Not signed in (Sign In)
Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
-
I have a series of questions about GNS and the 3 questions for game design.
*Backstory* I am putting in an application to teach a roleplaying class at the university. It's not on design but I want to use GNS and the 3 questions for examining the game we play *End back story*
I read the post over here on GNS definitions and Here on the Big Model.
The three questions are the ones that Jared Sorensen posted 1) What is your game about? 2) How does it go about doing that? 3) What behaviors does it reward?
So some of my questions (I probably have some of these terms used incorrectly):
1) If a game says it's one of the GNS modes but has no mechanical support is that bad game design or incoherence?
2) Given a set of mechanics that doesn't support the Creative Agenda of the group and the group uses it to satisfy a CA is that what is called drifting the rules?
3) Where does the GNS model breakdown, if it does?
4) If the rules are GNS neutral (as much as that is possible) does the structure of the story then serve as the CA? I think Fury of Nifur is an example of that. It seem that it is Gam and a little Nar but using a structured story?
I'll stop there for the moment. Thanks for any answer and help. I've been trying to wrap my head around this for awhile. GNS theory and the Forge brought me back into roleplaying after I had given up on it for quite some time.
ara -
1) If a game says it's one of the GNS modes but has no mechanical support is that bad game design or incoherence?
Games do not have a creative agenda, groups have agendas. Games support different agendas to greater or lesser degrees. If a game claims to support an agenda, but doesn't, that's just false advertising. If a game doesn't support any agenda very well, it's possibly not a great game, but lots of games are reasonably CA -agnostic without being terrible, and many of these games are very popular. That's my take on it, anyhow.
2) Given a set of mechanics that doesn't support the Creative Agenda of the group and the group uses it to satisfy a CA is that what is called drifting the rules?
Yes, though there's some discussion happening at the moment about the concept of "Drift". If you have thoughts about this, this thread at the forge is a good place to speak up.
3) Where does the GNS model break down, if it does?
This really depends on who you ask. Some people will tell you "almost instantly". Personally, I tend to find GNS a really good tool for design, and sometimes useful for working out how to have fun playing a game, but not much use for turning not-fun play into fun play.
4) If the rules are GNS neutral (as much as that is possible) does the structure of the story then serve as the CA? I think Fury of Nifur is an example of that. It seem that it is Gam and a little Nar but using a structured story?
I don't understand this question at all, I'm sorry. I guess that means that for me, the answer is no.
It's possible that the Forge is a better place for this thread, and that you might get a better response to some of these questions by posting Actual Play, and framing your question around an actual instance of play. Your last question sounds like a perfect Actual Play thread. -
OK, watch out! This thread is going to get dangerous fast.
All this is "as I understand it". Hopefully, someone will come correct me in a minute:
There are quite a few misunderstood points here. First of all, The Big Muddle is not the same as The Big Model. They do share some common elements, though.
Second, Creative Agenda (GNS, from The Big Model) is something like: "what kind of fun are we getting out of a game, as a group, right now?"
This means that:
a) A particular person cannot be associated with G, N, or S. (Although some people have strong preferences, next week they might feel "in the mood" for something different. Some people might enjoy all Creative Agendas equally.)
b) A particular game system cannot be associated with G, N, or S. (Although a particular game system might make it easier for people to indulge a particular preferred playstyle and Creative Agenda.)
So, if a bunch of people play together, and they manage an experience which is constantly focused on giving them whatever thrill they are aiming for at the moment, then they're enjoying a "Coherent" experience. It lines up with the Creative Agenda they're aiming for (consciously or unconsciously), in that instance of play.
If they're pulling in different directions, or if the game rules take away the opportunity for them to make decisions or take actions in the game that would reinforce the Creative Agenda, then you could get an incoherent game. For example, if you're enjoying the gambling element of a game, and you want to roll some dice and push your luck and see what happens, you'll be frustrated if the rules say "you succeed no matter what you roll". Or if the GM just decides how things turn out. Etc. You're going to have trouble getting your fun in that situation.
Finally, a lot more than just the rules of the game figure into achieving a coherent game: the psychology of the players, their relationships to each other, the game rules, the contents of the fiction (story, setting, characters, etc), and so on. When all those things contribute to a certain play experience, you have "coherent play", by GNS terminology. When some of those things detract from a particular play experience, and the players don't find ways to ignore them or overcome them, you can get "incoherent play".
I'll leave the rest to the more knowledgeable (including correcting what I wrote, above).
As for Drift, there's a good thread going on about that on the Forge:
link
edit: cross-posted -
Simon,
Thanks for your comments. I was having trouble understand if a game has a CA but it is the group that has the CA. Mechanics can help support that CA. Is that correct?
I think I have more questions then thoughts right now. I will check out the thread on drift. Thank you for the link.
I need to rephrase question 4.
Again, thanks!
ara -
Hi Ara!
I don't know if you are using "GNS" as shorthand for the Big Model, but just to be sure: the old GNS theory was "discontinued" in 2002-2003 and was "embedded" (with some little but significant difference in the definitions) in the Big Model. To be sure to avoid using obsolete terms, definitions or theories, you should use the Big Model definitions.
Second: the definitions you did read aren't the ones I would have suggested. One is a very, very, very simplified and incomplete version, the other is Levi's take on the theory. It' the Big Muddle, not the Big Model. It's all right if you want to describe the Big Muddle, but using the Big Muddle to describe the Big model isn't very useful. I would suggest reading the original Edward's Essays at the Forge Articles section, starting with Narrativism: story Now and following with the Provisional Glossary.
If that's too much, you can try Ben Lehman's Introduction to Forge Theory
If you read these resources you'll discover that the concept of Creative Agenda is not applicable to books, games, or people. A Creative Agenda is something that is applicable only to a group of people that are practicing a specific kind of activity (role-playing) in a specific instance of play. That means that the exact same people with the same exact game manual can decide to play one time with a Creative Agenda, and another time with another. People can change creative agenda between games, and no game can force a creative agenda on the people who play it.
