It occured to me, quite a while back, that if one understood what one was doing, that one could, in play, decide to make decisions that were congruent more often. Ron's theory is based on the concept that, at some points in play, decisions will arise that make the agenda apparent because whatever you decide is revealing. But I think that's only true most of the time of those who aren't educated in the theory. That is, if you're educated in the three modes and what they entail, you can personally try to keep your decisions more congruent. In this way, you make your play such that it's less likely to be incompatible to players who are playing with you.

Note that I think that this style wouldn't be easy to do. It means that you have to look at decisions more carefully than you do already as a player, and often will have to think hard to come up with the solution. Often the first two solutions to a dillemma that you come up with will be the ones that reaveal as being one mode or another. But if you think about it, you can come up with ones that satisfy more that one, or all three modes at once.

Now, this does have the slight possibility that some players might detect the effort itself, and see that as offensive. But if one were to train onself, and only do it when it didn't take too much effort, and wasn't revealing that way wouldn't that be an improvement in play?

Does Omni-play seem viable? How about at least two mode play?

Mike

Mike,

As I often do, I think you're off your nut. (I kid, really.)

The idea of omni-play seems somewhat repellent. I don't want to say impossible, for it might well be within someone's grasp. Let me see if I can break down my objection.

- A person is apt to follow a certain Creative Agenda because they enjoy it.
- Purposefully following a Creative Agenda not only ignores the usual fun -> type of play line of reasoning, but in this case, chooses mode over enjoyment.

Oh. That was easy. The mode is only a way to express what you enjoy in a game. Choosing a mode explicitly overrides that, and turns things around.

But, personally, I like all three modes. So, for me is it OK?

I mean, I'd enjoy playing this way. So, if that's the case, is it OK for me to try it?

I'm not saying that there's some mandate to play this way. I'm asking if it's a valid style for those who might enjoy it.

Mike

Hey Mike,

On the decision by decision level, I think most play already appears to be "omni-play", even when the player making the decision is prioritizing one aspect of the three modes.

I'm not really sure that the degree of congruency could be increased substantially by actively adjusting for it. After all, a decision you may see as being congruent could be seen as an "obvious" tell of a particular mode by another player.

It would be interesting to try though, if just for the challenge.

-Chris

Hi Mike,

Mike, who dare tell you not to try? They'll sure get a tsk-tsking from me.

As Chris said, I think this approach may be more common it sounds at first. At least it reminds me of thoughts I've had over the last couple years. since Vincent got bitten by the narrativism bug and started lobbying our group to adopt that viewpoint consciously when we played.

So, at any given juncture, my old by-words might have been: "What would this character do", or "what would be likely to happen" etc, now it is: "what will (within my understanding of the characters/setting etc) produce the most interesting results?" or "which choice will create the most havoc/pathos/development?" And the reason was because I'd been invited to do so by someone else.

That hasn't undermined the fun, Ralph, just made it so that I'm looking for a different kind of fun. If I didn't dig it, it would be a different picture, of course.

We always make choices, it's just a matter of how conscious we are of them, and what our motivations are.

Best,
Emily Care

Good points all.

Emily, those who'd be right to tell me that I shouldn't play this way, are those who might be annoyed by it somehow. That is, I'm asking if this has the potential to produce bad play somehow.

I agree that it's pretty common in some ways. In fact, that's a subtle point I was trying to make. Thanks. :-)

Mike

That hasn't undermined the fun, Ralph,

Sorry Ralph, didn't mean to invoke your name in vain.

Valamir wrote:

That hasn't undermined the fun, Ralph,

...er?...

Mike, I agree. :) And I both do and enjoy Omni play.

Nathan, I was going to protest, at first reacting that you're a pervy nar monkey. But you know what? I think you're right. At least, I've been very satisfied with the exploration that you've done in my game lately. So, good on ya mate!

:-)

From another POV, this could merely be seen as adherence to the Creative Agenda that we've come to in the game. But I think there's something subtle in addition.

Emily, that's exactly what I worry about, and exactly what I hope it would bring. I mean, the flakey narrativists are always talking about playing to please everyone. Well, why should that be limited to narrativism? Why should the sim guy get less respect than that? I would hope that this would produce the group cohesion that you cite. But also allow for a more fluid shifting of priorities in play in a way.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Note that I think that this style wouldn't be easy to do. It means that you have to look at decisions more carefully than you do already as a player, and often will have to think hard to come up with the solution.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: Purposefully following a Creative Agenda not only ignores the usual fun -> type of play line of reasoning, but in this case, chooses mode over enjoyment.

Mike Holmes wrote: Does Omni-play seem viable? How about at least two mode play?

Marhault, I agree about the complexity issue. Did you know that we used to use a ten point breakdown like that previously? Further, as thresholds its how I formerly tried to explain the Beeg Horseshoe theory in a positivist light.

I think that creative agenda is just getting people "close enough" together. So is what I'm saying just being a good player and sticking to the creative agenda? Hard to say, no? I mean, when does an active attempt to do more translate into it's own sort of agenda?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: I think that creative agenda is just getting people "close enough" together. So is what I'm saying just being a good player and sticking to the creative agenda?

Mike Holmes wrote: I mean, when does an active attempt to do more translate into it's own sort of agenda?

Hi again,

Mike Holmes wrote: I mean, when does an active attempt to do more translate into it's own sort of agenda?

Marhault wrote: Immediately. The thing is that this isn't a Creative Agenda, but rather a personal agenda. Which is to say that this is really a Social Contract issue.

