The Forge Archives

In the actor/immersion thread, Fang mentioned that terminology that causes confusion should be changed. I agree with Fang. The longer this discussion goes on, the more obvious it is to me that we are severely hampered by our extremely heavy reliance on terminology from other sources. Most of our terminology comes from the rgfa model. I suppose it wouldn't matter to me if I had never heard of their discussion, but I no longer have that ignorance as an excuse. The bottom line here is that we are using terms developed by others for similar purposes, but we are taking those terms out of context. It's really no small wonder that there is confusion and disagreement about the meaning and use of those terms.

As I see it, Narrativism is a reasonable add-on to GDS; and ERM is a very compelling piece of original thinking. But the rest of it... Either we should be discussing all this in an rgfa forum or we should rebuild from the ground up. We have fallen into a very large bear trap. We fell in a long time ago. These terms that we're using... They're not our terms. Some people here don't know or care about the history of the terms, but the people who do know will agree with what I'm saying. It's not helpful for us to redefine those terms and then chastise others for not understanding our meaning. This is especially true given the fact that our posted faq is now months out of date and means essentially nothing as a reference document.

I no longer believe that the GNS triangle (or any mere triangle) is sufficient to describe the dominant styles of play. At the bare minimum, we have G, N, S (which should be broken into 2 different styles) and D (Dramatism).

I think a lot of people have spent a great deal of time and energy trying to make GNS stronger, but their input has been ignored. I am ashamed to say that, at times, I have  been part of the problem. That will no longer be the case. I begin by calling for an update to the faq so that people can once again see where we are in the debate. I also call for new and expanded terminology. If these are not desired, then that should also be stated and I will go back to my own planet.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Logan

I think the central issue here is a revision of the FAQ

I, for one, am willing to contribute by submitting Q's that I F A :smile:

Quote
I no longer believe that the GNS triangle (or any mere triangle) is sufficient to describe the dominant styles of play. At the bare minimum, we have G, N, S (which should be broken into 2 different styles) and D (Dramatism).

to this end, I disagree -- just because we have three central goals/styles of play does not mean there is only one way to achieve them (see the variations of Sim, which I don't think are conflicting in AIM, just different in METHOD and/or PREFERENCE)

argh, off-topic...

...here for example I think a FAQ should clarify what IS defined, "Simulationism's goals are...", and what is left open, "Some simulationists prefer..."

(also, this will relieve any vocabulary issues -- if we're talking about Ninja Motivation, it'll be there in the FAQ, history or no history)

anyway, I'll brainstorm with the ppl I'm always burbling on about this stuff to, get back to basics (I've forgotten the exact difference between Author and Director, frex [blush]) and submit a list of Q's to A within the next two days or so

==

additional thought:

(I came up with this, then forgot about it, and am now reminded...)

let's say you start a thread asking/discussing/exploring a particular concept, be it GNS, Stance or whathaveyou...
once the thread seems to have come to a close (or left alone for a week, or whatever), perhaps it would be a good idea to make a kind of summary post at the end, outlining the answer/s & viewpoints, which could then be easily incorporated into an update of the FAQ

("Well, we looked at merging Gamist and Narrativist design goals and...", "We had another look at Simulationism, and decided it did exist, but kinda like Schrodinger's cat...", "My Karma ran over...")

review
- FAQ update, thumbs up
- terminology rehash, thumbs down
- list o' questions, coming up
- thread summaries

Well, my feelings on the use of the word Simulation is well documented here.

But to add, I think too rigid an adherance to a mere geometric shape has led to wasting far too much time on argueing how much should be combined and subsumed and explained away in order to fit everything into the requisite number of vertices.

My own personal take on the model identifies what I consider 5 valid styles (so far).

I consider "simulationism" and "gamism" to be closely related as Tactical Gaming styles.  Both are very similiar in emphasising the use of game mechanics to interact with the game world.  A simulationist does so to enforce verisimilitude and so has a rigorous set of standards for what is acceptable and what not.  A gamist does so because its fun.  His standards rely more on fairness, clarity, and playability that verisimilitude.