Saying that a game is narrativist/gamist/simulationist is shorthand for "this game facilitate (or provoke) this kind of creative agenda". Or if you prefer "playing this game with this creative agenda is easier than playing it with another"
So:
1) "mechanical support" is only one of the way a game can support a creative agenda. And a game can have a lot of mechanical support, but still be incoherent because there is a ton of mechanical support for another creative agenda, too. You have to look at the entire game, not to a single piece of it.
2) "drift" is defined as "Changing from one Creative Agenda to another, or from the lack of shared Creative Agenda to a specific one, during play, typically through changing the System. In observational terms, often marked by openly deciding to ignore or alter the use of a given rule."
I am not going to touch the other two...
[edit: cross-posted with a whole lot of people... =:-I ] -
Paul,
Is the a simplified page on what the Big Model is? What are the differences between the Big Muddle and Big Model. I hope this doesn't get dangerous here. This looked like the safest forum to ask questions. I really need to get my head around these concepts before I dive into this class I am proposing. Thanks for the clarifications.
ara -
Moreno.
Thanks for the answers and the help. I need to do some more reading so I can ask better questions here.
ara -
Ara,
Ben Lehman's explanation is pretty good. There are couple other "simplified" versions or guides which are good. Most people find Ron Edwards' prose very confusing, for a very very long time, although some how eventually "get" what he's saying then say that the text describes the ideas in a very thorough and clear way.
By the way, your question 4 made total sense to me. As I mentioned above, all the elements of RPG-fiction (characters, setting, color, situation) can certainly support particular Creative Agendas. But, just like rules, books, and people, none can *force* a group to focus on a certain Agenda.
For your class, I would propose staying away from any theory you don't understand thoroughly and just using any regular English explanations of stuff you do get. That seems to work best for most people, and will probably help you and your attempt to teach a class. -
Paul,
Thanks for the continued input. The class is not focused on the GNS model I would just like to introduce it as a way to talk about our games and group. I've got about a year to get up to speed. I'll post more questions as I read more into this.
Ara -
Ah, and, of course, question 3:
As Simon said. Some people are very fond of the Model, and consider it a complete and thorough model of roleplaying. (Although there have been a few interesting statements made by both proponents and opponents of the Model about what kind of stuff it doesn't apply to--anyone have some links?)
Other people deny it from the start, saying it describes nothing good at all.
I'd say that the most widely "agreed-upon" (and, in my opinion, useful) part of The Big Model is the idea of Social Context/Social Contract, and how that sets the foundation for everything else that happens in a roleplaying game. -
- CommentAuthorLevi Kornelsen
- CommentTimeNov 9th 2008
Posted By: akooser3) Where does the GNS model breakdown, if it does?
Er... GNS alone? It doesn't break down. And I say that as a vicious bastard of a critic. I don't find it useful, but it's just as valid a breakdown of "types of support" as "Fire play looks like this, Earth play like that, Water play like the other, and here's how rules can help with each".
GNS as part of the Big Model? Is the least interesting part of that model, and the least accurate. From my perspective, the GNS agendas are simple ways for a whole group to answer "What is play?" that inform which kinds of player goals, intentions, and methods are encouraged.
A valuable idea contained is that a "group answer" to the question "what is play", given up-front and right out the gate, makes things go smooth with much less effort. And GNS presents three more-or-less readymade answers (though some are crisper than others) that are at least close cousins to actual patterns of play.
The counter-concept, which isn't addressed (and has actually been spoken against on occasion by GNS proponents), is the idea that a group's own, not ready-made, not clear-cut, not 'coherent', answer to "what is play" requires more effort to get going, but can also result in more fulfilling play.
So, er, right about there? -
I took a looksy at the Drifting thread on the Forge. I saw positioning being used.
According to the glossary it means:
Positioning -A Character Component. Behavioral, social, and contextual statements about a character. Formerly (and confusingly) called Metagame. See also Currency.
What does that mean? Rather, I don't understand the definition. I take it positioning is related to resources and effectiveness?
Ara -
Levi,
"The counter-concept, which isn't addressed (and has actually been spoken against on occasion by GNS proponents), is the idea that a group's own, not ready-made, not clear-cut, not 'coherent', answer to "what is play" requires more effort to get going, but can also result in more fulfilling play."
Is this concept in the vein of self organizing? That the group through some means arrives at a CA that give them more fulfilling play?
Ara -
Oh, hey, I'll share my own experiences with learning about the Big Model:
1. http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=6187
2. Read Ben Lehman's "Introduction" as linked, above, by Simon. It's really good! (Keep in mind it's in reverse order, so you have to scroll to the bottom of the window to start at the "beginning".)
3. Read anything you can by Vincent Baker. He makes a lot of sense, in simple English.
4. As Levi says, GNS is kind of the wonkiest part of the Big Model. It mostly makes sense to me if I think of it as three "flavours" of good stuff I can get from gaming, and that the Creative Agenda of any particular group/game can have a lot more gradations. For instance, Ron Edwards has described how he plays D&D as "light Narrativist with some Gamist challenges". So, from that perspective, there are more than three possible Creative Agendas--there are as many as there are groups playing.
That last part is my own understanding, is not necessarily "canonical". -
- CommentAuthorLevi Kornelsen
- CommentTimeNov 9th 2008 edited
Posted By: akooserIs this concept in the vein of self organizing? That the group through some means arrives at a CA that give them more fulfilling play?
At an accord that fulfills the same function as a creative agenda, yes.
This is called "incoherent play" by GNS, regardless of the degree of accord.
EDIT: Or, as Paul sort-of shows, is given some really screwy name to excuse the fact that it doesn't quite fit. -
I'd say "Positioning" is something like, "the stuff we have defined about a character, and how that informs future play." So, if you say the character has a mean mother who hates him, that's Positioning. We know something about the character's relationship to the setting and the story/fiction. If you say the character has a really high Armor Class, that's also Positioning: it tells us something about the character's power in combat, relative to other characters.