Em, what he's saying, I think, is that what I'm talking about is a sort of Meta-agenda. As such, he my be right that it's a social contract issue only.

I think that GMs do this a lot, actually. That is, Laws says that you ought to, as GM, cater to all the players individually. Like Eddy's example of his creative agenda. I'm just wondering if this applies to players as well.

Marahult, again, I would never advocate any participant doing anything they didn't like. I'm working on the assumption that the player in question is of the temperament that they would get satisfaction by playing this way. Given this assumption, my question is only how well this sort of thing actually works.

For one thing, it implies that there are other players who have different agendas to be catered to. If not, then you'd just play with the one agenda that they all were playing with. Given multiple agendas, doesn't that mean that, unless they too adopt Omni-play, won't they too have intra-player problems? Looking again at the GM example, can I provide X for one player, and Y for another, and not annoy both players with the play of the others?

Mike

I don't have much to add here, other than that as someone who enjoys all three modes that I certainly think this style of play would be possible and worth trying, especially if a group is having problems.

Heh. I got mentioned, I think.

The key here is that as GM my creative agenda was to make sure as many players as possible had fun. Note that my fun came from other people enjoying themselves.

Also, it's easy to be an omni-GM with the right attitude and tools. I have no clue how I would have facilitated things if I weren't the GM. Although with my encouragement some of the players did support other creative agendas than their usual emphasis.

This is another thing that may need its very own topic: GNS as a model comes from a study of disfunctional play. Does the model still hold when we move to a study of functional play?

Hi all! (first post here at the Forge :)

To me it seems as if this thread is addressing several slightly different premises, depending on who's posting:

1) do we run games that combine elements of G + N + S ?
2) given 1), should we?
3) given 2), should we do so consciously & explicitly?

and I can't always tell if they're being treated as the same thing, or not.

(Forgive me if I'm wrong, Mike, but I read your orig post as firmly in the 2) & 3) camp.)

I guess my thoughts are that I can't see how to design an RPG without SOME elements of Theme, plus SOME elements of Challenge, plus SOME elements of Fidelity (to borrow terms from the Beeg Horseshoe Theory Revisited). I'm not saying it couldn't be done, mind, just that right now I can't see how :)

So for me GNS is a set of sliders, without any real 0 value (ie, some degree of each is always present, no matter how insignificant this is relative to the others).

So I guess I see the Creative Agenda as the decision/position (whether conscious or unconscious, shared or in isoloation, negotiated or assumed) on how to set the G-N-S sliders--& how tightly or loosely--for a given game/group. The Social Contract then becomes the medium for ensuring that the CA is conscious, is shared, is negotiated.

In this context, consciously tweaking your own personal 'sliders' during play (within the parameters of the SC) to bring them closer to what you percieve as the consensual optimum--or maybe in a specific instance, closer to a fellow players', as a way of supporting/enhancing/buying into their RP goals--would IMO not only strengthen the Social Contract, but also push ourselves in directions that may never be explored when we play in isolation.

It would exploit the interative element of RPGs that does make it different from books, or movies, or other artforms.

Uhhh--is this on-topic, or have I missed the point of the whole thread :) ?

Edit: fixed linking :(

If the omni-player is possible and games that appeal to the omni-player exist (Riddle of Steel for example) what does that say about "System does Matter" and incoherence? Generally it's been a given that designing for multiple modes is not a good idea but this would seem to counter that thought.

Caldis wrote:
If the omni-player is possible and games that appeal to the omni-player exist (Riddle of Steel for example) what does that say about "System does Matter" and incoherence? Generally it's been a given that designing for multiple modes is not a good idea but this would seem to counter that thought

Labels

Much torment has arisen from people perceiving GNS as a labelling device. Used properly, the terms apply only to decisions, not to whole persons nor to whole games. To be absolutely clear, to say that a person is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This person tends to make role-playing decisions in line with Gamist goals." Similarly, to say that an RPG is (for example) Gamist, is only shorthand for saying, "This RPG's content facilitates Gamist concerns and decision-making." For better or for worse, both of these forms of shorthand are common.

For a given instance of play, the three modes are exclusive in application. When someone tells me that their role-playing is "all three," what I see from them is this: features of (say) two of the goals appear in concert with, or in service to, the main one, but two or more fully-prioritized goals are not present at the same time. So in the course of Narrativist or Simulationist play, moments or aspects of competition that contribute to the main goal are not Gamism. In the course of Gamist or Simulationist play, moments of thematic commentary that contribute to the main goal are not Narrativism. In the course of Narrativist or Gamist play, moments of attention to plausibility that contribute to the main goal are not Simulationism. The primary and not to be compromised goal is what it is for a given instance of play. The actual time or activity of an "instance" is necessarily left ambiguous.
Over a greater period of time, across many instances of play, some people tend to cluster their decisions and interests around one of the three goals. Other people vary across the goals, but even they admit that they stay focused, or prioritize, for a given instance.

charles ferguson wrote:
[
So coherence to me involves a designer being very clear about what his or her respective G-N-S prioritories are in a particular case, and then creating a game that very clearly communicates & facilitates those priorities to the readers.

Mark: I couldn't agree more. I think Omni-GMs are pretty common, especially where groups are mixed regarding GNS preferences.

charles ferguson wrote: In this context, consciously tweaking your own personal 'sliders' during play (within the parameters of the SC) to bring them closer to what you percieve as the consensual optimum--or maybe in a specific instance, closer to a fellow players', as a way of supporting/enhancing/buying into their RP goals

*snip*

cool! thx Marhault :)