I've been doing some thinking, about roleplaying discussion and the existing theoretical models. I've also been doing some writing. I could do this forever by myself, but since that wouldn't make much point, I'd like to share.

http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/ravela/4D/basics.html

Behind the link there is a model which defines methods, immersion, realism and narration and calls them dimensions. Somewhere in there it should say something like "most talk about roleplaying preferences can be defined as statements about the how the dimensions are (considered to be) related."

It all starts with the following:

"
In discussion about roleplaying, like in discussion about anything, there should be an agreement on what the subject is. To recognize it, two things should be noted. First, most statements are either about one part of the game in particular, or about how the different parts are related. Meaningful statements about several parts of the game at once are often not. Secondly, statements mostly only refer to either roleplaying games, or the gameplay, or the gamers. Meaningful statements about several of these, again, are often not.

This model is created for use in discussion about roleplaying preferences. It should be recognized, that each of the presented "four dimensions of roleplaying" can be divided into subsets, and when used in discussion, one should make sure that he really means to refer to all of the subsets at once and not just some of them. Recognition of the subsets could possibly be seen as a slightly separate issue from the model itself, but I will integrate some of that here" (note: it's not there yet) "When applied to actual gameplay, this model is about preferences in decision-making.

The name of this model comes from the acknowledgement, that the preferences considering roleplaying games and roleplaying move in a multi-dimensional field, in which each dimension represents one and only one part of a game. Thus a certain level of preference in one dimension by definition never requires any specific level of preference in any other dimension. In other words, what you think about one part of the game does not in itself say anything about what you think about the other parts.
"

Personally, I feel pompous and stupid when stating "I have created a model", when all I really meant to do was define some words so I could use them in discussion. But it all got a little out of hand, it looks like a model about something already, and I'm not even finished. I've already planned on expanding the explanations of each of the methods with four separate pages (I think in hypertext), but haven't done it yet. I think some feedback would be very welcome, before I really get lost in what I'm doing. At the moment, I have no idea what this even looks like when read by other people.

Here's some personal notes:
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/ravela/4D/personal.html

The pages are not really meant for public yet, so please don't comment on the looks. I'm not sure they ever will be. I just think in hypertext, and sometimes it helps to write that way too.

By the way, this is my first post here, and I can't help feeling out of my depth with all this. Somehow, I just don't feel like a theorist.

Oh great. Naturally, the server went down. So, here it is. It should propably be an article, but I really want some feedback first.

I'll also quote a bit on the personal notes:

"
This is not all about semantics. By dividing roleplaying into four separate parts, already make an implicit statement about what roleplaying is. Also, if there is an agenda to be found behind this model, it would be in the underlying notion that all the different ways of roleplaying are equal, and that there is no such things as "true roleplaying". To reach for the ultimate experience, one should admit himself to be biased and propably dive deep into the dimensions of choice and claim the other dimensions inferior, with the understanding that it's all based on preference.
"

So the dimensions are not selected randomly. I claim that these four parts are major defining factors of roleplaying games. At least one, maybe two of these parts can be ignored and still call the game roleplaying, but I'd say ignoring two would be stretching it.

The Four-dimensional Model

To set the field, it should be noted that roleplaying games, roleplaying and roleplayers are all handled separately here. No solid definitions on what these three are and how exactly they are apart are given. I suspect that people have a satisfactory intuitive understanding of them even without the definitions. I don't want not attempt to define roleplaying, even though it could be done using the definitions I have made for the different parts of the game. (Some explanation on this choice can be found in metadiscussion, when the site comes up).

To understand this model, it should be enough to consider "the game" to mean the part which comes before the playing starts; in the classical case, the books and the plans of the gamemaster. It's not exactly what I meant, but propably close enough. Roleplaying means the actual gameplay; it's the time when the participants communicate by the media of their choice and decisions on the events of the game are being made. Roleplayers are the people who play roleplaying games, or the people who take part in roleplaying.