Someone more knowledgeable: is that basically right? -
Note, also, that GNS is described as "the three currently recognized Creative Agendas"--i.e., the theory is open to the idea of there being others.
-
- CommentAuthorLevi Kornelsen
- CommentTimeNov 9th 2008
Posted By: Paul T.Note, also, that GNS is described as "the three currently recognized Creative Agendas"--i.e., the theory is open to the idea of there being others.
...We would likely need a new thread in order to discuss this statement in any depth. Want? Do not Want? -
Oh, I don't want to discuss it, personally. Or, rather, I don't have much to say that I didn't already say here. I just thought it was an important point to understand about the Big Model, as it is defined.
Also, Levi, on a personal note: I agree with what you're saying about CA. If we're playing a game that has mixed bits of GNS in it, but we all agree on those being exactly the bits we like, then it's weird not to call the game "coherent". That's why GNS makes more sense to me as "three flavours", as I describe above. That may or may not be in line with GNS--I've used that description before in a conversation with Ron, and he had no disagreement with it. That doesn't necessarily mean that he agrees with it, either, of course. -
Thanks again for the clarification. I'll dig into Ben's stuff here tonight.
ara -
A couple more questions as I read through Intro to Forge Theory
Ben (I think he posts here):
In your article you mention a list games you'd recommend to someone that hasn't roleplayed before? I do roleplay but I am curious as to your list of games and reasons for those choices?
Levi:
"The counter-concept, which isn't addressed (and has actually been spoken against on occasion by GNS proponents), is the idea that a group's own, not ready-made, not clear-cut, not 'coherent', answer to "what is play" requires more effort to get going, but can also result in more fulfilling play."
This is more a theoretical question. Can the Big Model be used to create a set of mechanics that supports (support is not the right word here... hmm) your above statement? Or does this arise out of accidentally design (or maybe unfocused CA support) and drifting?
Ara -
Your creative agenda is what you want to get out of roleplaying. The agenda that inspires you to use roleplaying as a creative medium; what you find fulfilling about roleplaying vs other forms of entertainment; what you find fulfilling about roleplaying vs what others do.
If a group has a coherent creative agenda, that means that everybody's creative agendas cohere. In our group, what you want to get out of the game is compatible with what I want to get out of the game. What you find creatively fulfilling is compatible with what I find fulfilling; when you pursue creative fulfillment in the game, that doesn't interfere with - in fact, often actively promotes - my own.
If a group has incoherent creative agendas, that means that there are serious incompatibilities between its members' creative agendas. In our group, what you want to get out of the game is incompatible with what I want to get out of the game; when you pursue your creative fulfillment, it actively interferes with mine.
That's the creative agenda layer of the Big Model. I think that's all there is to it, but I might be missing a minor point or two.
The phenomena came first! I'm not saying that incoherent creative agendas cause serious creative differences, quite the opposite. I'm saying: see this group with serious creative differences? Let's call that "incoherent creative agendas," because it's obvious that the things they want out of the game aren't coherent. And see this other group, where they're clearly coming to the game for compatible reasons? Let's call that "a coherent creative agenda," because their individual drives to play hang together.
In particular, Levi's position that a group can collaboratively develop a shared creative accord, but it's not a coherent creative agenda, is based on a misunderstanding of what-defines-what. Their creative accord is their creative agenda; that they share it, that it is an accord, means that it's coherent. There is nothing else that "coherent creative agenda" means.
And finally, we can cluster groups' creative agendas into categories and families if we feel like it. Personally, I find "story now," "step on up," and "the right to dream" both useful and convincing, and I'd be happy to tell you why if you want. But the main point is the commonsensical idea that a coherent creative agenda - my pursuit of creative fulfillment is compatible with your pursuit of creative fulfillment - makes roleplaying together way more fun.
-Vincent -
I am not sure story-games is the right place to discuss forge theory (as the forge would not be the right place to discuss "story-games theory", I suppose). It's like asking the professor's neighbor to explain the latest discoveries of the professor...
For example, Positioning as discussed rather recently there, and it's still discussed these days. An explanation of what it is (a component of characters in game terms: effectiveness, resource, and positioning) can be found here.
A "creative agenda" isn't a single way to play (this is one of the things that baffles most self-definbed "simulationist" about theory: they assume that there is only one kind of gamism, one kind of narrativism, then they see that simulationism include things like GURPS and Call of Cthulhu in the same category and go ballistic about the way that isn't a single way to play and that simulationism should be broken in twenty or thirty different creative agenda. Well, newsflash: there are at least so many different kind of gamism and narrativism as there are of simulationism. They were never intended as a single way to play, they are categories. It's possible to ha agenda clashed between different kind of narrativism or gamism, for example. The changing of the name from "GNS" to "creative agenda", between other things, was to underscore this: a group has a single creative agenda, not a single "S", "N", or "G")
[edit: crossposted with Vincent] -
Vincent:
"Personally, I find "story now," "step on up," and "the right to dream" both useful and convincing, and I'd be happy to tell you why if you want"
Okay, you got me. I want to hear more.
"I am not sure story-games is the right place to discuss forge theory"
I wasn't sure either but I started here and I like story games. Is Forge theory incompatible with story-game theory? Are they the same thing? Or is it more of a matter about the correct place to post?
Thanks!!
Ara -
- CommentAuthorLevi Kornelsen
- CommentTimeNov 9th 2008
Posted By: akooserThis is more a theoretical question. Can the Big Model be used to create a set of mechanics that supports your above statement? Or does this arise out of accidentally design (or maybe unfocused CA support) and drifting?
It happens beacause you do it. Things don't "just happen"; things get done.