I consider "dramatist" and "narrativist" to be closely related as Story Driven Gaming styles.  Both are very similiar in emphasising the idea that story trumps other considerations (though not that other considerations get ignored).  The key difference is that to a dramatist the story path is driven by the GM, while to a narrativist the story path is a collaborative effort of players sharing a degree of GM authority.

I also have come to see "Immersion" as completely seperate from any of the above and what I would call a Character Driven Gaming style (the fact that it doesn't have a partner to balance the symmetry causes no great concern to me).

At any rate, the above is not so much to open a thread on my personal takes, but just to illustrate how much easier it is to account for variety when one is not limited to thinking triangularly.

I should also add that I am no longer involved with the faq. I turned over a draft July 11. Since that time, I've heard nothing more about it. At this point, it's out of date and must be considered obsolete.

I am not (and never have been) any sort of functionary for this website. Therefore, my requests are made as an ordinary visitor and long-time observer of this debate. My thoughts and comments are my own and have no more or less impact than anyone else's thoughts and comments.

Since people are already making suggestions and generously offering their opinions (again), I hope (this time) someone with power to get things done on this site will listen and take positive action.

Au Revoire!

Logan

Stupid Question: What's ERM?

Best,


Jim

For me this is a welcome topic at this time.  After having plenty time to reflect on what I wrote in my Get Emotional! article, I have gained a few additional perspectives on how it relates to the GNS model.  I can now see that, in the most superficial sense, it bears a lot of similarity to a deconstruction of the familiar GNS scheme.

Were one to start with the GNS and want to 'remodel' it to fit the intrinsic/extrinsic, personal/game level structure I provided in Get Emotional!, there would have to be some initial overall architectural changes.

First one would have to look at the Simulationist 'arm' of the GNS model.  I have noticed some well-spoken proponents of Simulationist play frequently breaking it into two poles, a world-focused pole and an immersive pole.  (I claim no expertise here, merely that I see this often.)  The discussions are provocative enough that I have to suggest that it is past time to actually separate them within the model.  This matches up ostensibly with my division between personal and game level foci.  The important difference is that while the previous model only allows the 'game world setting' to be focused on, mine allows any component of the game at large to become the focus.

Next one should note that Gamism is generally spoken of in terms of what the player can do with their character ("Tactically" as Valamir puts it) and the associated modes relating to supporting that.  This makes it 'personal level' in my scheme.  Although it should be obvious that it carries a strong bias towards focusing on the relationship between this personal perspective and the game as a whole (although the terminology does seem unnecessarily prejudiced towards rules, I do not think that is the intended goal).

When looking at Narrativism (or Dramatism)¹, it seems clear that the game itself has the highest priority.  While I believe it might be possible to play immersively in a Narrativist game, I think that would be quite a stretch for either.  One of the important things to note is that Narrativism has been clearly defined as play being self-aware of the sequence of in-game events (more on this later).

Next one can go back over the two new parts of Simulationism.  First, immersion appears quite clearly to be an inward focus on what play is for the character.  Whatever the specifics, I think that most of the value in immersive play is tied up in the intrinsic value of the character.

Second, when Simulationists talk about world-focus, I hear them discussing what they find meaning in which involves the setting.  Sometimes I catch the glimmer of things like the metaphysics and even other elements, but when pressed it comes back to the setting.  I do not think it should be so limited, but the terminology (and its history with 'realism') predispose it so.  This is why I call it finding the intrinsic value of the game.  (This does create a separation between Gamists who like a game for its elegant rules - who are included in this category - and those who play for 'tactical' reasons - who are included in the personal level - but with a focus on the extrinsic value of their character within the context of the game.)  This is compared to Narrativism's focus on the extrinsic value of a game (noted by its self-awareness).

Next, one can turn around and apply these emerging axes of intrinsic and extrinsic value to the re-architecture of Gamism and Narrativism, noting that Gamism (as mentioned) focuses on the extrinsic value of character where immersive Simulationism looks at the intrinsic.  Likewise, Narrativism seems to evoke a response to the extrinsic value of the game (partly by handling it from an external perspective)² and 'world-focused' Simulationism also looks at the intrinsic.