The Four Dimensions of Roleplaying Games

Roleplaying games can be divided into four separate parts, which are only related by personal preferences. These parts, or dimensions, are Methods, Immersion, Realism and Narration. When designing or planning a roleplaying game, decisions should be made on how these are meant to relate to each other. (This refers to both creating a game for publishing and setting up a gaming campaign.) Definitions are as follows:



Method: a chosen form or style of roleplaying. Methods are the acknowledged rules and agreements of the game, both explicit and implicit. In other words, methods are all the rules, both social and mechanical, of both the game and the metagame in which the participants recognize and have agreed on.

Immersion: ignoring things not known to the subject (usually a character) and emotional involvement in the psychological situation of the subject, when making decisions about the subjects behaviour in the game.

Realism: contextual possibility, plausibility and consistency. In other words, within the reality of the game, can it happen, would it happen, and does it fit with what has been previously established?

Narration: stories and how they're told. In decision-making, narration refers to the considerement of storylines, themes and dramatic style.



The Four Principles of Gameplay

From the four given definitions we can extrapolate four principles for the decisions made during the actual gameplay. (I would call them rules, but I'm afraid people would find that confusing.) The principles are Methodical, Immersive, Realistic and Narrative gameplay. Each holds within a value-statement on what is needed for good roleplaying, and sets limitations on what can be done in a gaming session. These principles can be considered methods, but only if all participants agree on and acknowledge which ones are in use. This is not necessarily the case, and disagreement on which principles are followed is a common cause for conflict between participants during the game.

These are not mutually exclusive in theory, but in practise the statements can and propably will come to conflict. All four principles can even be upheld simultaneously, but such a game would propably be filled with compromise and so would not be the most enjoyable of games. Still, these can be acknowledged as methods or guidelines, and they can help in creating a good gaming experience amongst people with different gaming preferences. All can be used in part or in whole, and after a gaming session, all participants should be able to judge which principles were actually followed. The principles can also be called styles of roleplaying, and the definitions are as follows:



Methodical: rules and agreements of the game and metagame are not broken during the lenght of a game.

Immersive: decisions are not made showing ignorance to the subjects (usually a character) psychological state or revealing the use of information unavailable for the subject.

Realistic: events are not impossible, implausible or inconsistent within the set context of the game.

Narrative: decisions do not cause the themes or storylines of the game to break. Dramatic preferences are considered in decision-making.



The Four Types of Roleplayers

We can use the four principles of roleplaying to identify four types of roleplayers. Those would be Methodist, Immersionist, Realist and Narrationist. A player can be all things at once, but will propably consider some dimensions to be more important or superior than others, and can so be defined as being mainly of one type. For clarity, and for ease of use within biased contexts, understated and overstated definitions are also provided.

Many roleplayers believe to be "of the typical type", and might want to challenge the existence of the groups which they don't belong to, or claim that all roleplayers are part of a group they do belong to. I claim that every one of these groups has some members and none of the groups have no members.



Methodist: prefers the methods of the game to be clearly defined, easily implemented and unbroken for the lenght of the game.

Immersionist: prefers the in-character stance as a basis for decision-making.

Realist: prefers that events in the game are realistic.

Narrationist: prefers decisions which support the themes, storylines and dramatic style of the game.



Understated:


Methodist: interested in the methods, conventions and their use in the game.

Immersionist: interested in the psychological experiences of the subjects (characters).

Realist: interested in the possibility and consistency of the events in game context.

Narrationist: interested in the storylines, themes and dramatic style of the game.



Overstated:


Methodist: requires methods to be unchallengeable during the lenght of the game to enjoy a game.

Immersionist: makes all decisions based purely on the in-character stance.

Realist: requires all game events to be completely realistic to enjoy a game.

Narrationist: makes all decisions based on storyline, theme and preferred dramatic effect.

Welcome to the Forge, Itse; thank you for sharing your ideas. The English is a bit rough in places, but I think I worked out most of it, and it looks interesting.

What I don't really see in the model is a place for gamist play.