Here, let's do the Big Model / GNS version of events, first:
Let's say you sit down to play a game. You want to get the thrill of kicking ass and taking names. Your buddy wants to see who their character will become as a result of the act of play. Now, if either of you finished "What you want" with the statement "And that's what play is for, let's all do that together.", then that person would have a desired Creative Agenda. Either could probably be slotted into GNS, with a bit of thinking (the first is easy). With that agenda, that person would push the group towards it with repeated pushes for the 'let's all do that together' part.
If there are multiple Agendas, you might end up with a power struggle - as the GNS setup notes. Each of you has an idea of what play is, and it informs your idea of what methods, actions, and such, belong in play. You can get to the point where someone is dismissive of the actions of another, because to the dismissive person, the one being dismissed "Isn't really playing".
And that's all inside of GNS/Big Model Theory, and the recommended solution is for the group to decide on a single agenda, a big answer to what play is, ahead of time... And to grab a game that supports it clearly, without mucking up the issue. Three such agendas are described. And the obvious furtherance of that, to designers, is "Write games that support clear agendas, guys."
Which is interesting and even possibly useful, so far as it goes.
----
Over on the other side of the chalkboard, though, let us say that you don't add "And that's what play is, and what we should all do" to your statement of "What I want is...". Instead, you keep your head open and stretch out that list of things you might want and enjoy, you look at the methods and rules and what others are doing over the first little bit, and you try to fit them together, yours and theirs.
So, instead of you and your buddy struggling over agenda, or getting one handed to you, or even agreeing in advance, you find out by working together that a joint thing you've ended up doing is "Exploring the way that characters are transformed by combat". Maybe a few houserules get made, if needed, whatever. Does this fit a GNS agenda? Does anyone care? Certainly the way Agendas are framed is of no utility here.
The process of creating such an accord often reshapes which rules are emphasized. It grows from the ground up. It's emphatically not an "accident", though it may be a discovery; it requires attending to one another. -
- CommentAuthorLevi Kornelsen
- CommentTimeNov 9th 2008
Posted By: lumpleyIn particular, Levi's position that a group can collaboratively develop a shared creative accord, but it'snota coherent creative agenda, is based on a misunderstanding of what-defines-what. Their creative accord is their creative agenda; that they share it, that it is an accord, means that it's coherent. There is nothing else that "coherent creative agenda" means.
Hmm. Fair. Many such accords cannot be usefully defined in GNS terms, however. -
The problem with leaving the "that's what play is" out is really it's something the gm has to know in creating situations and scenarios for play. His choices will decide what play is.
Take the "Old Skool" phenomenon as an example. The gm has created a deadly scenario and he is not going to take it easy on the players. If the players come into the game and they've all written up 10 page backgrounds detailing the lives, loves, dreams and desires of their characters they will likely be a little upset if the characters start dieing within 5 minutes of play starting. There is no possible compromise here that allows them to both function in the way they believe the game is supposed to run. Someone will have to compromise, there is no stretching to allow both, there is maneuvering to find something that is acceptible to both.
There are clashing agendas here, at least to start, but there is nothing saying the group cant change their agenda to find something that works for everyone. The incompatible play styles will remain a problem as long as they are not recognized and no actions are taken to reach a compromise.
My example was admittedly blatantly conflicting and it's possible that people with differing agendas may have something a little closer to each other that allows them to semi-work with each other. The model describes two possible outcomes in that situation. One they can continue to play to their own intents and not really work with each other but they are able to get around how they other is playing, that's incoherent play. The other is they realize they arent working together and they manage to work out some way they can have goal that support each other, they find a shared agenda. I guess there is one more possibility the disfuntional play I described above. -
- CommentAuthorLevi Kornelsen
- CommentTimeNov 9th 2008
Posted By: Vernon RThe problem with leaving the "that's what play is" out is really it's something the gm has to know in creating situations and scenarios for play. His choices will decide what play is.
Both this, and your example, assume a GM and players that don't listen to each other or adapt in play all that much.
Which is to say, you've already posited an unhealthy relationship.
Naturally, yes, the results suck.
Gosh. -
Levi, the problem with examples is that they always are exaggerated to better show what they are an example of, and then it's easy to dismiss them because they are exaggerated...
But, by the other hand... you just theorized a perfect capacity for every human being to perfectly explain himself using a gaming vocabulary perfectly able to specify any little difference in gaming desires (mapping, with a number, the exact desired balance between immersion and metagaming maybe? "I prefer 34.456% immersion, please..."), a perfect perception of other language without any error or preconception, and an infinitely adaptable capacity of everyone to adapt to any other. Plus, that every single gaming preference that could exist can be combined with any other gaming preference in a effortless manner.
Yes, this is not an exaggeration, eh? ;-)
The funny thing is that, if you have all this, all you get at the end is a group with a common creative agenda... :-)
If you want to have a group with different agendas, they CAN'T adapt to each other, or they simply will find a common ground and a common agenda. -
-
CommentAuthorEero Tuovinen
- CommentTimeNov 10th 2008
OK, I was going to answer this topic, but fuck me if I'm going to discuss rpg theory at a forum with post length limits. Even a short overview goes over 2000 characters overlength. -
-
- CommentAuthorLevi Kornelsen
- CommentTimeNov 10th 2008 edited
Posted By: Moreno R.Yes, this is not an exaggeration, eh? ;-)
You'll note that I said the process was harder. Because it is; it requires work. The misunderstandings that could be overcome with such a perfect language occur. And are overcome by more kludgy means.Posted By: Moreno R.The funny thing is that, if you have all this, all you get at the end is a group with a common creative agenda... :-)
A common agreement, yep, and one that fulfills the same purpose as a creative agenda. And one that is suited to the participants in it's entirely.
But calling it a "creative agenda" links it directly back into the cripplingly limited vocabulary of G, N, and S. And since the process I advocate really, realy lacks for the developmment of a more refined set of terms, as you've just pointed out yourself, I can't imagine why I'd want to fetter it to that. -
Euro: I am interested in your comment and help. Would you mind e-mailing them to me or providing at link I can go to?