Even more so, my scheme suggests some of the reasons that the poles of Simulationism have been previously linked.  Since one is described as the extrinsic value of the personal focus within the game and the other is described as the intrinsic value of the game itself, they both place value on the game from different perspectives.  Hence comes the confusion.

Finally, let me take a moment to underscore what I am describing as 'value.'  For a long time I have felt the common rationale for gaming, 'we do it for the fun of it,' is probably as marginalizing as comparing gaming to childhood's 'pretend' games.  It even gets terribly close to the oxymoronic 'serious fun' at times.  I realize I am in the minority, but there are plenty of times I have played role-playing games in ways intentionally unrelated to 'fun.'  They were still gratifying.  They were still emotionally satisfying.  And they were still role-playing games, even without the 'fun.'

I have given all of them a hard look and I see that in every one, fun or not, I made an emotional investment (or achieved character identification, arguably the same thing) in the game and there was notable return on this investment.  This is why I would strongly like to 'jump' to using Ron's "imaginative investment" terminology, but as attractive as it is, I can already see the confusion just waiting on the hill for me to 'take the bait.'  All that said, I usually call it emotional investment or identification (I am still not sure which would be better at this point) in the game and my scheme is grounded entirely upon it.  (For a more clear discussion of this see Get Emotional!)

QuoteValamir wrote:
I consider "Simulationism" and "Gamism" to be closely related as Tactical Gaming styles.  Both are very similar in emphasizing the use of game mechanics to interact with the game world.  A Simulationist does so to enforce verisimilitude and so has a rigorous set of standards for what is acceptable and what not.  A Gamist does so because its fun.  His standards rely more on fairness, clarity, and playability that verisimilitude.

I consider "dramatist" and "Narrativist" to be closely related as Story Driven Gaming styles.  Both are very similar in emphasizing the idea that story trumps other considerations (though not that other considerations get ignored).  The key difference is that to a dramatist the GM drives the story path, while to a Narrativist the story path is a collaborative effort of players sharing a degree of GM authority.

I also have come to see "Immersion" as completely separate from any of the above and what I would call a Character Driven Gaming style (the fact that it doesn't have a partner to balance the symmetry causes no great concern to me).

While you can see I have some agreement with Valamir, his taxonomy suggests more a different triangle than a pentad.  I would go even so far as to suggest that his "Tactical Gaming Style" hints at some of what can be done while sharing the 'work'¹ in focusing on personal extrinsic-valued gaming.  And what I do see might be missing in Valamir's triad is the world-focus pole of the many Simulationist theories I have read.

I should warn though, the use of the word 'story' to describe anything relating to gaming runs the strong risk of igniting one of the oldest forms of miscommunication in this field.  (That way leads to the dark side of jargonizing.)

So there you have my 'take' on what terminology we could begin using, what it means and what it 'brings into' the discussion that may have been previously overlooked.  It is far from complete (right now I am still considering whether there should properly be additional layers between personal and game level and how to present the idea of them as spotlights that overlap somewhat).  I hope this at least adds to the discussion, thank you for your time.

Fang Langford

¹One minor thing this illuminates is issues involved with the separation of 'work' between player and gamemaster.  Especially in the contrast between Narrativism and Dramatism, it is clear that some types of gaming are based on sharing the 'workload,' while others tip it one way or another (most solid Narrativist works I have seen call for partnership, whereas most Dramatism seems one-sided).  What I haven't seen is any mutual exclusivity between 'workload' sharing and the above four categories, each seems to support both ways of separating 'work.'

This also opens up unexplored possibilities in sharing 'work' in personal outward focus and game level inward focus, a pair of intriguing ideas.  (I don't know how feasible it is too share internal stuff because that is not the a part of the community of gaming.)

²What about things this model brings up not obviously included in GNS?  Like comparing two games to each other?  Or comparing gaming to other pursuits?  These are a few of the ideas I had never considered when I began to form my Emotional! ideas.

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-09-12 11:59 ]