If I understand aright, you've identified these four concepts:

• Methodist: Making decisions based primarily on what the game system would suggest;• Immersionist: Making decisions based on imputed character desires, beliefs, and information;• Realist: Making decisions based on what would really happen in such a world; and• Narrationist: Making decisions that promote stories and solid story elements.

What I don't see would be

• ??: Making decisions based on what will promote the player objective of beating the scenario.


This may be uncommon in your experience; what we've seen of Helsinki and other Norwegian role playing theory here (to grossly simplify and overgeneralize what is a rich and wonderful area of thought and play) suggests emphasis on what we call simulationism and narrativism, and very little of the competitive or show-off aspects that drive gamism. Here in America (and I think in other English-speaking countries) there are strong gamist influences--a lot of people do play for the challenge, often using their characters as pawns to achieve the objective, defeat the obstacles, and gain the prize, trying to impress each other with clever tactics and bold successes.

I'm afraid I've used some local jargon in an effort to be brief; you'll find a lot of the explanatory materials in the articles section, and I'm sure if you ask questions you'll get answers, frequently in the form of links to older threads where these were explained. There's something of a steep learning curve here, I'm afraid, because we talk about theory so much that we've devised something of our own language for it.

Personally, I had despaired of having a unifying definition of role playing until just recently, as development of the Lumpley Principle helped me see something significant. I think that the single unifying/defining characteristic of role playing games is this: players cooperatively create events within a shared imaginary space. If that's happening, you have a role playing game. Most of what you've addressed appear to me to be techniques: how do players cooperatively create events within a shared imaginary space? More specifically, you seem to be asking how any one player decides what types of events he (and perhaps others) should create within that space.

It also strikes me that your four methods all seem to be limitations; what they say really is, This player will not create any event that is outside these parameters. What they don't tell me is why this player would create any event at all. You've presented some very interesting filters on our conduct (which I will agree appear to be valid, and applied in different degrees by different players, possibly even with players giving precedence to one over another in some significant or revealing order), but you haven't given what drives them to do this in the first place.

I hope that helps.

--M. J. Young

The comment on roleplaying in Scandinavia is only partially true. I can only speak for Norway, so I will. In LARP there is a trend of sim and nar-style playing, but there is still a strong gamist element, usually among the younger and less-recognised players and larpwrights. In roleplaying there is little theory, little avant-garde, and gamism or playing-for-the-heck-of-it is going very strong indeed.

I agree that the model lacks a goal-oriented category, a category where the player plays for the gratification of the player only, call it gamism if you want to.

And I have a bit of a problem grasping the Methodist dimension; does the player play for the thrill of upholding a rules system, or is the point to "stay true to the game". I'm not saying i think it's crap, just that I dont understand it.

Aksel, you friendly norseman

Thank you for the comments.

does the player play for the thrill of upholding a rules system, or is the point to "stay true to the game". I'm not saying i think it's crap, just that I dont understand it.

If I understand aright, you've identified these four concepts:

1. Methodist: Making decisions based primarily on what the game system would suggest;
2. Immersionist: Making decisions based on imputed character desires, beliefs, and information;
3. Realist: Making decisions based on what would really happen in such a world; and
4. Narrationist: Making decisions that promote stories and solid story elements.

* ??: Making decisions based on what will promote the player objective of beating the scenario.

I think that the single unifying/defining characteristic of role playing games is this: players cooperatively create events within a shared imaginary space. If that's happening, you have a role playing game.

Itse, you wrote:

"(I'm not a goal-oriented gamer)"

and provided us with a very interesting model of RP experience which has many more points of contact with what people around the Forge tend to call Simulationism than with other modes of play, IMO.

I wonder what you would think of Ron Edwards' essay "Simulationism: The Right to Dream" at

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/

and how you see those thoughts as connecting up with your own views about role-playing.

I'm pleased to have been of some help. I was going to let you think about it all for a while, but there was one point I thought needed to be addressed.

Quoting me, Risto 'Itse' Revela wrote:

I think that the single unifying/defining characteristic of role playing games is this: players cooperatively create events within a shared imaginary space. If that's happening, you have a role playing game.