Thank you all for the continuing discussion. I need to sit and think about this for a little while and then I'll ask some more questions.
Ara -
Posted By: Eero TuovinenOK, I was going to answer this topic, but fuck me if I'm going to discuss rpg theory at a forum with post length limits. Even a short overview goes over 2000 characters overlength.
Just FYI, the current character limit is 6000 characters. It's not to prevent people from posting long posts, it's to prevent the database from choking when processing comments. So you can feel free to post as much as you want, if you go over just Ctrl-X/Ctrl-V the latter half/third and post it afterwords. See most of Mike Holmes' posts for reference (he often does 2-3 in a row). For a long post, I'd use textpad/notepad, saving as you write, then copying/pasting to the formus.
-Andy -
@Levi:
So you agree that, to get the most "fun" (let's not begin a thread about what fun is, please...) from the game, the group should reach a common agreement (even if not verbalized), but you don't want to call it "creative agenda" because you don' agree with the mapping in the three categories, right?
But I think that, in the Big Model, the categorization is applied "over" the concept of creative agenda, and the model make it clear that it's an open categorization, that there could be other different way of playing that simply are not being considered right now. I think that the Model would still call what you are talking about "creative agenda" because it would work exactly as a...creative agenda.
The categorization (or lack of categorization) in nar, sim and gam is another, separated "step". If you are able to show a fully functional hybrid of all three, it would still be a creative agenda. Only, a not easily categorizable one. -
That's not all creative agenda is, though, it's not just the categorization that's terrible, it's the idea that creative agenda is only revealed by looking at "key decision points", and that it is more or less immutable, when years have experience have shown me that people constantly change their minds about what they want, sometimes minute to minute during play, and often the aggregate of nothing-much-happening is more important to figuring out different preferences than specific moments. Everything about the existing concept of creative agenda is worse - is less accurate - is less helpful - is less true than the near-tautology that "Everyone plays for different reasons", and that's the lowest bar a theory has to get over. If you can't do better than "Everyone plays for different reasons", just pack it in and head on home.
-
@Levi
Another point I forgot to make in the previous post: the distinction between G, N and S can be made only at the global level ("whole instance of play") because, 99% of the time, all three are in perfect alignment. To make a really simple example, when the hero have to reach the inner sancta sanctorum of his enemy and a orc guard is guarding the way, all three say "waste him with your crossbow". There is really no disagreement most of the time. But, in the course of a game, there are circumstances where the players have to choose between very different priorities.
For example: Galactus arrive on Earth, hungry for breakfast. You are all set for a night of desperate fight against unbeatable odds. Let's use a ridiculously banalized version of G, N and S to better show the difference, without having that banalized way used against the example afterwards. Let's say that the rule system has a hole that could be used by one player, playing with skill and a knowledge of every detail of the rules, to defeat Galactus in single combat.
Player 1: "wow, let's go! I want to Kick Galactus' ass!"
Player 2: "what? You can't do it! It would not be realistic!"
Player 3: "I am going to fight Galactus, without hope for victory, to show my commitment to an higher ideal, and to show that humanity is worth fighting for!"
Player 1: "what? Are you high on something? Why you have to do that? He will confine you to Earth! Why don't we gang up and kick his ass using the loophole I just found?"
Plater 2: "I am not going to fight Galactus! It's too huge, we are like ants... "
Player 1: "Don't start with all that crap, he has only 3 hp left! Attach him with that toothpick!"
How could you "mediate" between these three outlook in this scene?
Now, this is rpg comedy, but I think that everybody has in his or her gaming history some moment like this. Even if it happened only 1% of the time. Because the 99% of times S,G and N are perfectly aligned and say the same thing.
I think that people that say that they play both G and S or G and N or N and S together without any problem are looking only at that 99%, dismissing the other 1% as "inevitable differences of opinion that sometimes happen", without considering the effect of that 1% on the global effect of play, during the entire instance of play.
Every single case of people "reaching an agreement" without reaching a creative agenda that I have seen (but I am not in your group), was an agreement to simply forget that 1% after it happened, every time, like it never existed...
[edit: crossposted with Jason] -
-
CommentAuthorEero Tuovinen
- CommentTimeNov 10th 2008
Andy: yes, it's just that the post I wrote didn't really make any sense split in two, and I couldn't be bothered to revise it into two separate posts. I guess it's sort of crazy to first write a 8000 character post and then delete it when you can't post it, but that's apparently me today. It's not like Internet isn't full of blathering already.Posted By: akooserEuro: I am interested in your comment and help. Would you mind e-mailing them to me or providing at link I can go to?
Damn. Apparently I'm going to do a terser answer, in bullet points:- GNS modes can be supported by other things apart from game mechanics - system (the term we use to refer to those means by which the group supports and facilitates the fulfillment of their Creative Agenda) also encompasses things like procedures and methods - for instance, Fury of Nifur, to which you referred, has in its core a model for GMing and play tools for Challenge-based fantasy adventure. This is not simple story structure as you intimate in your point 4) - although the stuff about giant brothers, sins of the past, ambituous pretenders and returning heroes is colorful, it's incidental compared to the method of execution.
- Drifting is just a sort of very low-profile houseruling, one that often happens by a sort of wilfull misinterpretation of the text of the game. So you're not drifting if you can make a game fulfill your CA without dropping some rules, inventing new ones or something of the sort.
- GNS hasn't broken down yet, unless you count the fact that GNS does not really comment on many things gamers obsess over, such as immersion, realism or other technical agenda issues. The Big Model can be considered for answers on those larger questions. I also did a breakdown of what GNS says and how one should go about refuting it, if such were in the interest - that's probably a separate topic, though, so let us know if you want a concerned and detailed analysis of that.
