reenactments and in some wargames (those played to find out what would have happened, rather than in competition with the opponent).

I think that GNS priorities also apply to some writing styles. Travelogues are almost certainly simulationist. Some adventure books reflect gamist priorities (the excitement comes from the challenges that arise and how the hero overcomes them, without any reference to moral, ethical, or personal issues), and genuine mysteries (Conan-Doyle, Christie, James, Peters) are almost certainly gamist, as they challenge the reader to find the solution before the detective does so. The vast majority of that which is designated "literature" by professors of English is narrativist, exploring issues.

So the model expands beyond roleplaying at many points. It is a model which discusses a specific intersection between social interaction and creative recreation, and it will inherently be related to social interactions, creativity, and recreation at many points.

Certainly there are places where they differ, even when they're close, and sometimes there are aspects of the model that address that (how does stance relate to the original example?). Meanwhile, yes, the theory is descriptive of much that is not roleplaying, at least in some aspects.

--M. J. Young