You know, a lot of people would disagree with you, and I would be one of them. I think roleplaying games should have rules.

(I just took about an hour and a half to write a reply. Then when I was just about to send, I accidentally hit Ctrl-R instead of Shift-R. So, here it is, again. I hope it doesn't loose much in the repetition process.)

MJ:

What makes it a role playing game is that there is some set of rules, sometimes including explicity components but always including implicit components, by which everyone involved in the game agrees as to what is happening in the shared imaginary space.

Does that make sense?

a very interesting model of RP experience which has many more points of contact with what people around the Forge tend to call Simulationism than with other modes of play, IMO.

from "Simulationism: The Right to Dream"

It's a hard realization: devoted Simulationist play is a fringe interest

From "Burger's School of Roleplaying":

However, my interest in roleplaying lies in telling stories and creating an interesting chronological narrative of adventures, events and character development, similar to that found in literature, or in movies where events take place along a prolonged chronological continuum. While it does not exclude character immersion as a possible goal for the players (and I am always ready applaud to good roleplayers, like most of the LARPers I know), my task as a gamemaster is to be a gate between the setting which is where the characters are, and the real world which is where me and my players reside. I am telling a story and the players listen, giving feedback and suggestions in the form of character actions. But my focus, my sole purpose of existence during a roleplaying session is to tell that story! Period.

from "Narrativism: Story Now"
In Narrativism, by contrast, the major source of themes are the ones that are brought to the table by the players / GM (if there is one) regardless of the genre or setting used. So, to sum up, themes in Nar play are created by the participants and that's the point; themes in Sim play are already present in the Dream, reinforced by the play, and kind of a by-product.

(also:)
Narrativist play makes special use of the general role-playing principle that the participants are simultaneously authors and audience

from "You Suck!":

"The game shouldn't pose character immersion as the only goal in role-playing games." -shpr I'm sorry, but for me it is the only goal.

Personally, I hate rules. They're a remnant from strategy games, and rarely do anything to enhance role-playing.

From "Simulationism: The Right to Dream":

different types of Simulationist play can address very different things, ranging from a focus on characters' most deep-psychology processes, to a focus on the kinetic impact and physiological effects of weapons, to a focus on economic trends and politics, and more.

Clearly, System is a major design element here, as the causal anchor among the other elements. As I outlined in the previous essay, System is mainly composed of character creation, resolution, and reward mechanics.

The game engine, whatever it might be, is not to be messed with.

From "GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing Theory"

Simulationism heightens and focuses Exploration as the priority of play

(and a little before that)

Character: a fictional person or entity.
System: a means by which in-game events are determined to occur.
Setting: where the character is, in the broadest sense
Situation: a problem or circumstance faced by the character.
Color: any details or illustrations or nuances that provide atmosphere.

Great discussion. But I have to take a time out:

You know, a lot of people would disagree with you, and I would be one of them. I think roleplaying games should have rules. Some people would say that it's a game, and so there should be challenges. Some people would say that without the immersive aspect it's not true roleplaying. Preferences. You don't seem to consider methods or realism important. That's fine, but it's just a preference

Hi, Itse -

Well, I don't feel a need to argue GNS with you if you don't like it. I will say that reading over your post tended to confirm my first impression that you were primarily Sim-oriented (or at least theorize your experience in a Sim-oriented way), and the way Ville describes himself (story-oriented but immersion-neutral) sure sounds like someone who knows how to get Narrativist play going to me. But I don't find his description to be at all inconsistent with Ron's definitions, at least in the paragraph you quote.

GNS as I understand it is primarily about what you want out of your role-playing and what is fun for you in role-playing. Well, and the ways to get that, of course. A historical pitfall of RPG design is that many games have 'wanted' to facilitate Gam or Nar and gotten bogged down (relative to those design goals) in concerns that are more facilitating to Sim-oriented play. One reason, perhaps, for the 80% of 'fudgers' in your club is that they are playing games that don't really facilitate what they want to be getting out of them. (Poor facilitation of creative agenda by many games is also one reason for the myth that 'strong GMs' are needed, I think, but no point discussing that in this thread.)