- Fury of Nifur is supposed to be purely Gamist, so if you're seeing something else, it's probably because you're not used to associating that sort of literary content with Gamism. I wrote that stuff last winter specifically to demonstrate the sort of colorful, fiction-focused Gamism I like, as an opposite of dry and mechanics-based stuff that is so common now. (The reason I don't say this directly in the post itself is that many of my readers are theory-averse; easier to get people to take the thing on its own terms if I don't rub it in that I'm just parroting theory-based results combined with my own experience.)
- Vincent, above, implies that CA modes are arbitrary groupings that have been chosen for convenience - this is slightly misleading in that while the modes were originally named and defined based on empirical observation of Coherence relationships between different sorts of gameplay concerns, the modes do in hindsight correspond strongly with some pretty basic human concerns that explain why the Coherence relationships GNS predicts work like they do. So we can say that while you could group CA in all sorts of ways, the specific term of CA mode refers to this interesting structural regularity GNS discusses.
That's much better than a long post, I guess. Most of my last post was wrangling minutiae of GNS theory, mostly about how the concept of Coherence is really the primary determinant of the whole thing, but that probably would have been just boring. I don't even know what this discussion is about anyway, I get confused by these multiple-participant catfights. -
-
Eero's last bullet point there, about what I said and what's really going on, is right on the nose. (Other stuff is too, but he named me there in particular, so I figured I'd confirm it.)
-Vincent -
Posted By: Moreno R.I think that people that say that they play both G and S or G and N or N and S together without any problem are looking only at that 99%, dismissing the other 1% as "inevitable differences of opinion that sometimes happen", without considering the effect of that 1% on the global effect of play, during the entire instance of play.
Well, conversely, a theory of gaming preferences based on the 1% is a bit like a theory of cars that begins "All car parts can be divided into two parts, the door latch and everything else. Here are the nine kinds of door latch..."
Furthermore, if you base a theory on what happens when things break down, you're going to reach all kinds of distorted results like "brain damage" and "most people are so unhappy they can't even admit they're not happy" and end up using words like "dysfunction" unironically. That way lies madness. -
Hi Jason!
I am not going to argue with you, because I think there is no need. Everyone can think about his/her gaming history and judge for him/herself how these agenda clashes did hurt their enjoyment of the game, or not. I am not going to tell people that they HAVE to get rid of these, if they don't want to. It's a choice! :-)
I would argue instead with the people (but luckily in this thread there isn't any at this point) who say that that these clashes are "inevitable" and there is "no solution". There is, and it's a choice to follow it or not. -
Absolutely, it's not that door latches aren't worth talking about, or describing accurately, or improving. Hell, in certain circumstances they are even of life-or-death importance.
-
All,
This is a great thread, very illuminating.
I would just like to add one nitpick:
@Vernon
Compromise and Stretching are the same things. Maybe there might be a semantic in that maybe one is more active and one is more passive. But the end result is the same. Someone adapts their style to include elements of someone else's style. The point of Levi's presentation is to reduce the sort of Gamer Jingoism that seems to prevail on the internet. I think that too many times players present themselves as 'I am "Gamist" and all those dirty hippy "Nar" players can bite my butt!' Or 'I am "Nar" and your "Gamism" is ruining my finely crafted story...' Its important to communicate those needs, but it is also important to include your group in your play. Now, I am not trying to support Gamer Fallacies here, but I think that these are two separate issues. Wanting to face impossible challenges and win is not incompatible with wanting to tell a story collaboratively. It may take work, but it is work well worth it. Obviously, if two people do not get along well, no discussion of CA, technique, playstyle or anything else is going to fix that and someone probably needs to leave. But, too many times I see gamers suggest, 'find another group,' when someone complains that play is not going the way they like. But this seems a little unrealistic seeing how few gamers are out there and caustic seeing as a little conversation might clear things up if everyone comes to the table with an open mind, no?
Dave M -
- CommentAuthorLevi Kornelsen
- CommentTimeNov 10th 2008 edited
Posted By: Moreno R.So you agree that, to get the most "fun" (let's not begin a thread about what fun is, please...) from the game, the group should reach a common agreement (even if not verbalized), but you don't want to call it "creative agenda" because you don' agree with the mapping in the three categories, right?
Very much so.
Also, why not discuss what fun is?
I've had a lot of success on that front so far.Posted By: Moreno R.The categorization (or lack of categorization) in nar, sim and gam is another, separated "step". If you are able to show a fully functional hybrid of all three, it would still be a creative agenda. Only, a not easily categorizable one.
Who the hell cares?
In such a case, the ability to render a clear description of the actual thing would render the categorisation moot.
I don't care if the bouncy ball is "more reddish" or "more bluish" or "more yellowish" nearly as much as the exact color, and if the people engaging discussion of colors with me only think in terms of those three categories, and insert that discussion into any attempt to discuss paint, then it should not come as a mystery when I eventually throw up my hands, look at them, and tell them that their "Color-ish" scheme is really fucking stupid. -
- CommentAuthorLevi Kornelsen
- CommentTimeNov 10th 2008
Posted By: Moreno R.Plater 2: "I am not going to fight Galactus! It's too huge, we are like ants... "
Player 1: "Don't start with all that crap, he has only 3 hp left! Attach him with that toothpick!"
How could you "mediate" between these three outlook in this scene?
I'd laugh like a lunatic at the contrast. They'd almost certainly join me; if they didn't, we'd talk. -
No Levi I havent considered any sort of relationship. What I said is that at the time they enter play with those misconceptions there is an agenda clash and it can cause problems. I'm only identifying what is true at that instant of time. They cant possible both play the way they expected to. I fully accept and expect that the people involved will change to find a workable solution.
How they change is the question. Do they both give a little to find something in the middle they can enjoy? Does one agree to try playing the way the other likes for now at least? Or do they each decide that what the other wants is incompatible with their needs and they move to find different players? All are possibilities. -
At the risk of derailing what is a very interesting discussion, I'm gonna stick my oar in.
What is "diagnosing" the specific flavour of creative agenda for? What's the point in knowing if your game is G, N, or S? If what Levi is saying is true, they're just arbitrary categorisations, and what's important is the specific process of play that each group uses, not which of these three categories it fits best into.