Thanks for the interesting posts!

Mike Holmes:

Itse, this statmement is more titantically ironic than you can know. MJ is a game designer, you see. MJ, how long is Multiverser? Itse, MJ is more about the rules than the vast majority of designers.

Sean:

Well, I don't feel a need to argue GNS with you if you don't like it.

Risto's model is a complex topic to evaluate, as there is a strong functional element to it all. Whether to give feedback about internal consistency, or about usefullness, that's the problem. No wonder only few have felt they have anything to say.

Itse wrote:

does the player play for the thrill of upholding a rules system, or is the point to "stay true to the game". I'm not saying i think it's crap, just that I dont understand it.

A good question, but this model does not answer it. "Ask the methodist."

This model is not about "why", it's about "what" and "how". This model does not mean to answer the question of "why people play" or "why people like x". It's about "roleplaying games have parts A, B, C and D, and people can be pretty neatly defined by how they consider these things to be related". It's also about "if you play considering A, you can get along with players who like A." Trying to figure out why people do the things they do is very difficult, and someone else can go there. (Actually, other people already have.)

Oh, about the realism. That's one of the things I wanted to pick out and say "this is a big thing in RPG's". Yes, I would say that it's bigger than in any other narrative art form. The easiest way to notice the difference is to look at just about any film with super powers; I don't recall ever seeing a film, in which the powers of the supernaturals are defined in a consistent way. In any other art form, it's quite okay that a person can first bend iron bars but not lift a car, even if bending those bars would've actually taken much more strength than lifting the car. Or vice versa. If you asked Joss Whedon who was the stronger one of two demons Buffy fought in two different episodes, would he have an answer? Quite propably not. It's not an issue. In RPG's, it is. In RPG, you mostly can't just come up with things like "oh and now he hits his hand through the wall". You'd consider the strength of the wall and the strength of the blow. Realism.

In RPG, you mostly can't just come up with things like "oh and now he hits his hand through the wall". You'd consider the strength of the wall and the strength of the blow. Realism.

To add something, I'd say that now that we have five dimensions (methods, immersion, realism, narration and challenges, if more dimensions seem necessary, I might have to abandon this), an rpg should propably have at least three of them. Pick any three.

Sometimes it's much better when it's someone else explaining your stuff. Thank you Eero.

Realism is, however, entirely voluntary, and in no way central to roleplaying. The same holds, as we have discussed, for immersionism (which I indeed consider closely related ideas).

So you'd finally consider Once Upon a Time (methods+narration+challenges) a roleplaying game? Seems we are progressing :)

Realism is a red herring: whos realism, which realism...?

Are we really talking about...

1. Consistency
2. Authenticity
or
3. Plausibility

All three are quite separate, yet can be mutually re-inforcing.

Generally, I'd say that all three are desirable for an RPG. Realism.. ach, I get enough of that in real life.

pete_darby:

Are we really talking about...

1. Consistency
2. Authenticity
or
3. Plausibility

All three are quite separate, yet can be mutually re-inforcing

Five-Dimensional model:

Realism: contextual possibility, plausibility and consistency. In other words, within the reality of the game, can it happen, would it happen, and does it fit with what has been previously established?

Itse wrote:
That's exactly the kind of things I would like to be discussed. One way of looking at my model would be: "are preferential issues about these dimensions central to a lot of rpg-discussion". It aims to be more than that, but that in itself would be nice.

When I look around, I find realism to have a lot to do with roleplaying. Not for you, I know, but a lot of people consider realism to be important, and demand it in any game they play. They are unsatisfied if it's not there. Much effort is usually put into setting the context, because without clearly setting the context you can't have contextual reality, and most people are uncomfortable without it. Lots of rules also helps to establish the context, if they form an understandable whole. If the plaintext explanation of the world doesn't match the rules, the context becomes muddled, and some people get uncomfortable again.