That was a rhetorical question.
Surely, the point of grouping creative agendas is to find techniques, designs, and processes that support and improve that kind of play. It's about finding a common language for ways of playing games, so that when you say "My game's ok, but I feel like I need something more" and I say "Cool! How do you guys like to play?" you don't come back with "Don't try to categorize me! We play how we play!".
That's something of an exaggeration, and of course you can reach an understanding of how people play without reference to GNS, but I think it's useful to have a set of common ways of playing, and a list of techniques that support that style of play. That way, if you say "well, I think we're mostly playing Gamist" I can say "then let's work out how to make those challenges really kick ass" and if you say "I think we're mostly doing Narrativist play" I can say "Let's work out some awesome Bangs" and so on (Of course, if you say you're playing Sim then I just sneer at you and turn my back). -
Posted By: Levi Kornelsen
Also, why not discuss what fun is?
I've had a lot of success on that front so far.
Levi, your Glossary of Fun is a very good read. But: it mentions "the four modes" a couple of times. What are they? What are they modes of? -
Ara,
I'm actually more curious about your proposal for a class about roleplaying. Would you like to discuss that here? I'm sure you would get a lot of interesting suggestions and ideas. And I would just like to hear more about what you're planning to do. If you're up for that, start a new thread, and we can leave the GNS arguments in this one. -
Posted By: Levi Kornelsen
I don't care if the bouncy ball is "more reddish" or "more bluish" or "more yellowish" nearly as much as the exact color, and if the people engaging discussion of colors with me only think in terms of those three categories, and insert that discussion into any attempt to discuss paint, then it should not come as a mystery when I eventually throw up my hands, look at them, and tell them that their "Color-ish" scheme isreally fucking stupid.
If you say so. I personally prefer listening, understanding and (patiently) explaining to calling people or things "really fucking stupid", but maybe it's my problem. Caused, maybe, by the fact that I never really experienced this strange world of yours were, you say, every gamer in the world can simply talk about his or her idea of what he or she want from role-playing, and everybody magically reach a perfect agreement without thinking, ever, that the other person idea is "really fucking stupid"
Thanks for proving my point. -
Paul,
I'll start a new thread for the class I am proposing. Thanks!!
ara -
Eero,
Thanks for clarify those points for me. I was trying to understand the Fury of Nifur in GNS terms and I guessed I missed it a little.
Ara -
Posted By: Eero TuovinenI also did a breakdown of what GNS says and how one should go about refuting it, if such were in the interest - that's probably a separate topic, though, so let us know if you want a concerned and detailed analysis of that.
Eero,
If you've already typed this up, or otherwise have it on hand, I'd love to see it--maybe in a separate thread? It might be a good thing to point people at when this sort of discussion comes up. -
Eero,
I would like to see that as well!
Ara -
Eero,
I started this thread because I am trying to understand GNS and the Big Model for a couple of reasons. 1) I am proposing a class for next fall on RPG's. This will be a separate post later 2) Big Model/GNS interests me as a theory and model for understanding RPGs and social dynamics 3) I have a lot of misconceptions/misunderstandings and I want to ask clarifying questions about Big Model/GNS.
Ara -
Ara, I find story now, step on up, and the right to dream useful and convincing because:
1. Does play feature a protagonist in action (or more than one)?
2. If not, what are we doing instead?
-Vincent -
I'm enjoying this thread.
But it needs something more.
A puppy, perhaps?
Honestly though, despite some of the excellent clarification regarding CA going on in this thread, I am a bit confused by a little exchange going on here.
Vincent says, in Eero's words "CA modes are arbitrary groupings that have been chosen for convenience", and then Eero says that this isn't really true, and that the modes were determined to be accurate from empirical observation (of play, one assumes), so who in particular made these observations? I have my problems with claims of empiricism, as well, but that's due to my subjectivist tendencies.
In other words - I thought I understood better when Vincent explained things, but then Eero came along, Vincent agreed, and now I'm confused. :P -
Pooka, I have good answers, but not the leisure just now. Allow me to plant a flag.
(I imagine Eero has good answers too.)
-Vincent -
- CommentAuthorLevi Kornelsen
- CommentTimeNov 10th 2008
Posted By: Paul T.Levi, your Glossary of Fun is a very good read. But: it mentions "the four modes" a couple of times. What are they? What are they modesof?
Whoop. Those should get edited out.
They're references to stances, which don't actually need a new name. I gave them one in a frenzy of renaming, and then realised that it was unnecessary. -
- CommentAuthorLevi Kornelsen
- CommentTimeNov 10th 2008 edited
Posted By: Moreno R.If you say so. I personally prefer listening, understanding and (patiently) explaining to calling people or things "really fucking stupid", but maybe it's my problem. Caused, maybe, by the fact that I never really experienced this strange world of yours were, you say, every gamer in the world can simply talk about his or her idea of what he or she want from role-playing, and everybody magically reach a perfect agreement without thinking, ever, that the other person idea is "really fucking stupid"
Thanks for proving my point.
Huh?
You seem to think I'm being annoyed at you. I'm not.
Apologies if I'm being confusing, but what I'm really at cross at is not-you stuff which is being raised. -
- CommentAuthorLevi Kornelsen
- CommentTimeNov 10th 2008
Posted By: Simon CIf what Levi is saying is true, they're just arbitrary categorisations, and what's important is the specific process of play that each group uses, not which of these three categories it fits best into.
Whoa. Not totally arbitrary. There are generalised patterns that match up with them.
The bit I said, about the "color-ish scheme" and me throwing up my hands? That's a statement about frustration, not about pure ideas. -
Vincent,
What do you mean by "story now, step on up, and the right to dream "? How are those defined?
Ara -
Those are the Big Model's terms for Narrativism, Gamism, and Simulationism, in that order. They are defined in Ron's essays about Creative Agenda on the Forge, under the same title ("Step on Up", etc).