The above would be saying something to game designers actually. (Didn't mean to, really.) But it seems that many designers have already noted this, since games tend to have explanations about what is not important in the game. Some games want to rule out challenge. Some new games rule out immersion. From this point of view, Myrskyn Aika took a beating because it didn't say what it was and was not about, and so people just looked for the usual stuff and were disappointed.

The thing I might argue about OPaT that most of the games I've played in were not really narrative. They didn't really consider themes, plots or dramatic style. In other words, it's supposed to create stories, but actually it just tends to create a nonsensical series of events. Maybe that's what makes it a borderline case.

By the way, if I did try to define roleplaying, I'd look for specific definitive methods and draw the line there.

Eero Tuovinen:

- Illusionist play practice should be easily definable, as it's one of the more usual stumbling blocks

- 4D defines the most common illusionist preference as high on immersion and possibly high on narration

- GNS interpretation illusionism being about narrative control.

- it's about who and how decides on the plot.

One common foible of roleplayers is that powergamer thing mentioned above. By 4D it's about challenge/method play preference clashing with the others, I believe. Here we'd probably need Risto's thoughts on how the preferences aren't actually mutually exclusive

it seems that what ever it is 4D does, it isn't about the control of the diegesis (narrative control), one of the most central parts of play experience and the source of many disagreements. Is this because Risto is a strong GM kind of guy

we haven't yet heard how Risto works the difference between player and GM preferences

Dimensional model:

"When planning a roleplaying game, decisions should be made on how these are meant to relate to each other".

There could be a sixth dimension, participation. Does the player get to experience and influence game events?

It might be that this model is getting bloated. I don't mind at the moment, since this is the building phase anyway. It might be that all this ends up to be a bunch of gameplay advice on how to deal with certain problems. That'd be fine with me.

Issues concerning participation:
Participation vs. Method: "I'm just rolling dice here, I'm just a spectator on how my character is doing."
Participation vs. Immersion: "my character just wants to be left alone" "go away, your character doesn't hear this."
Participation vs. Realism: "your character wouldn't be there"
Participation vs. Narration: "I don't know what to do with the story" "good story, but we were just an audience"
Participation vs. Challenge: Hmm, not much of an issue really.

Challenge always means participation, without it there's no challenge. Is one actually a part of the other, or are they both parts of something else?

I would say that Challenge is actually a part of Participation, since participation is about both experience and influence, and influence is what challenge is about. What the players do decides things. Challenge means influence means participation, and participation usually means challenge.

Although Challenge is such a big issue that it's pretty much a dimension in itself.

Hmm. I wonder where this is going at?

Itse wrote:
It might be that this model is getting bloated. I don't mind at the moment, since this is the building phase anyway. It might be that all this ends up to be a bunch of gameplay advice on how to deal with certain problems. That'd be fine with me.

Hmm. I wonder where this is going at?

Eero, good work on being "translator" of our dialectic to Risto. Risto, I think that the hardest problem that I'm having is finding the purpose of this model. All models like this describe RPGs in some fashion, but they have to have a goal, else one gets to the point that they have to create an infinitely complex model to represent the infinitely complex thing.

GNS does not try to discuss everything about RPGs. It only points to categorizations of priorities in play that have a tendency to conflict. As such the end product is useful in thwarting these issues.

So I find it hard to get into this discussion without knowing why you're making the model in the first place. What will I be able to do with an RPG categorized with the model that I wouldn't have been able to do with it previously once I understand the model?

Mike

Why I tried to form a model instead of just defining words?

Because the words in themselves are not as useful. There are a lot of words, but we don't really need them all. By coming up with more words we are more often than not just complicating things. If everybody tries to define the same things with words that are a little different from the ones the other guy used, messages get muddled. You can build a thousand tools, but mostly people need just a few. That's why it's a model. A model is limited. Sometimes limits are good.

Most rpg-conversation actually roll around just a few subjects, yet people mostly don't see that.

if there is a disagreement on, say, how I as a player have to know all kinds of fiddly bits about swordplay to play an effective fighter in this given system, in what way is it more useful to resort to the model here?

From what it sounds like, you're model is a lot like the intention of GNS, to stop problems before they start. That's fine, it's all I really wanted to know. I just hadn't seen that stated up front anywhere.

You can't say much anything about a player who is labeled a simulationist. You even can't say that two simulationists would propably get along.

Mike Holmes wrote:

From what it sounds like, you're model is a lot like the intention of GNS, to stop problems before they start. That's fine, it's all I really wanted to know. I just hadn't seen that stated up front anywhere.

When designing or planning a roleplaying game, decisions should be made on how these are meant to relate to each other.

That's the point of the model. If two players prefer simulationism, then they're more likely to get along.

Now, if you're going to tell me that the model that you're creating will narrow down all play to the point that no problems of hair-splitting will ever occur, then I think you're incorrect.

If your model simply intends to narrow down these broad areas to someting more concrete, then by all means, I'd love to see it.

So, far it looks to still be largely in a state of flux. Is that your assessment, or is it closer to done than it seems?

Itse wrote:
I'm not sure. It's not done, that's for sure. This is just one of those things which can't be done if there's no feedback, that's the reason for posting. The other thing I was after when posting it was to see if anyone else saw anything interesting or useful in it. It seems that mostly they don't, at least not here. Of course, since this is not the "target audience", I'm not totally ready to dump it. I might take a tangent.

I'm a little surpised to see that people seem to be so satisfied with the GNS-model, which could be one of the reasons they don't see a point here. (Actually I'm a bit surprised that people are so eager to compare, when it seems pretty obvious to me that this model and the GNS are not really that closely related in spirit or in practise.)

There do seem to be some communication issues. But that's a normal part of life.

First off, "likely" means a tendency. No GNS doesn't garuntee you that all Sim players will get along. But it does say that one basic area of friction is eliminated in general terms, meaning that they are more "likely" to get along. Yes, it only speaks in tendencies.

But again, my point is that I think you'll only ever be able to speak in tendencies on these issues. Now, you think that the axes that you're looking at will be more effective as such a model? Well, then I'm all for it. You seem to think that I'm putting down your effort, somehow. I'm not, I'm just trying to understand it.

One thing that's confusing is that you say that your model is about avoiding problems, which is exactly what GNS is about. Then you say that the models are not similar. I think that either I'm missing something about what your model is about (not likely, you've been abundantly clear), or you're not really sure what the GNS model is for. The other possibilty is that I don't know what the GNS model is for, but you'll have to forgive me if I think that's rather unlikely.

As for this stuff getting a lack of attention, I showed up precisely because I felt that was the case, and that this should have more attention than it's getting. I'm sorry that my attempts at creating discussion have been so poor to date.

Mike

First off, "likely" means a tendency. No GNS doesn't garuntee you that all Sim players will get along. But it does say that one basic area of friction is eliminated in general terms, meaning that they are more "likely" to get along. Yes, it only speaks in tendencies.

You seem to think that I'm putting down your effort, somehow. I'm not, I'm just trying to understand it.

One thing that's confusing is that you say that your model is about avoiding problems, which is exactly what GNS is about. Then you say that the models are not similar.

As for this stuff getting a lack of attention, I showed up precisely because I felt that was the case, and that this should have more attention than it's getting. I'm sorry that my attempts at creating discussion have been so poor to date.

I can't explain this very clearly. As I see it, GNS and my "model" are broadly speaking about the same thing, but they look at it from very different angles and they try to analyze different parts of it. (GNS starts from "what people want and why", my model ignores half of that and approaches the other half from the opposite direction.)

All sounds good to me, Risto. Even Ron wouldn't say that his theory is flawless or anything - there's always room for improvement, or looking at things from new angles. So here's me hoping that you get it ironed out more.

What at this point do you see as being the biggest problems with your model? What's not complete about it in your opinion?

Mike