-
Paul,
Great! Thanks. I will check those out later tonight. Thanks again for your help!
ara -
-
CommentAuthorEero Tuovinen
- CommentTimeNov 10th 2008
Posted By: Pooka
Vincent says, in Eero's words "CA modes are arbitrary groupings that have been chosen for convenience", and then Eero says that this isn't really true, and that the modes were determined to be accurate from empirical observation (of play, one assumes), so who in particular made these observations? I have my problems with claims of empiricism, as well, but that's due to my subjectivist tendencies.
In other words - I thought I understood better when Vincent explained things, but then Eero came along, Vincent agreed, and now I'm confused. :P
So, how GNS came to be? It did not spawn fully formed out of Ron's head one June morn, I'd hazard. Rather, even without going into getting Ron to affirm everything (which would be relatively simple, were we so inclined), I think we can say with a lot of certainty that the reason Ron settled on these particular CA modes and not some other set was that this was what he had observed from play and discussion of play. Obviously the threecorner model helped a bit here, but I haven't read the original discussions related to that, so I don't know whether that was limited to just the idea of categorizing motivations of play (the threecorner model categorizes GM decision-making methodology, which has a sort of lower-order symmetry with Creative Agenda), or if there was a lot of discussion of the level of behavior that would become Creative Agenda, as well. Either way, it seems pretty obvious that the way the Creative Agendas were first determined by Ron was to examine different ways of playing roleplaying games, looking into their internal social structures (the thing that separates CA modes from each other, you know) and seeing that there were basically three different sorts. I could go as far as believe that he didn't quite have simulationism begged down internally at first, but he had it close enough to claim that it wasn't a number of different modes that he was looking at there, but rather just one, even if it was one that was a bit difficult to understand in explicit terms.
So my answer to "who observed?" is that Ron did. Of course everybody else did afterwards, too, to figure out for themselves whether the GNS model was making any sense for them, personally. And with the basic observation done, it was possible to refine the understanding in theoretical form, too, to find out what were the internal causes of the GNS modes working the way they do, and why Coherence worked the way it did.
(I should note, by the way, that this story about how GNS came to be is not any sort of advocation for the model by itself - I've seen people complain about GNS for, among other reasons, the perceived lack of empirical evidence, but that's not the discussion I'm having here, and I'm not claiming that Ron has somewhere an archive of organized data analyzed to any sort of formal criterion you might imagine when somebody calls something "empirical". I'm referring solely to the fact that GNS was thought up based on observation of play and accounts of play, not based on a random fly of fancy; does not make it any more correct per se, but does explain why the GNS modes are what they are instead of something else.) -
-
Posted By: Levi Kornelsen
Posted By: Simon CIf what Levi is saying is true, they're just arbitrary categorisations, and what's important is the specific process of play that each group uses, not which of these three categories it fits best into.
Whoa. Not totally arbitrary. There are generalised patterns that match up with them.
The bit I said, about the "color-ish scheme" and me throwing up my hands? That's a statement aboutfrustration, not about pure ideas.
Ok, cool Levi, sorry I misunderstood you. -
- CommentAuthorLevi Kornelsen
- CommentTimeNov 10th 2008 edited
Regarding threefold:Posted By: Eero Tuovinenor if there was a lot of discussion of the level of behavior that would become Creative Agenda, as well.
I saw a little. Not all that much, though, and very little of what I did see lookied to be going anywhere. Others might have noticed more; I wasn't in on nearly all of that discussion, and was still mostly lurking when threefold peaked. -
-
CommentAuthorEero Tuovinen
- CommentTimeNov 11th 2008
Even if I can't follow these meandering forum wrangles about theory matters, I got inspired by Ara's questions to write an overview of GNS theory at my blog. I try to set the material out in a very clear manner there; perhaps could use some examples, but this time around I'm trying to rely on purely exact language - examples have the habit of draving people's attention to wrong things, no matter how well they're written.
If you have any suggestions about improving the piece or any questions it leaves unanswered, fire away. I'm moderately inspired to try to make this article a coherent and unambiguous explanation of a pretty basic piece of theory that is constantly misquoted everywhere in all sorts of weird ways. -
-
Hey Ara,
Thanks for kick-starting this thread, it's very informative. I'm surprised nobody has told you to check out Simplified GNS theory for old school gamers, where among others, Eero and Ben Lehman help break down GNS in very few words. :)
Now I'll sit back again and see what else comes of this thread.
TTFN,
Yoki -
Pooka, Eero pretty much covered it for me, like I said he might.
I'd sum it up this way: roleplaying, naturally enough, inherited both the identity crisis of games and the identity crisis of fiction. If you think about how bad it can go when a really competitive person joins a friendly mixed-ages no-scorekeeping Sunday afternoon badminton game, or when someone brings their casual-player friend to a serious cutthroat Scrabble session, you can see the former. If you look back to when M. John Harrison cast writers against worldbuilders in genre fiction ("the great clomping foot of nerdism"), and how provocative that was to his fans, you can see an example of the latter. (Or go back to my college creative writing teachers grading my short stories, you can see it there too.)
So the named creative agenda families aren't arbitrary, no. They're just the identity crises you'd expect in an interactive narrative form.
-Vincent -
I've seen lots of neat diagrams helping to explain the Big Model (Vincent, Eero, and Levi's Big Muddle). Is there a graphical representation of the history of development of the Big Model/GNS?
In physical chemistry (yes, I know. Too soft to be physics not formulated enough to be math) we use diagrams to chart the progress of QM models and theories through time.
Thanks again,
ara -
Eero and Vincent,
Some great explanations, thanks. Lots of excellent stuff I haven't heard or seen before. Eero, your mini-essay on GNS is a nice "update" on the state of things, covering some aspects not apparent in the older essays.
Thank you both! -
Eero and Vincent,
Thanks for that - very comprehensive and clear answers from both of you.
1 to 72 of 72